Guild Wars 2

so where is this merge poll or you just trying to start a panic or something?

Btw, I just realize the “No” in the poll still meant for rotation, not really about NOT rotating desert borderland.

Putting it simple, the only “No” to everything is I just want to see the vote.

they should make a poll about what people dislike about desert borderland, then modify it to fix those dislikes

then maybe people will more happy about the rotations

Serith.3712:

SkyShroud.2865:

u shld do ur homework before asking for something like this, ur reason is rather personal than a logical one.

I do have logical reasons for making this post. I’m not against population locking individual servers, but universally locking every sever above T5 is a really bad idea. There aren’t enough WVW players to maintain 24 servers…..cannibalizing healthy competitive servers to prop up dead ones is penalizing players for doing well.

I don’t think it’s trolling to say that existing WVW players who want a change and newbies shouldn’t be forced onto the lowest tier servers. What I keep reading on the forum from players in T5-8 is that they enjoy having a very small community and aren’t focused on getting larger. So why leave those servers as the only open ones? If smaller guest servers decide to get organized and grow….and end up drawing players from host servers that way, great.

Thanks for clarifying. If you are not against locking individual servers that has excessive high population and interested about the long term well being of the wvw, then that similar complains have been made pretty much everywhere on this WvW forums but there isn’t anything being done about that yet, to put it bluntly, it has been ignored which I assume due to community barriers.

If BDO wasn’t region blocked for me, I would have went there too. In fact, I have a number of members quit gw2 and playing it via VPN.

Scenario 3
Guild Sieges badges of tribute requirement reduced from 5 to 1

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/100-badges-of-tribute-for-a-statue

Wait, I’m sure that was welcomed, or not?

u shld do ur homework before asking for something like this, ur reason is rather personal than a logical one.

Please make those scrolls account bound instead of soulbound, I bought too much of it =,=

Furthermore, Proofs of Heroics are already account bound, so is logical to have those items account bound a well.

egzius.9031:

SkyShroud.2865:

egzius.9031:

SkyShroud.2865:

Argh, OP idea of competitive is obviously different from the norm.

And that’s why all the salt. Sometimes changes are good. Old populations have to step down and let the young ones take over, it cannot always be old one’s game. But some are just willing to grip on with their last teeth and do whatever it takes to make the game as stale as possible and unchanged, when in reality, the majority of the population no longer wants it, it’s just the relics of the old ones.

Wow, just wow. You are trying to redefine the meaning of competitiveness, literally. It is like trying to change the meaning of eat to the same meaning as drink.

In that statement, I did not once refer to competitiveness. I merely stated that the population is rigid and does not like sudden changes. Sometimes you just have to take a leap of faith and trust that others may have good ideas too.

What? Isn’t the whole topic about competitiveness? I don’t know if I am confused or you do not know what you are talking about.

egzius.9031:

SkyShroud.2865:

Argh, OP idea of competitive is obviously different from the norm.

And that’s why all the salt. Sometimes changes are good. Old populations have to step down and let the young ones take over, it cannot always be old one’s game. But some are just willing to grip on with their last teeth and do whatever it takes to make the game as stale as possible and unchanged, when in reality, the majority of the population no longer wants it, it’s just the relics of the old ones.

Wow, just wow. You are trying to redefine the meaning of competitiveness, literally. It is like trying to change the meaning of eat to the same meaning as drink.

Argh, OP idea of competitive is obviously different from the norm.

Jumpin Lumpix.6108:

Wow dosent allow enemy faction (horde vs alliance) to talk to each other in spvp. The only conversations that comes out of this is garbage, name calling and grief, what’s the point if it’s not friendly or constructive ever?

Sorry, but you are now in gw2 and furthermore, a pvp arena. That kind of feature usually is for game mode like WvW or RvR or whatever.

It is really hard to understand, if you want competition so much, why don’t you go play pvp and wvw?

Trepidation Lost.3469:

Not directly. But in pvp you need HoT classes to win, and now, in wvw to have the best stats for certain builds and classes you will need to do raids to aquire those specific stats, i.e trailblazers tirnkets oinly aquireable through HoT story and now raids (stats not availiable through laurels) So if you ojnly play wvw, like me, you will be at disadvantage to someone who raids often just because he plays PvE too. Unfair?

I disagree. Since the beginning of MMORPG, PvE has always been the starting line for every single players. Everything you earn in PvE are then used to boost your character strength which in turn you can use it to fight it out with others.

The only difference in gw2 is that it is so carebear that PvE is totally protected. In that case, they should give put some PvE runes only available via WvW to make PvE players work for it.

_

can we have a roof to make shelter…. =)

Jayne.9251:

Jayne.9251:

We’ve had this discussion before and it frustrates you to the point where you start hurling insults, so I’ll try one last time.

SkyShroud.2865:

I do not know what insult you are referring to until I look at your posts history which then I realize it is a intelligential one.

lol, I’m not sure the comprehension problem lies with me.

SkyShroud.2865:

I have already explained why that logic is flawed.

And I don’t happen to agree with you. But I’m not going to call you unintelligential.

And this is not a cop out, but at a certain point you cut your losses and just stop engaging, particularly when you encounter concrete.

Your ability to comprehend is really low, I mean it. You can’t even relate what the 50/50 the other guy talking about in other thread. Either that or you are just really stubborn.

That is saying that your sword, bow or fire magic can destroy a iron gate if you hit enough, well, ok.

Since the patch has nerfed those scribe buff, please nerf the scribing cost according as well.

Trepidation Lost.3469:

SkyShroud.2865:

Those raid gears will be widely available in LS3.

Can you link me where you got this information please,
P.S ohhhh so, one sec…. “forced to…living story three…to perfect WvW build”

Can’t find it, it was in one of the reddit post iirc.

Behellagh.1468:

penelopehannibal.8947:

Behellagh.1468:

What does repping buy the guild post HoT? Repping gives the player access to GH services and bonuses but right now it’s favor from doing guild missions and material support for upgrades are what’s important to the guild. Or am I missing something?

I think it’s more about repping for longer periods, compared to repping here and there. For example, before HoT, the guild you repped would get influence for the events you do, the PvP kills you do etc as long as you repped for that guild.

Now, you only have to rep for a few minutes at the most for the services you’re pointing out, meaning you can equally help more than one guild each day now.

That’s what I’m getting at. Before guilds may have demanded 100% rep because influence from the masses was their primary currency for upgrading and buying guild wide bonuses. But now that isn’t a thing anymore. Any guild that demands 100% rep are dinosaurs who don’t accept the new guild paradigm. Members aren’t a resource the guild mines daily any longer. Guilds are resources for their members.

How rude and narrow minded. My guild had vast amount of influence before we even enforce rep rule, we simply enforce it because of our size to maximize our space. Even before we enforce the rep rule, only a handful of people are not repping and not a single person oppose to it in the meeting. Just because a lot of guilds are doing that for influence, doesn’t mean all the guilds are doing that. Just because a lot of guilds are struggling for certain reasons, doesn’t mean all guilds are. Every single guild out there has different reasons for enforcing their policies. Just because they are not align with your (not referring to you, figure of speech) ideals doesn’t mean they are evil.

Also, regarding the resources part, that is so subjective to debate. A guild is nothing and is equivalent to a empty house, building or structures. Where does all those so-called resources come from? It is from the members. Everything happening in the guild occur in a very simplistic cycle, someone contribute, someone benefit and then contribute, and then benefit and keep on repeating. I guess your first “resource” is referring to influence but not too sure what your second “resource” referring to, that second reminds me of leechers.

Those raid gears will be widely available in LS3.

Jayne.9251:

SkyShroud.2865:

Jayne.9251:

Red Daing.7804:

Tongku.5326:

….

The only thing they did different is set the “full server” bar a bit lower, ….

Not really. The bar for linked servers has been halved according to :

[–]Anet-TylerB

Linked worlds have halved population caps. So any NA world that was at least 50% full pre-link, is now FULL. If we were to unlink them, they’d no longer be FULL.

That’s a bit misleading. 50% was the threshold. Some servers were higher than that by quite a bit.

It isn’t misleading, some people don’t understand the difference between population cap and active population.

Example
Default max cap is 1000, half the cap is 500
T1 active population is 800.
T1 is full.

T4 active popultion is 510
T4 is full too. Sucks to be T4.

Most people simply think Full as Full. Very simple minded way of thinking.

We’ve had this discussion before and it frustrates you to the point where you start hurling insults, so I’ll try one last time.

The effort is to make it as unattractive as possible for people to super-stack the higher tiers. The only solution is to lock those servers because otherwise it will continue to be a stackfest. Opening up T4, for example, deprives the lower tiers from players — which are starting to see a revitalization with the server pairings.

It may suck to be T4, but T1 is already OVER-stacked for what Anet considers “normal” population — and they’ve locked those servers in order to encourage people to try other alternatives.

T1 players will likely not leave T1. But people quit playing. Others will try different servers. Eventually the flood of T1 will start to abate and return down to normal levels of “500” through attrition.

I do not know what insult you are referring to until I look at your posts history which then I realize it is a intelligential one. I have already explained why that logic is flawed. I will use another simple explanation. Anet has set a goal to balance it within 6 months, that is saying that people gonna quit within 6 months, that’s not gonna happen. Not only that, the relinking isn’t a 100% will happen kind of event since it still subjective to community voting.

Futhermore, somewhere in this thread or other, I have typed a lengthy post. Is it faster to raise server population or is it faster to lower a server population. Attrition is a very lengthy process and it will not occur to just one server, it will occur to the entire game. It is way easier to raise server population by getting people to transfer with a much better incentive like free cost.

Jayne.9251:

Dawdler.8521:

Jayne.9251:

Dawdler.8521:

Jayne.9251:

If one pairing gets too top-heavy, they can simply unlink and relink to a lower population. It’s preventative because it was the No.1 complaint on the forums and nobody was willing to do anything to fix it ourselves.

But how do you define “top heavy” when it’s time to split apart guilds and commanders? Because WvW isnt as simple as numbers.

In particular, how would you deal with a scenario where a guild is spread 50/50 across both servers?

One does not simply “unlink” from friends.

Why on earth would a guild be 50/50 on two servers?

… because of paired servers in WvW?

Imagine if Anet split up PvE today. No more megaservers. Everyone back to the server they are on with no option to guest. That wouldnt mess up any PvE guilds at all?

No. Because guesting.

Still don’t understand why a wvw guild would be 50/50.

You cant guest in wvw.

I guess the poll is pretty much decided, the gap of Yes vs No vs Don’t care is pretty big.

leftyboy.9358:

My guild you get benefits for consistently repping. That’s imo better than forcing people to rep. And for the first time in my mmo gaming I actually want to rep the guild, with or without benefits.

Don’t know how many guilds I’ve been in through the years , but this the first that is actually social, no matter what was advertised. An inherent issue is that everyone can try to build a guild , but few will succeed. It’s hard to keep a guild interested. It requires alot of effort and an instinct for what people are looking for I think. When in doubt go with activities that play to peoples greed. Seems to work pretty well.

I also think that with HoT, Anet started catering more to established guilds rather than startup. People had way to many mats in inventory and they needed ways to dump alot of it ( and would you feel more comfortable dumping mats into an established guild or a risky startup). Side effect of this was that previously rich guilds leveled quicker and became more attractive

p.s I was a gleader for a time and failed miserably. It’s not for everyone.

How strange. We must have played different games. In all my traditional mmorpg (most are pvpish), every guild I am part of either as member or as vice leader or as leader, we are solid in social and really united compare to many guilds out there, to the point that even other guilds recognize that.

But when I come to this game, other than during launch, at this stage of the game, after 3 long years, most people I’ve encounter now are pretty much so casual to the point that they don’t interact or not social or don’t participate or don’t contribute or some are rather demanding (without contributions) or simply being a leech. Basically, a random useless name on the roster. Maybe is the timezone.

That will be too complicated, to both the developer and people who actually plays the game as a whole.

Jayne.9251:

Red Daing.7804:

Tongku.5326:

….

The only thing they did different is set the “full server” bar a bit lower, ….

Not really. The bar for linked servers has been halved according to :

[–]Anet-TylerB

Linked worlds have halved population caps. So any NA world that was at least 50% full pre-link, is now FULL. If we were to unlink them, they’d no longer be FULL.

That’s a bit misleading. 50% was the threshold. Some servers were higher than that by quite a bit.

It isn’t misleading, some people don’t understand the difference between population cap and active population.

Example
Default max cap is 1000, half the cap is 500
T1 active population is 800.
T1 is full.

T4 active popultion is 510
T4 is full too. Sucks to be T4.

Most people simply think Full as Full. Very simple minded way of thinking.

If you mean removing T3 gate, I can try to relate. But if you mean removing T3 walls, I can’t relate since it has been like this for 3 years, 4 years soon.

Liston.9708:

SkyShroud.2865:

morrolan.9608:

SkyShroud.2865:

I doubt BP or ET have gained much.

ET has.

Not really. They still medium population. You can even make a assumption that ET was really dead before all this and even with the transfers, it couldn’t push ET to high pop even when the pop cap was halfed, which make high pop half the requirement as well.

have any of the server statuses changed since linking? I didn’t note them – so I don’t know myself whether to trust those statuses or not….. ie…. were they frozen in time

A lot were changed. HOD/NSP/DH wasn’t full right at the start of world link and only after awhile. Crystal Desert went from medium to high to very high. A lot of severs also went from medium to high. Ebay went from medium to high, was the only high pop server for awhile, not sure if is the effects of the half pop.

They do not have to unlink it. They can choose to merge everything and lock all the really high populated servers while giving the low servers really attractive transfer cost, then unlock those really high populated servers when all those low servers catch up in population.

morrolan.9608:

SkyShroud.2865:

I doubt BP or ET have gained much.

ET has.

Not really. They still medium population. You can even make a assumption that ET was really dead before all this and even with the transfers, it couldn’t push ET to high pop even when the pop cap was halfed, which make high pop half the requirement as well.

I totally do not understand the whole story.

How does the “Why would you do that to your guild members? Why can’t you all get on to do it together? All you are doing is taking the chances away from them?” relate to your story of fellow players berating you. Can you explain what really happened?

Tiny guild isn’t easy, no doubt about that. If you do not have individuals who excel at something (great in making golds) while being really contributive, it will be really difficult. Even in large guilds, there will be many individuals channeling all their funds to make more legendaries (some are like their 10th) and won’t even consider putting a single ecto into the guild hall treasury.

They can start a poll to see if merging is acceptable.

I doubt BP or ET have gained much. Do not forget that they mentioned the population cap is halfed which means that the “Very High” and “High” status is much easier to reach than before but BP and ET still has not reach “Very High”.

I am looking fora build suitable for being at the frontline

The last engineer build I have was a flamethrower build and well, is pretty kitten old and I haven’t touch it since HOT.

Any suggestion for frontline build that has lots of cleave?

i think the only problem here is that the warrior healing is buffed too much. it is close to the healing signet of the past
another is that the bow was buffed which is puzzling, why did anet nerf the bow in the past then?

Ermmm?

Isn’t hardened gate as intended, prevent people to pvd literally?
So you saying to promote pvding?

Involving the whole guild is indeed a difficult thing to do. As time passes, the members who once join that activities will stop turning up. A good example is guild missions though there still some that come but is just a handful.

There isn’t really a lot of guild scale activities you can do, no, there is actually a lot but many of those activities can be done with pugs as well and thus it become limited. For world boss like triple trouble, you need massive numbers, so that is out. For WvW, you will need to be on the same server and some people just dislike doing WvW (/shrugs), so WvW is complicated. Raid? Is just for 10-men and it is rather gear intensive. JP? You don’t do JP every week right? It gets rather old fast.

I remember I used to have temple runs every week before megaserver, at that time, there isn’t that much pugs regularly taking down temples and the scale of the events really fit a guild perfectly but meh, megaserver came.

Guild in this game is rather sad.

There is also the cultural thing. Depending on which regions, which country your members are based, their mentality can be vastly different and thus the way they treat guild will also be different. Then you need to determine the necessary rules and expectations to make things work for that members base.

You need to determine what works and not base on what other said because some ignorance people might say this is bad or that is bad in practice but in reality, it might be what you really need for your guild to move on. To give a analogy, what may work in america, may not work in china and likewise the other way round.

There are trials and error involved, I can tell you that all successful large guilds today had encounter at least one drama and drama is a good learning lesson on what you need to do to maintain a stable environment.

So, the main issue you are having is core members and not really about repping.
Indeed, it isn’t very easy to obtain such thing as core members in this laid back game. Even those guilds that you see that appear successful are only successful because of the previous state where you have to represent to interact and thus, people tend to represent their “main” guild more.

However, at this state of the game, the representation don’t mean much technically other than its morale values where represent is to show respect to the guild and its people but honestly, people don’t really care about that either. For the current state of the game, it is very easy to encounter individuals who join guild for the sake of joining, I mean, you got 5 slots afterall, what stop them for doing that? Thus, it is a norm to see individuals joining your guild and does nothing, nothing at all.

Representing though is a symbol of respect for the guild, it also can be used as a convenient reason to remove non-contributive individuals without being called a tyrant, especially when you have your rules and expectations stated black and white.

Successful guilds are built on a very simple cycle, you help the people, you remove the inactives, you remove the troublemakers, you remove the people that don’t fit your policies and so on. You keep on filtering and filtering and filtering until you obtain ideal members. and even then, you will keep repeating since people come and go in a online game.

There are several problems in the current world linking.

1. Population cap halfed
This on one perspective, seems logical since there are 2 servers. On another perspective, it isn’t logical since all the host servers population differ from one another. To put it simple to understand, BG was a very high server, half the population cap, is full. DH/NSP/HOD are high server, half the population cap, is full too. Adding on the guest server that are not full, this create a unbalance population issue that can never be fixed as the high server can never ever catch up to the very high server while the very high server is very unlikely to destack from it.

2. Numerous server
In favor of server identity, world linking instead of world merging is introduced. There are numerous servers which are the primary reason of why population unbalance became worsen in the first place. There were never enough inflow of people to all the servers. Adding on problem #1, this further aggregate a greater unbalance issue. Furthermore, the more servers there are, the harder to control the flow of players and naturally, harder to solve balancing issues.

3. Full server
There are guilds with influence of their own, to their regions or great popularity which enable them to recruit players from the higher tiers, like T1. Ideally, these guilds are helping to destack T1 but the full servers are preventing them so and getting their members to a guest server seems like a unreliable long term solution due to possible relinking.

4. Players psychological
It is human nature to stack on greater populated server, there are many benefits to do so such as safety in numbers and assured gameplay at many timing. Like what OP mention, when one stack a server, it destack another and when you combine this with point 1, it become a big problem.

5. Relinking possible backlash
There are already players and guilds intentionally transferred to certain guest servers so they can join up their guilds or compete in that host server environment. Relinking will break those and result in possible backlash which then may cause players to quit.

There are possible solutions that base on world linking but the number of solutions and its effectiveness can be quite limited.

1. Let players choose their server ingame instead of start of the game. Players need to be given a chance to understand what they are choosing for and the dialog at the start of game does not do that. Also, its more beneficial for both the players and the guilds as guilds of players’ choice might be of different server and this will avoid that since they can choose after they chose their guilds. Guilds too won’t be heavily restricted by the nature of megaserver.

2. Dynamic capping and dynamic gem transfer costing
As mentioned in the problem #1, current full servers have different populations and problem #4 where stacking continues on the guest server. Thus there is a dilemma, is it faster to reduce the population like what half pop is doing or is it faster to raise the population? How can we get players to move willingly to redistribute the population?

What I suggest is to slowly and dynamically reduce the highest populated servers over time instead of a drastic approach like half cap. To do this, implement a dynamic costing for transfer to determine the appropriate cost for every single server instead of a generic cost like what we are using now. Doing this, some servers (depending who they paired with and how much total population there are) will be low cost or even free of charge which encourage people to move to. At the same, accompanied with dynamic capping to slowly reduce the cap while giving a chance for the lower higher populated server to balance its population against the higher tier populated server.

This involve a lot of maths which is slightly complicated. Even then, this proposal isn’t foolproof and in long run, world linking will still end up being more problematic than now due to problem #2.

It was after much hardwork, my guild reach 100 peak online again on weekend though many player did quit at HOT.

you are so hardworking
i spent most of my time afking

Aeolus.3615:

SkyShroud.2865:

I would prefer the polls to be focusing on the more important matters, particularly, population balancing. I hope that the dev team has a plan or steps or whatever to achieve this within acceptable period before wvw become unhealthy once again.

To me, everything else are not important.

I would suggest a poll to determine the importance of things in term of ranks, instead of a poll of your selected choice.

Population is a to volatile and unstable variable to work arround, and rank only means more cover nothing more.

So you suggesting to give up population balancing then?

To rank something is to list something from the most important to the least important. This will create a clear guideline on what is important to the community as a whole and what is not.

I would prefer the polls to be focusing on the more important matters, particularly, population balancing. I hope that the dev team has a plan or steps or whatever to achieve this within acceptable period before wvw become unhealthy once again.

To me, everything else are not important.

I would suggest a poll to determine the importance of things in term of ranks, instead of a poll of your selected choice.

If you can’t win them then join them, unless you think that you can win by pressing 1 2 3 4 5 while using a selfish useless build?

joneirikb.7506:

Just another thought about the running multiple small servers for Linking.

If you either made or designated 3 servers for OCX, 3 servers for SEA, 3 servers for EU. I don’t know how, but encourage players that primary play in those time zones, to go to these new “designated” servers.

Then link one of each to each of the same link each week. This would only work for a single link, and we would still end up with more NA servers than could be linked together with these “coverage servers”.

OCX1 + SEA1 EU1 +NA 1,2 = one link.
OCX2 + SEA2 +EU2 +NA 3,4 = one link.
OCX3 + SEA3 +EU3 +NA 5,6 = one link.
NA 78 = one link
NA 9+10 = one link
NA 11+12 = one link

PS: Note, I’m not using the numbers as Ranked world, so don’t worry no BG+TC in same link etc.

This would be a good way for various time zone people to gather up and find other players from the same timezones, more people to play with and recruit from etc. It would also help these players guarantee to find fights/activity as they would be matched up with/against the other servers from the same coverage.

---

I don’t know how this would work out in practice, obviously. I don’t know if this would be enough to make players de-stack existing servers to re-stack on the “coverage servers”. And probably a whole lot of other things I can’t predict.

But this is one way the idea Tyler is talking about could be useful for dealing with coverage, both in helping those people together, and encouraging a closer to even match.

Obviously the problem with this is that it might depopulate “coverage” in the rest of the servers. Thoughts and ideas welcome.

That won’t do, for that to work, you first have to get people onto those servers without using any forceful means. Anet is looking for least-forceful methods for high approval rating, is like politics

Conner.4702:

Not my problem you contradict yourself in your own post, but it is clear you fail to see why server merger is not a better solution to the population imbalance. Try and actually understand what I wrote.

Anet is using a deck of cards without the red aces and queens and no amount of reshuffling is going to magically put those in.

Ok, it has become really obvious that you have quote for the sake of quoting.
“Not my problem you contradict yourself in your own post” can you tell me what you are relating this to?

Even your previous reply to the quote, the first half is repeating what I wrote and the 2nd half is is completely opposite of mine without any reasoning.

And then about the world merge vs world link, no reasoning either.

You are not here to debate nor to discuss but rather seems like wanting to force your opinions onto others. Aggressive and unreasonable.

Conner.4702:

World linking and for for that matter merging worlds aren’t solutions to the balance problem no. As all they do is reshuffle the board without solving the problem. Anet is just unwilling to spend time and effort to do what has to be done and thus try to fool people with this.

It has become obvious to me that you didn’t really read what I wrote.

Xenesis.6389:

Yup, that’s the hurdle they will always face with any changes they may want to implement. The communities acceptance of changes. Going forward there is always going to be a group not happy about something, but if players want change and they want improvements and make wvw more balanced and less stale, they will have to be more accepting and work with anet to tweak the changes.

Does anyone really think they haven’t thought about hard server merges? they have, but they’re trying to find the least disruptive solution to the problems. I’ve seen suggestions to just blow it up and reform everything, blow communities that have been around for 3 years? you probably would lose the most players with that option over hard merges or links. I can see wvw maybe going to those last resort options eventually, but it’s not really needed right now when there’s another option to explore in links.

Honestly, I do prefer server merge than a world link. There are way more methods to solve population unbalance issue via server merge than world linking. For example, encouraging players to move down to the less populated servers via free transfer. This will not work well for server link but it will work well for server merge as there are less servers and less means easier control. As for the stacking part, just have to implement a new server cap system to prevent massive movement and to keep all the servers population similar. Then again, there is this community acceptance issue. Then again, if people are happy about server link, after some time, anet could try a poll on server merge as people acceptance change along with time, especially when they got used to the servers combo.

Personally, I think world linking is much more restrictive and more damaging in the long run. I don’t really see how they can balance the population through it. The methods I could think of that may work for world link will require a lot of work (codings) and even then, the effects will not be satisfactory and will still result in more damage.

Crapgame.6519:

Community isn’t always right.

Indeed, Popular choice isn’t always the right choice but that’s how the world works, right? Popular choice cannot be ignore and must flow along that direction.

Some of you have a very big misunderstanding on something. As far as I have read, the dev team did consider possible solutions but the main problem here is community acceptance to the solutions. In other words, solutions that theoretically will solve the balance issue is not necessary acceptable by the community because such solutions will involve dissolving all servers. Thus, they have to explore ways to do it, ways that will not kitten off the community but let me tell you, those “ways” found will be much less effective. For example, the current world linking. It is great in some way but I am sure everyone agree it doesn’t solve the population balance. However, this is the result of a less effective method, a method that will not kitten off the community.

Some of you are asking to keep things and yet at the same time asking for population balance, do you realize that is contradictory in nature? You can’t achieve population balance without radical changes, not after 3 years.