Guild Wars 2

Gop.8713:

Carrots and sticks are the same thing. If you offer a reward to someone for doing something, it becomes a punishment to everyone who isn’t doing it . . .

But anyway I thought the problem was ppl moving too much? Groups planning transfers to the same server at the same time so everyone gets in before it closes, transferring to linked servers to make the host server op and then moving again at next linking, etc. It is entirely possible I do not understand the issue though, I just wanted to scout

Nope. There are multiple problems, that lead to population balance issue, thus all the problems are interrelated with one another in one ways or many.

To give you some idea, though not the entire idea.

1. We have way too many servers.
This lead to population distribution issue. Even if we force everyone to spread equally all on servers, we will not have enough to cover a 24/7 gamemode.
This also has a another issue. New players too are distributed to that many servers but we don’t have that many new players to distribute to all servers. This lead to replacement issue which in turn lead to long term balance issue.

2. Fixed full threshold
I just realise that many people actually have this thinking that server has a hard cap. People actually think gw2 servers are like that of a counterstrike servers with hard cap. It isn’t, it never is. Gw2 has adapted a megaserver, megaserver is simply a cloud where server software will dynamically create instances of maps to accumulate players. Thus, since it can dynamically create instances, it naturally doesn’t have this so-called hard cap. “Instance” is a technical term. What we have now is a threshold and every server apparently has the same threshold but not every server are equal in base populations (pve+pvp+wvw). Any servers that exceed that threshold is consider full, you can exceed by large or by minimum, it doesn’t matter. This itself is a balancing issue as this fixed threshold does not account for population differences between servers.

3. Different base population
Every servers have their base population aka pve, wvw and pvp. Not all servers are the same though. All the servers have been around for 5 years, for the first 2 years, the population balance does not even exist. Guilds can and will stacks on few servers, likewise players. Also, before we had megaserver, servers work independently thus even pve players stack on servers. Then, 3 years down the road, only wvw population is use for the server status. But we already have a different base population. How can you balance something that is already different through the accumulated years?

Then another problem is new pve players can choose any open servers and the threshold back then was really high so most servers are open. As a pve player, many will likely to choose the populated ones so we have the dead servers become sure dead servers. This enlarge the base population disparity by days, months and years.

Conclusion
Just base on point 1 alone, you got no choice but to blow it up. People call for merge but people forgot that no matter how you merge it, the inherent population is just too different between servers to be balance. WvW is a 24/7 gamemode, it isn’t about matching simple numbers of 1000 to 1000. Likewise, you can’t solve problem 3 without blow it up since the base population already different. Even if devs decided to make servers not mandatory now and purge non-wvw participants, it is already too late since pve population already participating since the reward patch.

Strider Pj.2193:

SkyShroud.2865:

CattivoUomo.7198:

Like others will say, forced repopulation will split up guilds and friends. I offer an alternative idea. for those servers with highly active wvw populations, force them to contend with more than one match at a time. This could be accomplished by intelligently reviewing players’ normal wvw active periods as well as guild memberships, then selecting which match each player will be assigned to for that week. It could also be done at semi-randomly, while still working to keep guilds intact. It could also be left up to players to choose which match to participate in (or which they would prefer) for that week, but as we’ve seen, players tend to be selfish and that may not work very well. At any rate, I would like for the devs to attempt something other what has been tried recently.

By blowing all up, you don’t have to force them on any servers. You are just simply forcing them to choose a new server. They can still liaise with each others on the new servers to join. The guilds can do that. The pugs not in any wvw guild can choose random servers. It will balance out if put in the proper systems.

you are correct, it wouldn’t force them to a server, but if your guild isn’t all on when it happens, likely they won’t be together.

Thus they need to be thorough if they want to blow it up. Thorough to the point such that make servers not mandatory so people can get into the game and talk about it. It is really all about setting a new system, a system that can help balance while giving players good amount of freedoms.

Strider Pj.2193:

Populations weren’t meant to be balanced.

I think that is the obvious fact that no one wants to admit from this whole system.

We have heard it from people in smaller pop servers that do not like to be held in que.

I don’t want a crapshoot to get into the same server as my guild. And if you tell me that guilds would get priority to go together, that is inappropriate also.

They have likely established a new population cap, which is why a T4 server is locked.

It will gradually start to even out.

But blowing them up, with no ties to the people you have played with for years is not a solution.. It’s a creator of more problems.

The fact that you think it isn’t meant to be balance itself is the problem. It can be balance if one want to balance it, it can be done if want to do it. There is no “no”. Also, I am not saying guilds get priority, I am saying guilds have a choice to liase with each other on what new servers to join. Naturally, while they are lasing, the new servers will slowly get filled by pugs before they even decide yet.

Sarrs.4831:

Okay so here’s the issue.

Either A
You let people pick where they go, in which case you’ll just end up with the exact same issue as players pick a server to stack.
Or B
You don’t let people pick where they go, in which case they end up massively sharded with nobody they know.

A doesn’t do anything.
B kills the game.

The current system appears to be a pretty good third option, to be honest.

You don’t have to. To blow up something doesn’t means you adapt to the old system again. To blow up something can be used to adapt a new system. The numerous number of servers made it near impossible to balance without any major sacrifices and this sacrifices affect gameplay. We have to cut down the number of servers, we have to set a new balancing approach.

CattivoUomo.7198:

Like others will say, forced repopulation will split up guilds and friends. I offer an alternative idea. for those servers with highly active wvw populations, force them to contend with more than one match at a time. This could be accomplished by intelligently reviewing players’ normal wvw active periods as well as guild memberships, then selecting which match each player will be assigned to for that week. It could also be done at semi-randomly, while still working to keep guilds intact. It could also be left up to players to choose which match to participate in (or which they would prefer) for that week, but as we’ve seen, players tend to be selfish and that may not work very well. At any rate, I would like for the devs to attempt something other what has been tried recently.

By blowing all up, you don’t have to force them on any servers. You are just simply forcing them to choose a new server. They can still liaise with each others on the new servers to join. The guilds can do that. The pugs not in any wvw guild can choose random servers. It will balance out if put in the proper systems.

Strider Pj.2193:

So… forced moves, with a good chance people will be forced into servers that split up guilds?

Your signature states you are the leader of MaS. You recently (within 6 months) left BG and I applaud you for seeking out other options. But you did it by choice, and the guild mates you took went willingly.

I would not be in favor of blowing up servers and forcing moves.

Locking the hosts doesn’t say each of the locked servers have the same Population. It likely means they have reset what full means. And it will slowly push people to the linked servers. It will slowly spread out populations.

Likely, HoD sits on that fence. It doesn’t mean that Anet views them the same. Just that they want new players to go to other servers.

We have yelled for population balance. It will come slowly this way. Blowing it up will lead to more bandwagonning.

You are looking at it way too simple, too too simple. While on paper, it seems great but in reality, it isn’t. People are not gonna move just because you close up the server, people will rather die on the server than paying $$ to move, why pay for something that anet is responsible of? Thus, servers will die to attrition, people will quit, WvW thus get smaller. At the same time, not all servers will die to attrition at the same rate because we have to acount for matchup. Servers that keep getting hit by greater numbers will die faster than servers than are having that greater numbers, it isn’t hard to understand why they will die faster.

Furthermore, the population balance will not come this way simply because base pve population is different between servers. If the foundation is different, how can you expect it to be balanced? PvE population supply WvW population in the long run, if you don’t get what I mean.

Then, there also the numerous number of servers and not enough new players to spread among all issue. There is also the static cap’s cons.

All in all, it is impossible to balance population with the current structure.

Notice this during pve raid since last week. It disappear at certain camera angle. Draw order issue?

Nvm – Delete this

Serenity.6135:

Liston.9708:

Pensadora.9478:

Time for more conversations and some clarity as to how ANet considers a host server that requires a link to compete, as having the same level of WvW activity as the behemoth Blackgate, such that they need to be perma-locked down as FULL. How can FULL in T3/T4 = FULL in T1? What is going on?

Clarity, please

How can full in T1 compare to BG full? It doesn’t so here we are.

Because the rules apply to everyone and all servers. In order to have separate standards they would need to change the tier structure.

The rules are base on a fixed upper limit. Population is volatile, pve populations are not same between servers. It doesn’t take a degree to see that there will be times the wvw populations count will far exceed the fixed upper limit for servers with huge pve populations. At the same time, there will be servers that just exceed the limit. Both are full but one is way bigger while the other is smaller. The rules are inflexible, worthless in a pvp environment.

Dynamic cap, permanent reduction of total number of the servers, optional server requirement and periodic inactive account purge from server are the only long term solution for this. This should have been implemented when megaserver came. A lot of warnings were given by the hardcore players but most of which are ignored. Why were they ignored? Because the words of those who knows little to nothing is more important than the words of those who think through it thoroughly.

As for now, the server cap is just too small to cover a 24/7 gamemode. The idea to make all server equal is only good on paper but on practice, it is worthless to carry it out. Nothing is done to encourage that, rather, punishment is use to force that. However, players will rather quit than use $$ to fix something anet is responsible of. To retain or make players quit, the choice is obvious.

EOTM is primarily made for people that are waiting in queue for WvW so it is working as intended if EOTM is empty when there are no queue in wvw.

StrawHat.2639:

What you talking about SkyShroud…when we were in a matchup against you…NA mornings 8-12 yous with time guild + militia + air were pretty much running 30-40 maybe even more…so you should be fine to handle the db morning hordes for 1 map at least…

Server population issues… since 2012.

1. Attrition means the process of reducing something’s strength or effectiveness through sustained attack or pressure. Guilds need to have a mean to replace people that quit.

2. In this case, hod is a small pve server despite being called the largest EU presence for lower tier, only queued 2 maps after patch (patch comes during early eu if need to be reminded) elsewhere servers with big pve population manage to queue 4 after patch. A small pve populations is not a good source of replacements as compared to big pve populations.

3. While is true that we do manage to have 30-40 at times during SEA, it is still isn’t map queue. Likewise, out of these 40 people, less than half are actually from SEA so the consistency isn’t great, so it varies by days, weeks or months. What you see on one day, may not occur on the next. Then, follow by attrition of no way to replace people, the SEA population will in fact dwindle.

4. Even if we do pull out 30-40, it isn’t a map queue and we have to deal with map queues and not just one map queue but 2 at times if is on good days for DB. Just this alone, you have to question, why are these server fielding close to 2 map queues elsewhere there are other servers that can’t. For example, NSP is pretty dead during SEA time, why they not given a SEA link?

5. All in all, attrition and low pve population are a serious issue. Afterall, there are a few predecessor examples with complains about it using the same reasons and anet responded to it. So, why should anet be double standard about it when come to other servers that literally has lower pve populations that all those predecessors?

6. If you are not interested in population balancing, then, leave.

Me.

Fighting against DB/ DH link during SEA time while having being in a low pve pop server is like fighting to the last man, literally. Pretty much getting drained to attrition due to full server status.

I thought this is already a proven issue in the past but I guess only T1 servers have the golden rights to QQ about it and get “solved” while legit small servers that are full are to fo and die.

That isn’t the point. Guilds, clans and alliances play important roles in fostering pvp environment. However, that is not how it is now.

EU servers have lesser impact because EU gamers are exposed to more east asia mmo than NA gamers. There are plenty of east asia mmorpg titles in EU and most east asia mmorpg titles focus on pvp and thus guilds, games build around cooperation between guilds, clans and alliances. It is very different from pve focus games where it isn’t about guilds or clans but rather individuality. The two different cultures naturally lead to different ways of doing things.

Of course, there are also new gamers that join the fry without playing any prior games, got shaped according to gw2 designs which is made for casuals and focus on individuality.

Gw2 designs are naturally contradicting to begin with when trying to put pvp into picture. It wasn’t as bad at start but it starts to break down with things like megaservers, eotm and guild cross chat. Everything that encourage or supports WvW got diluted and disintegrated.

Yuffi.2430:

I don’t know about other players but when I opposed the deletion of the lower tier servers it was because I felt my server and my contribution to the game was as valuable as any other player in any other tier. I would have supported the deletion of all servers and the creation of new ones but that’s not what the majority of posts requested.

As far as I can tell the creation of linked “guest” servers was a deliberate sacrifice of the minority of players (smaller servers) to appease the majority (larger servers). At the time the Developers were aware of the threat linking posed to server identity and spoke of the challenge of retaining identity on linked servers. I can’t see anything they have done in this regard, and linked servers have struggled to retain any form of identity, despite the difference they make to the actual matches. Even on the forums it’s always the host server name that is used for each team.

I still don’t support the deletion of servers, because of the chaos it could cause in the communities, but IF it has to be done it should be ALL servers out of fairness.

Linking has had some positive sides, I’ve met new people and maps definitely seem to have more players as a result.

Linking also has a lot of negatives too.

• I watched ET in NA start to climb out of the bottom tier only to be swallowed up when linking started – I hope their community still survives today. While host servers can still try to do this sort of thing, linked servers can’t. In theory a linked server could become a host (this has happened in EU) but there are no figures for population so no way players can work towards this goal and know how much progress they are making.
• Two months is just long enough to earn a bit of respect and get to know people, only to be moved on, and have to change voice comms, friends list etc… again.
• Linking has jumped me from tiers I like to play in into tiers I do not enjoy, and my only choice is whether to put up with it or abandon my server.

Personally I find that some links I don’t enjoy so I play a lot less. Others I enjoy more and play more. I find the randomness of relinking to be irritating because I have no say in it at all. There is no target I can work towards to escape this if I wish to remain with my server and friends – everything I do to help is credited to another server. Perhaps if there was a league table of the guest servers we’d have something to fight for, but that would mean acknowledging that guest servers have an identity of their own.

Overall I would prefer to be in a more predictable situation but I fear the worst damage is already done, and I see no evidence that Anet care about server communities so I’m not going to hold my breath while I wait to see what happens next.

Naturally, all servers need to be deleted, otherwise, it is pointless to even delete to begin with. Afterall, the primary goal of deleting servers is to force balancing while implementing brand new sets of rules to enforce these balancing.

The target marker on the minimap is static, not showing the target position.

Those who don’t frequent the forums much. I would advise to read OP’s post history and from there, you can see a month ago he was complaining about the high requirements for WvW t3 armors and left much hints about what player he is.

Looking at the main post, I can’t help but feel that first two opening lines are to get sympathies from the ignorance, attempt to use the most common wvw related issues to get some others to relate to while the main point is still about WvW rewards.

I thought it was obvious. Balance vs server identity vs benefits.

Back when some of us call for deletion of servers, quite a number oppose it strongly because of server identity. Six months down the road, the same group of people that oppose then supports it, smirk.

Anyway, all those times having people opposing or supporting something they don’t really understand, in other words, for things they only understand vaguely will simply result in nothing done and end up as long term damage. If people want to play couple of months or even a year or few years down the road, that is to say hope their game environment will be still healthy and positive then, then do make responsible comments.

Arnox.5128:

infrequentia.3465:

at the bottom of this page you will see the copyright and games under that banner

It says ©2010–2013 ArenaNet, LLC. and NC Interactive, LLC. Not only is this info four years old, it lists two companies as the copyright holder. Not just one. The rest is just trademark/logo stuff.

Monk Tank.5897:

Vladimir Putin

Probably.

SkyShroud.2865:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArenaNet

This does not give any real specifics. It just says it’s a subsidiary of NCSoft, and for all we know, ANet may have a special agreement with them. It definitely wouldn’t be unheard of.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1039687744145999273

Honestly speaking, does it matter? Unless OP is a investor, why does it concern him?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArenaNet

rhonda berenne.8573:

I believe strongly that servers need to be unlinked. All buy four servers are marked at “high” “Very High” or full. 11 servers are marked as full. Crystal Desert before linkings was marked as “medium” it is now marked as very high. The server linking increased populations by far.
However now it is just pushing people away. Tier 2 with these linkings is just a blob fest. It was the same thing as last linking. Very blobby. The linked servers have enough population to make a populated tier again. It wont be as empty if at all. My last 3 linked servers alone could manage a tier for themselves.
After reading a lot of these posts it seems people do wish for unlinked. And Some do not.

1. Linking doesn’t increase host population since population is calculated independently, unless you mean servers took a lot of players from other servers?

2. Populations is calculated by play hours, not only by actual players. This particular change is primarly due to huge casual players (particularly in JQ). Technically, the primary flaw in this is that there will be servers that will have crazily big population at certain timing while completely empty at certain timing. Not to forget we also have something called returning players, thus servers that are housing huge amount of accounts may suddenly become a powerhouse out of the blue, this is another one of the flaws the current system has.

3. Many servers can’t fight for themselves. They do not have the guild numbers and coverage to hold it all up. In other words, servers that happen to lack commanders or guilds in specific timing benefit from link with servers that happen to have commanders or guilds in that timing. Unlinking means you are giving up all those benefits and forcing servers to fight for themselves. Honestly speaking, if all are capable of fighting for themselves, that should already happen in the past and not now. We won’t have the link today.

Overall, those who call for unlink are not considerate enough to consider the possible damages it will bring.

Ermm….

Let’s get rid of the carebear protections and make it such that every death, there is a chance you will drop one gear you are wearing, this include legendary and ascended.

Eh, that will be too much, sorry =(

Jirayu.5834:

SkyShroud.2865:

Jirayu.5834:

SkyShroud.2865:

Jirayu.5834:

Right now even small servers are being populated due to pip system. Remove the link should be fine. at least for a year.

Remove link, and free pass for transfer pip penalty for a month. This should help spreading population amongst server.

Yes, we can open free transfer, that’s what I used to suggest back then. But now, thinking about it, I don’t think it makes a real difference in long term because…

1. Not enough populations to go to all existing servers
2. Due to overall low population, they will have to lower the max cap further to keep servers equal
3. Due to lower cap, it also force servers to adapt very specific geodemographic otherwise servers will die to attrition due to max cap
4. Geodemographic is not that easily to obtain due to human nature, human want to stack at least 2 guilds per timezone and likewise not enough guilds to spread to all the servers for some timezones
5. The fundamental not-equal server pve population resulting in potential population gain due to events or holidays or random players mood is still not solved

edit:
so is still better to delete all servers and create just enough servers while having a complete new system that designed to tackle balancing that is sustainable

I didn’t mean free transfer. I mean some period of time for transfer and still get pip after transfer. If unlink really happen, This should help small server to have a chance to recruit population or even buy some guild.

For now, Some ppl choose to stick around because of pip penalty after transfer

Then is worse. Human nature is they are more likely to move if is free because people like free things. Furthermore, since you are unlinking and the fact that we don’t have enough to spread across all servers, also accompanied by the geodemographic issue, the chance is unlinking will result in a non-sustainable future is extremely high.

I think I never said anything about free transfer …

You still have to pay for transfer. just still get loyalty pip after transfer. This window is only a short time like 2 weeks or a month. and maybe just only for 1 transfer. then you lost loyalty pip after transfer again.

Read again. I said people like free things and you expect people to move while paying thus it is even worse.

@Sublimatio.6981
Feeling isn’t logical to me, sorry.

I don’t understand where the 40-60g per 2hrs comes out from. Illconceived Was Na.9781 calculated about 7g per 30minutes which is 28g, speed run I assume, a big difference between 28 and 40.

@Vinceman.4572
The nerf was great and even the buff, it is still not as rewarding as back then. It is a rough estimate of 40% golds difference. For reference, you can check https://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=Dungeon&oldid=1074111

Yes, sw was more profitable than dungeons back then. Sw was about 20g per hour, iirc. So was about 50% more profitable than dungeon back then.

Now, you compare to the current value. Illconceived Was Na.9781 estimate it to be 14g per hour. FotM 40 to be 18g per hour if 5min per round but normally ppl do it for 2.5minute, at least my guild do it 2.5minute on average, so I will calculate 36 per hour. That’s 60% difference or 22 golds different. 22g is a lot, it is also 50% more than the difference of sw-vs-dungeon of back then.

I already said and will continue to say, many old players don’t have reason to do dungeons. Dungeons popularity will be as it is until anet put the reward back to the same level it was.

Edit: Incase people forgotten, dungeon was nerfed in favor of raid.

This isn’t 2014.

I do appreciate anet attempt to solve the afker issue. I do hope anet consider getting in combat with enemy players (receiving and dealing dmg) will generate participation.

To call something very lucrative, it means you have compared it to something. Also, if you put it into context on my post he replied to, then the point is debatable, such that older players will choose the more rewarding things and dungeons just isn’t as rewarding. Thus, if it isn’t as rewarding, expect lesser people to do it.

Sublimatio.6981:

dont say dungeons aren’t rewarding because it’s a lie. people don’t play dungeons because they’re either bored after years of doing them or because of not knowing that they can be very lucrative

Sublimatio.6981:

Larathia.5284:

Yes, dungeons are lucrative and they can be fun, but not when the party you’re with just wants to get in and out as fast as possible.

Ummm no. Dungeon rewards scale with your speed so only ultra fast meta rush dung tours are very lucrative. If you complete 5 paths in 30 minutes it’s much more gold than 1 path done in 30 min.

I like fast, proper and lucrative runs therefore I disagree with what you said. I mean you can enjoy slow runs but don’t call them lucrative ;p

I don’t know how it is more profitable comparing to fotm 40. Can you explain in terms of math?

Jirayu.5834:

SkyShroud.2865:

Jirayu.5834:

Right now even small servers are being populated due to pip system. Remove the link should be fine. at least for a year.

Remove link, and free pass for transfer pip penalty for a month. This should help spreading population amongst server.

Yes, we can open free transfer, that’s what I used to suggest back then. But now, thinking about it, I don’t think it makes a real difference in long term because…

1. Not enough populations to go to all existing servers
2. Due to overall low population, they will have to lower the max cap further to keep servers equal
3. Due to lower cap, it also force servers to adapt very specific geodemographic otherwise servers will die to attrition due to max cap
4. Geodemographic is not that easily to obtain due to human nature, human want to stack at least 2 guilds per timezone and likewise not enough guilds to spread to all the servers for some timezones
5. The fundamental not-equal server pve population resulting in potential population gain due to events or holidays or random players mood is still not solved

edit:
so is still better to delete all servers and create just enough servers while having a complete new system that designed to tackle balancing that is sustainable

I didn’t mean free transfer. I mean some period of time for transfer and still get pip after transfer. If unlink really happen, This should help small server to have a chance to recruit population or even buy some guild.

For now, Some ppl choose to stick around because of pip penalty after transfer

Then is worse. Human nature is they are more likely to move if is free because people like free things. Furthermore, since you are unlinking and the fact that we don’t have enough to spread across all servers, also accompanied by the geodemographic issue, the chance is unlinking will result in a non-sustainable future is extremely high.

HnRkLnXqZ.1870:

Hi,

we recently run into issues finding enough people for our dungeon/fractal runs. Usually we end up with 2-4 people. Using pugs from the lfg does not really work. Most just leave within a few minutes.

Many of us do not play meta-builds, is that the problem?

It is several issues for dungeons or low level fractals

• Timezone, some timing just has lesser people, naturally lesser people means even lesser people will join
• Old game. A lot of players are at the end game stage so they most pretty much quit doing dungeons or low level fractals, they have very little reasons to. What’s more, the numerous new contents spare little to no time for any of those old players to help you. So, the amount of people gonna join you is lesser
• Not rewarding. Dungeons used to be rewarding but the nerf to it while competing against the newer contents lead to old players not wanting to do it anymore.
• Declining game. Gw2 isn’t as popular as back in the days, the number of newbies you will find is lesser than the past, naturally means lesser people joining you
• Declining game 2. Gw2 isn’t as populated as the past.
• Story mode. If you are doing story mode, expect very little people to join you.

Having dps meta-mixed build will allow you to do dungeons and low fractal without full party, so instead of waiting, perhaps get those builds.

Same old reoccurring bug, not starting after talking to it.
Same old technical explanation, bounty desync-ed

Anet please check.

Jirayu.5834:

Right now even small servers are being populated due to pip system. Remove the link should be fine. at least for a year.

Remove link, and free pass for transfer pip penalty for a month. This should help spreading population amongst server.

Yes, we can open free transfer, that’s what I used to suggest back then. But now, thinking about it, I don’t think it makes a real difference in long term because…

1. Not enough populations to go to all existing servers
2. Due to overall low population, they will have to lower the max cap further to keep servers equal
3. Due to lower cap, it also force servers to adapt very specific geodemographic otherwise servers will die to attrition due to max cap
4. Geodemographic is not that easily to obtain due to human nature, human want to stack at least 2 guilds per timezone and likewise not enough guilds to spread to all the servers for some timezones
5. The fundamental not-equal server pve population resulting in potential population gain due to events or holidays or random players mood is still not solved

edit:
so is still better to delete all servers and create just enough servers while having a complete new system that designed to tackle balancing that is sustainable

My guild was doing bounty 5 targets yesterday and the day before, on both occasions, the bounty is bugged. Please check.

You can’t balance the population with what we have now, I don’t see any way to do it without having to move pops around or force forms of attrition on different servers.

I still support deleting and remaking servers empowered by completely new systems.

Bi-weekly, from what i observed. But sometimes it changes on weekly too, ermm, so there isn’t really a obvious pattern.

See, you can’t interrelate the issues. This so-called larger pool of people is highly questionable which I already explained so many times. You can’t see the issues on its entirety like how I am. There is really no point in further talks.

@Illconceived Was Na.9781
The moment you deny set theory, you are denying the relation logic, in other words, you are denying logic in itself. There is nothing to talk about with you any more. Good luck.

@Just a flesh wound.3589
There is nothing to quote or elaborate, because over and over again you keep saying new guilds will benefit under the increase limits. By benefiting you also imply it has no pressure. Afterall, if there is pressure, it cancel out the benefit or even completely overrun the benefit.

Assumption is what you too been doing isn’t it? You are assuming it doesn’t, I am assuming it does. We are both making assumptions, different side of assumptions. However, mine is a assumption that use “potentially up to”. Your assumption is base on absolute. Mine is using logic to back it all up while your’s is personal preferences, sophistry and baseless faith on people that majority will use like how you will.

@Just a flesh wound.3589
I am not twisting your words because you are twisting mine, a lot of times. You admit many times you one person cannot be at two activities at the same time yet you refuse to admit that the activities of the guild will be drop. Why?

I already explained using set theory guilds are already potentially competing up to 4 other guilds currently every seconds, every minutes, every hours. Arnox.5128 already highlighted the activities level. Still, you insist that increasing the limit will benefit new guilds, you insist that new guilds will not have pressures, all without substantial logic behinds it. All you repeatedly saying is that more guild slots, more people for guilds but you never ever once address the issue of one guild having to compete with 9 other guilds (if 10 is the new limit). All you think about recruitment, surely it is one of the issues but there are other interrelated issues that all add up to a increased workload. I thought I already explained about that, was that not clear?

It is a win-lose situation no matter how I look at it.

Edit:
Also, jsut because you use your guilds slot like how you use, it doesn’t means other people use it that way. I have know of people that join 5 raid guilds, 5 pve guilds etc. Simply because it is easier for them to look for raids, easier for them to look for fractal, basically a glorified lfg. The activities level they provide naturally varies along with the number of similar guilds they joined. Guilds have to deal with those people, those are all works.

Not only that, many players play a specific timezones, specific timing. You do see many guilds running GMs at certain timing, you do see many guilds running WvW at certain timing. We call that prime time and now new guilds made for that prime time has to compete with what? Potentially 9 other guilds? Likewise, existing guilds too has to compete against potential 9 others. Activities level won’t affected? It isn’t rocket science.

@Illconceived Was Na.9781

You are misunderstanding something. It will affect my guild surely, but the effect is insignificant thus it is neglect-able. On the other hand, it will affect start up hugely.

Throughout my wall of texts, I already repeated numerous times it will not benefit the new guilds like what both of you claim it will. I even use set theory to elaborate the complex relations between guilds. Unfortunately, all of those means nothing to both of you because both of you are just so fixated that it will benefit the new guilds even when another person step in to emphasis that activities of the guilds will be affected.

Likewise, Just a flesh wound.3589 continues to use sophistry for his argument. Now he cite “social” guild aka chat room elsewhere his previous post includes actual activities like fractal. Surely, one cannot participate in fractal concurrently in 5 different guilds, likewise impossible to partake in both raid or wvw runs concurrently in two different guilds. Too much sophistry, a waste of time.

@Just a flesh wound.3589
You are just making me repeat the same things again and at the same, you are conveniently watering down it into a single issue while forgetting it is part of interrelated issues. Arnox.5128 is highlighting the point that one person is not capable of concurrently juggling 5 guilds but you on the other hand, talks about 2 guilds and again conveniently using sophistry in attempt to suggest that 5 guilds is not any different from 10 or 15.

All in all, putting it really simple, you don’t care, you just want benefits on the expense of others. There is nothing to talk about.

@Illconceived Was Na.9781
I get it, you just want to state your position that you support the agenda to increase the limits, regardless or not of the pros and cons.

@Illconceived Was Na.9781
I don’t remember you listing it out and now you did list out, base on the your way of joining guilds, I personally could have 20 or more even if I know I won’t use most of them much in the end. It really is out convenience instead of practical reasons. Any average players in the game will not able to use that many guilds, play enough hours enough to utilize all those guilds on weekly basis.

@Just a flesh wound.3589
This is what I am talking about exactly, people gonna join the guild without actually contributing much, not because they want to do something with the guild but just incase they ever need it. Club owners now have to filter all of those people out. Again, works. Every 5 minutes spent on one individual, is also good to say 100 people = 500 minutes wasted. People expect new club owners to go through all of that or perhaps never even for once consider the time required in making a new club now.

In fact, I have explained this many times but you refuse to take it as point. Likewise the other points. Not because it is hard to relate to, even without being a guild leader even once, but because you just want the biggest benefits as a player while not caring about players that sacrifice part of their gaming time for others. This is no longer a debate but a demand. That is why I say wow guilds culture not much different from gw2, is materialistic.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

SkyShroud.2865:

Having so-called resumes and reviewing them is works itself, does that not consider works for you?

So, your argument here is that having lots of people wanting to join your guild and requiring you to look through more applications is a burden that’s unnecessarily increased by more guild choices?

I’m don’t find this compelling. Put a password on your site and only hand it out to people you want to apply and you won’t have these unreasonable numbers filling out resumes.

Again, you are misrepresenting the meanings. You are suggesting the new owners to step up their filter procedures, suggesting something known as resumes or applications. That itself is extra works.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Here your argument is that people make guilds and compete to get players. How is that different from now? People are constantly making new guilds and trying for members. That won’t change. Currently guilds can compete for members who can join 5 guilds. The more guilds that an account can join the bigger the pool of available members and there’s less competition for members. Sure some, even many, will fail. That’s the lot of all guilds, even in WoW, the system you seem to like. One of the reoccurring complaints on the forum there is that the guild they were in died and now they need to find another guild. Having one choice or multiple choices doesn’t stop people from making guilds and neither stops guilds from dying.

How many of these new club owners will be willing to put in twice of even thrice the efforts than the existing guilds to reach where they are?

Same as today. /shrug. New guilds already have a hard time getting started. Having a larger pool of available members through more guild slots will make it easier, not harder, for players to give them a chance.

The different is we started out with 5 and nothing has changed. Everything has stabilized and settled itself around that 5. You are now wanting to raise that limit and you are asking how is that different from now? It is like asking what is the difference of eating 5 sugars cube and 10 sugar cubes. That itself is sophistry. You know full well there is a difference.

I will put it really simple, with reference to your other posts. While you yourself only use 4 guilds and two of which are the guilds you chat often at. It doesn’t necessary means other people will be doing what you do. There are people, I have seen many since they are literally talking about how they use guilds in the voip, some people will form guilds as a temporary farm to get that want and after that, ditch it. Some people will join guilds as a backup, basically not because they need it but just in case they ever need it. Sure you have potential pool of people, but how many of those pool of people are genuine players looking to do something with your guild?

Also, competitions can come in different forms, it isn’t just membership numbers. Afterall, we already have multi chat. What you claim as bigger pool is a sophistry. If you increase that limit, it will be 10 guilds or whatever limit it is competing over a overlapping pool. This overlapped pool again will overlap yet another pool. It is all interrelated overlapping. It is a very complicated competition but nevertheless, a competition. The current new guild already has to compete against established guilds, now you want them to compete against more guilds, is that not pushing them to a corner?

If you are confused about what I meant about overlapping, in math, it is called set theory. We are all sharing a huge common pool, lets call it set A. Guilds can be considered as subset. Now, since members can be in 5 guilds and has cross chats. You can easily relate that subset can have common objects aka forming intersection. That is to say, guilds already competing over members consistently, not just on recruitment level. Now, you want new guilds to compete over even a larger amount of subsets while having to deal with people that use guilds as backup or whatever, you are pushing them too hard.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

SkyShroud.2865:

Human is a social creature,

And also a solitary creature and a contradictory creature and one with a variety of preferences and passions.

Certainly, for some people, the right choice is a single guild. For others, the “one guild per character” system of some games is excellent.

For me, however, the one guild/character or /account rule is stifling. I have never, ever seen a guild that captured as little as half my interests. I like WvW and fractals and raids. I like people who bring intensity to their gaming and also those who can’t give two skritt about it.

I understand why some guild leaders might prefer their members to choose more carefully. I hope you can understand why I’d prefer to belong to a dozen guilds instead of “just” 5.

Unfortunately, I don’t see how you will need more than 5.
Are you saying you spent so much time in the game that you can take advantage of more than 5?

Just a flesh wound.3589:

SkyShroud.2865:

What you said is logical but lacks empathy. Still, why do you talk logic here and on other posts, you try to focus much empathy?

Because maybe you haven’t given me anything to be empathetic for? You’ve said is that guild leaders will have more work to do but you haven’t proven this argument. If you don’t want new members, don’t invite them. If you don’t want to read resumes, again, don’t invite people to your guild. They won’t be filling resumes out unless you do. If your complaint is that players having more choices means you’ll have more people applying, then (again) just tell them no. You’re not obligated to invite or accept people you don’t need or want. The words “no thank you, we are not accepting applications at this time” will stop any increased workload from increasing guild slots.

Truthfully, if that’s your argument, that you’ll have too many people wanting to join your guild and that’s too much work for you then I don’t feel a lot of empathy for that position.

You talk about evidences but can you even provide evidence that it surely is a plus and will not become minus in the long run? You can’t, so why continue that line of argument?

Again, you are misrepresenting. New guilds have to recruit, they have no choice. Your sophistry is getting a bit too much.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

SkyShroud.2865:

While it is true that one can switch characters, one should not forget that you still only able to access one guild, one chat at that time. In other words, you whole focus is on that one guild and only that guild at that point of time.

Human is a social creature, when we do talk about social, we also relate it social bonding and that is to say, we inherently wish to spend more time on those bonds. This naturally lead to what we called a main guild because you will want to spend most of the time (with the people) in that guild. Unfortunately, guilds have size limit and naturally, for the benefits of the guild and the people you enjoy playing with, you choose a main toon to be in that guild.

Most importantly, all those social bonding is only possible because the amount of time and focus you put in that guild alone.

Still, I don’t play wow. I heard wow guild culture is pretty materialistic, not that much different from gw2 actually, only the minority is not materialistic focus.

Then guild chat there is a lot like guild chat was here before they allowed all guild chats per account.

Your argument about main guilds is only relevant to those who think like you. I have two active guilds I’m a member of and I consider both of them my main. I can see guild chat all the time. I can join in and speak to all members of both guilds as I wish. I can join any activities when I wish. That’s the power of multi guilds, multi guild chat. Its not restricting my playing to only one group but to 2, or 3, or 4, or 5 at once. Maybe for a guild leader who thinks like you, that’s a problem but as guild member I have lots of people to play with and talk to. Now that, imo, is being social. It’s a big advantage and I see no reason I should want to limit myself to your vision of how a guild, or a game, should be.

Edit: one of the complaints I see on the WoW forum is, “my friends have all quit. My guild has died. I’m all alone”

They wouldn’t be “all alone” if they were had multi guilds, multi guilds chat like this game. They would have the other guilds they are a member of to talk to and play with if one guild dies and all their friends leave.

Edit: about the number of guilds I’m a member of. I’m actually a member of 4. Two are active, one is dead but is held on to for reasons of friendship and nostalgia and one is a guild bank where I am the only member. I was a member of a 5th guild but quit and haven’t picked up another guild (yet).

Yet again, you are misrepresenting. I am not debating about 1 guild vs 5 guilds. I am debating more than 5 guilds, the impact of more than 5 guilds. However, you always end up connecting the two different arguments to the more than 5 guilds argument. Those two are different, those two has no relations. The only relation is the question on your first post which you yourself has answered. Then, for god knows how, you manage to relate 1 guild to multi guilds once again. Nvm, I look past that since you trying to compare relogging to different accounts with one toons access to many. Then again, that actually in reality not comparable, it is comparing orange with pair. You know full well that you cannot access all guilds at the same time unlike current gw2 but you continue to make that comparison.

Looking past that again, I highlighted your talk about social. Here, you just relating social as a chat room. However, I am talking about social bonding, not just a chat partner. It is really a big difference.

Also, using your logic, that person can just leave the dead guild and find a new guild, what’s the different?

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Abakk.9176:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Abakk.9176:

I came into this game after 10+ years of World of Warcraft.

I am still scratching behind the ears when i see you can be part of 5 different guilds

I’m not that familiar with WoW but can’t different characters on the same account be in different guilds? If so, how is it different?

As mentioned you can be in only one Guild per character. But as you can have 12 characters on 1 server (50 in total per account iirc), you can potentially be in 12 guilds per server. (In WoW you can have your characters spread out over as much servers as you wish)

I don’t know if the 5 different Guilds in this game are per account or per character but i am looking at the difference in the number of Guilds per character.

I can’t say if that is a good thing or a bad thing tbh.

Aside from having multiple 1 character guilds (for storage, tabards/colors and such) i have only ever been a member of 1 specific Guild.

I see a Guild as a sort of Faction that you ‘swear allegiance’ to and do your utmost best for. I understand that might be looked upon as strange. These days things are more geared towards personal gain/progression and less towards serving or fighting for the team.

So, as a ‘One Guild Guy’ it was a bit strange to see you can be in 5 at the same time (per character/account) and that someone would even prefer to be able to be in more.

Not that i approve or dissaprove mind you. I really don’t care one way or the other

With this information I find SkyShroud’s objections to be even less compelling. If you can switch guilds at the drop of a hat by logging in on another char, up to 12 guilds on one server or up to 50 guilds total, then the loyalty is really only there for those who only play one char or prefer only one guild. For those like me and many others with multiple mains or important other chars then in WoW, every time a player switches he can be in another guild and these guilds can be chosen for social purposes, such as role play (or whatever else besides raiding and dungeons that WoW players do). Personally I suspect the true argument a guild leader might have is that they don’t want the competition.

What you said is logical but lacks empathy. Still, why do you talk logic here and on other posts, you try to focus much empathy?

While it is true that one can switch characters, one should not forget that you still only able to access one guild, one chat at that time. In other words, you whole focus is on that one guild and only that guild at that point of time.

Human is a social creature, when we do talk about social, we also relate it social bonding and that is to say, we inherently wish to spend more time on those bonds. This naturally lead to what we called a main guild because you will want to spend most of the time (with the people) in that guild. Unfortunately, guilds have size limit and naturally, for the benefits of the guild and the people you enjoy playing with, you choose a main toon to be in that guild.

Most importantly, all those social bonding is only possible because the amount of time and focus you put in that guild alone.

Still, I don’t play wow. I heard wow guild culture is pretty materialistic, not that much different from gw2 actually, only the minority is not materialistic focus.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

SkyShroud.2865:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Owners, my bad.

It sounds like you’re speaking primarily for the club owners though (a small group) in your defense of limitations. I’m speaking for the club members (the vast majority of the players) who can benefit from loosening of restrictions.

If guilding isn’t a necessity as in other games but a series of friendship clubs (and not all require much besides joining. Specially clubs do, but friendship or non specialty clubs do not) then what is the need to restrict?

You have to consider the fact that there are good clubs and bad clubs, likewise, good club owners and bad owners. The barrier to entry to make clubs are very low so any random people can make clubs. The question is the quality of the clubs. Owners that make good clubs naturally have to endure the already no-salary high workload accompanied by it, if you make the workload even higher, you will chase them away.

Just view it as a government trying to attract investors to their country, if put really high tax, no tax exemptions while having low profit margins, will investors still invest? If there are no good club owners making good clubs, it will just end up as a loss loss situation.

Agreed that there are good and bad guilds

Going back a bit to irresponsible members joining.

The good guilds can restrict membership as they wish. They can keep out the irresponsible sort only accepting members by invitation from a leader or officer and by requiring prospective members submit a resume at a guild online page. So how does players having more choices mean more irresponsible members joining, since good guilds can use the tools already in game to keep them out.

In addition, I’m not understanding how players having choices increases the workload for good guilds that are already accepting new players only by invite &/or resume?

Having so-called resumes and reviewing them is works itself, does that not consider works for you?

Furthermore, while the existing guilds will not get as much impacts (they still do but is insignificant), depending on how they run their’s. However, new guilds will have a whole different level of difficulty to move forward.

Like I previously mentioned, any random person can make a guild, it has a really low barrier to entry. When you increase limit, the likelihood of people thinking it is a great idea to make guilds out of passing fad will surely be there and people that think is great to join another random guilds because you can.

These new club owners that are ever so passionate will have to compete with these passing fads, with the existing established guilds and at the same time filter the butterflies. Don’t forget, how is one even capable of juggling so many clubs filled with so many people? That is a lot works, way more works than any of the existing guilds have underwent.

How many of these new club owners will be willing to put in twice of even thrice the efforts than the existing guilds to reach where they are?

Eventually, the passing fades will die off, not without dragging down the once new passionate owners. As for the established guilds, they will live through and get remnants of all those guilds in the end like they always do.

If there are no new good clubs, how does it benefits the players?

Just a flesh wound.3589:

And why has the discussion turned to good vs bad Guilds/Leaders?

Because the only person with serious objections on this thread is a guild leader who originally came from WoW and who wishes guilds were like WoW’s guilds, only one per character (or maybe one per account) as having more than one choice is extra work (he says) for guild leaders. Therefore he is opposed.

Correction. I don’t play WoW, never touches it either. None of my posts indicate I wish it to be like wow’s. Also, do not misrepresent the meanings, it isn’t about versus, it is about not deterring good responsible people from making guilds.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Owners, my bad.

It sounds like you’re speaking primarily for the club owners though (a small group) in your defense of limitations. I’m speaking for the club members (the vast majority of the players) who can benefit from loosening of restrictions.

If guilding isn’t a necessity as in other games but a series of friendship clubs (and not all require much besides joining. Specially clubs do, but friendship or non specialty clubs do not) then what is the need to restrict?

You have to consider the fact that there are good clubs and bad clubs, likewise, good club owners and bad owners. The barrier to entry to make clubs are very low so any random people can make clubs. The question is the quality of the clubs. Owners that make good clubs naturally have to endure the already no-salary high workload accompanied by it, if you make the workload even higher, you will chase them away.

Just view it as a government trying to attract investors to their country, if put really high tax, no tax exemptions while having low profit margins, will investors still invest? If there are no good club owners making good clubs, it will just end up as a loss loss situation.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Do we want people to join so many club houses? Are people actually capable of juggling that many club houses?

How many friends do “you” (generic you) have in real life. How many groups are you a part of? Do you need the number of groups and friends you have to be artificially limited, or can you do that yourself? Can you juggle your friendship and clubs without someone limiting your options because they think you can’t handle it?

That is a sophistry. While you do not have a limit in real life for social circles, you still have to enter these circles first with some efforts, there is still noticeable barriers to entry unlike a few clicks. Likewise, unlike club houses, maintaining a social circle is a joint responsibility while club houses are maintained by few, workload further increased due to the low barriers to entry (few clicks).

Just a flesh wound.3589:

We also have to consider the amount of potential irresponsible new members because of that and the potential workload being placed on the club owners.

That is a consideration, but it’s a consideration for any club, guild or friendship. Is limiting more important than an increased workload on the club members?

Is club owners, do take note.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

SkyShroud.2865:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Abakk.9176:

I came into this game after 10+ years of World of Warcraft.

I am still scratching behind the ears when i see you can be part of 5 different guilds

I’m not that familiar with WoW but can’t different characters on the same account be in different guilds? If so, how is it different?

The different is really obvious. Since you can only join one guild with one toon, you really think hard on what you want to join with that toon. You make plans on what you should do with it. You are more conscious of the decisions you make for yourself and also conscious of the guilds you are part of. Normally, people put their main toons in the main guild.

In gw2, since you can easily join up to 5 guilds. You don’t really think as hard, plan as hard and care as much. Social wise, commitment wise, seriousness wise, etc are all watered down.

However there’s a big difference in that game than this though. That’s a game where raids and dungeons are both endgame and main leveling content. For that, wouldn’t guilds be more useful than this game where endgame was designed to be open world events?

Looking from the outside, my impression is gw2 is less structured than WoW. Which means there is less use for guilds and their primary structure is more for social in that they allow people to be members of several specialized guilds, such as a WvW guild and a raid guild and a roleplay guild, etc etc rather than one guild to do all.

The guilds in this game were specially designed as being modeled after different groups of friends like you would have in real life. Not all of your friends will want to do all the same things and guilds in this game are able to mimic this.

That is, they’re called guilds in this game but they’re actually more like interest clubs, such as real world chess, acting, book reading, football, just hanging together, clubs.

Yes, gw2 is moving away from how most mmorpg view guilds as but a lot of players do come from those mmorpgs and have experienced how the guilds are like in those mmorpg. So, it is indeed different and you answered your own question.

Moving on to the OP’s topic of limiting number of guilds. Since guilds are treated as a club house here in this game. Do we want people to join so many club houses? Are people actually capable of juggling that many club houses?

Not only that, unlike the club houses in reality where they can charge their members for membership fee easily, one need to search for it too and fill up necessary forms for them, there are noticeable barriers to entry. However, the club houses here are free and invite is just a click, the barriers to entry is really low. We also have to consider the amount of potential irresponsible new members because of that and the potential workload being placed on the club owners.

So, do we want more club houses?

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Abakk.9176:

I came into this game after 10+ years of World of Warcraft.

I am still scratching behind the ears when i see you can be part of 5 different guilds

I’m not that familiar with WoW but can’t different characters on the same account be in different guilds? If so, how is it different?

The different is really obvious. Since you can only join one guild with one toon, you really think hard on what you want to join with that toon. You make plans on what you should do with it. You are more conscious of the decisions you make for yourself and also conscious of the guilds you are part of. Normally, people put their main toons in the main guild.

In gw2, since you can easily join up to 5 guilds. You don’t really think as hard, plan as hard and care as much. Social wise, commitment wise, seriousness wise, etc are all watered down.