Guild Wars 2

Interesting, though I am sure server status is not just calculated by activity but a combination of population and activity. I am surprised about YB going full though, did they get some recent transfers?

-Skill balance that is actually focused on WvW, not pvp or pve. Conditions, power creep, stealth, resurrections, cc’s, all of these things need to be addressed. Fights are just not fun anymore with the current state of “class balance”. They need to focus on counter play, and not trying to load up every class with as much X as possible.

-Lag, Lag, and more Lag, we cannot do anything when we are constantly lagging, freezing up, and dc’ing. It has gotten to the point where I can be standing by myself at spawn and get ping spikes up to 5k, and yet do not get this kind of lag in pve, and my internet runs fine elsewhere. It is always wvw that causes issues.

-Revert 2/1/1, absolutely stupid change that encourages less activity in a game mode hemorrhaging players

-Fix bugs, glitches, exploits. For gods sake we have the same bugs and other issues that never get fixed or even acknowledged.

-Lower map caps. This can help reduce lag, spread out the population to other maps, and make it easier to deal with blobbing.

-Do not base upcoming skirmish rewards on server performance, base it on individual contribution so that everyone can earn the rewards and not be subjected to timezone gaps and population limitations. Treat these rewards as part of a long term reward structure that can be used for something like ascended gear. Similar to how we have reward tracks as a short term reward. It can work something like awarding a certain amount of tokens based on an individuals contribution during a skirmish which can be saved up to earn rewards.

kathy.8291:

Spurnshadow.3678:

The 211 scoring system has been a huge step in the wrong direction.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE Im still trying to meet one person who voted on this scoring system. I have yet to find that one person. WvW is going downhill and hopefully Anet will realize this and maybe fix the problem.

There was no vote lol, no poll, thread, discussion etc. They just implemented it because they decided it was something they and many of us wanted to try out…. What they didn’t seem to realize is that this stupid change just encourages people to play LESS, because if there is anything WvW needed is less activity and less people playing….

For the longest time the main reason to do WvW was for the love of it. And even though Anet has made a lot of great changes and additions to wvw in recent months, they fail constantly to address the largest longstanding issues that causes players to stop playing.

Lag, Lag, and more Lag, nobody can have a good time with ping spikes going up to 5k BUT yet never experiencing that same lag in PvE. Skill lag, freezing up, dc’s, rubberbanding, always and only in WvW.

Class balance which is nonexistant has ruined a lot of the fun with fights in WvW. Unfortunately anets balance department has no clue what WvW is or how to approach it. Their balance philosophy seems to be to add as much X as possible to a class, instead of focusing on actual Counterplay. Conditions, stealth spam, cc spam, power creep, all this garbage has taken the fun right out of fights to what we have now, everyone running the same cheese builds and leaving little room for counter builds.

Now we have this idiotic, and poorly thought out 2/1/1 scoring change which does nothing but encourage less participation in WvW and devalues the efforts of small teams, basically just encouraging more blobbing and ktraining. Little reason for 2/3 servers to fight each other, or even show up now. Because if there is anything WvW needed it’s less people playing…

Hard to find fun with WvW anymore, really only play it because of the community, guild, friends, etc.

While it would be nice to see some actual class balancing done with WvW in mind, balancing is done by a separate department, and quite frankly they are terrible and clueless in regards to wvw and pvp. Without properly splitting skill balance between game modes, wvw will always get screwed over. Conditions, CC’s, and power creep have ruined a lot of the fun in wvw, especially the condi garbage.

Scoring changes drive player activity, especially when there are other factors tied to it, such as rewards, tier placement, rankings, matchups, etc. There are many posts on this forum section about class balancing, mostly about conditions. You can also always start your own thread for discussion.

WvW is a 24/7 game mode, you always have to account for that.

Personally I would like to see them take a hard look at conditions, this simply cannot continue in its current form. Damage and application needs to be toned down in WvW. Epidemic needs a good nerf, because it is a little too overpowered, being able to load up 5 targets with conditions because of this 1200 range unblockable skill on one target is absolutely ridiculous. Guardians need to be toned down, way too much damage, healing, blocking, and tankiness at the same time. Resurrection needs to be toned down, way too much rezzing, too fast going on, there needs to be more penalties. Mercy runes, rez traits, etc all need to be toned down. Certain power based skills like CoR, Vault, etc do way too much damage and have short cooldowns, those need to be toned down as well.

Sarika.3756:

X T D.6458:

Sarika.3756:

Rewards before population balance equals more stacking.

Not necessarily, if the Devs are smart they wont base the upcoming skirmish rewards on server performance, and I am not even sure how that would work with this stupid new 2/1/1 scoring change.

They need to base it on individual performance much like a reward track, just change the rewards and how they are handed out. It could work like this…each skirmish would reward the individual player a number of tokens that they can use for a set of rewards that are cycled every week or month. The amount of tokens rewarded would depend on the activity from a player. This way you encourage more participation and everyone can benefit rather then just a winning server, which would just promote bandwagoning.

Agreed. I was thinking in terms of server wins, not individual performance.

I really hope they treat skirmish rewards more like a part of a long term reward process, like how reward tracks are a short term reward process. If they choose to base it on server performance they would be shooting themselves in the foot, and frustrate a lot of people. Not only would it cause server instability, but people would miss out on rewards because of timezone gaps and coverage/population imbalances.

I would like it if they made it part of a way to acquire (for example) ascended weapons/armor from WvW with the token idea I mentioned, a long term reward structure different from tracks to encourage a longer period of participation for a player in WvW. I think all servers would benefit from that. It would be more similar to how they do it in fractals and PvP.

Sarika.3756:

Rewards before population balance equals more stacking.

Not necessarily, if the Devs are smart they wont base the upcoming skirmish rewards on server performance, and I am not even sure how that would work with this stupid new 2/1/1 scoring change.

They need to base it on individual performance much like a reward track, just change the rewards and how they are handed out. It could work like this…each skirmish would reward the individual player a number of tokens that they can use for a set of rewards that are cycled every week or month. The amount of tokens rewarded would depend on the activity from a player. This way you encourage more participation and everyone can benefit rather then just a winning server, which would just promote bandwagoning.

All this stupid scoring change does is encourage less participation in WvW. Little reason for 2/3 servers to fight each other, or even show up. Winning means nothing unless you can sustain the level of activity needed to stay on top.

For those of you that are so fixated on BG that you don’t even bother to read posts or understand changes, I will explain it to you. This change does absolutely nothing to hurt BG’s placement in tier 1. In fact it makes it easier then ever, with less effort required. Because now since 2nd and 3rd place servers get the same amount of points, you literally only need to win 1 skirmish to get 2nd place. Even a third place server can roll a tier 2 matchup, farm back the glicko points and get back into tier 1, as has been happening for so long now.

Also very sad, when people only support changes if it screws over a specific server.

I will break this down for those that havent figured it out yet. Because this change basically punishes winning, making second place ironically the preferable placement in a matchup.

1st place-Higher chance to get double teamed all week long with this change, if you are in tier 1, there is almost no point in trying to win first place now. Your server cannot go higher and will not drop tiers because of glicko and the possibility of a tier 2 glicko roll which means a week long ktrain to farm back points.

2nd place- Little effort required, just simply score 1 point more then the 3rd server since you both get equal amount of points, there is little reason to care about even showing up. Higher chance of keeping blue color and alpine map. Higher chance of retaining position in a tier.

3rd place- Dont even bother showing up or playing for points. In tier 1, getting third means a very high chance of rolling a tier 2 match the next week meaning week long ktrain to refarm glicko and get tossed back into tier 1. Highest chance of rolling dbl.

GG anet for making second place the desirable goal. Keep reaching for those stars!

This is hands down one of the dumbest, most poorly thought out changes they have implemented.

Basically, unless you care about winning (which now increases your chance of being double teamed because this change encourages it), you don’t even have to worry about showing up anymore, because why bother. This is a vain attempt to make scores look closer. Here is what it means for tier 1 NA… dont worry about winning, dont bother showing up, roll a tier 2 matchup next week so you can ktrain those poor kittens all week and farm back those glicko points to stay up in tier 1.

Once again, /slow clap anet…no class balance whatsoever in that patch, and now we have this idiotic change that you didn’t bother to announce in advance, no poll, no thread, no discussion.

I am so glad I stopped playing, and with changes like this, I doubt I will be bothering with WvW anytime soon even if I do bother coming back.

If I understand it correctly, participation is capped through normal means at 195% which includes the Outnumbered Effect. But it can be increased by the use of boosters (50%) and the guild buff (3-10%).

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/WvW_Reward_Track

Outnumbered does not appear to give an added effect towards participation, it just lets you get to 195% faster (w/o boosts), wouldn’t mind if this was changed to increase activity on outnumbered maps.

morrolan.9608:

X T D.6458:

morrolan.9608:

Sarge.9730:

X T D.6458:

Scoring in WvW cannot be based largely on PPK because it is a 24/7 gamemode, and there aren’t always people to fight for points. You cannot simply look at your server, but gamewide across all servers. Structures can always be captured, lost, and upgraded they don’t go anywhere therefore it makes sense to make them the larger factor in scoring. PPK can already make a bigger impact on scores thanks to skirmishes and with bloodlust you can add more points, it can make a huge difference in a very short amount of time, literally hundreds of points in minutes can be acquired thanks to PPK and bloodlust.

What he said, in addition I don’t feel that a server should we rewarded for ignoring objectives and spawn camping for instance which would become highly beneficial if PPK were the primary source of points.

Before the silly change to increase PPT to T3 objectives PPK was reasonably balanced with PPT and that didn’t happen.

It wasn’t a silly change, it was a logical change, what sense does it make for a tier 1 paper keep/tower to give the same amount of points as a tier 3 upgraded structure. PPK is still a powerful tool because it can add a ton of points very quickly, PPT is timed and progressive.

Logical doesn’t mean good for the game. It was discussed in detail when the change was made. Greater PPT for T2 and T3 objectives leads to bad gameplay.

What exactly is bad about it? It encourages players to choose between attacking and defending and takes away the incentive to just stack a blob on one map if you actually care about winning. Why shouldn’t a server be rewarded more for actually defending and upgrading? Why should a blob be able to ktrain paper keeps and have it be worth the same as tier 3 upgraded keeps like in the past? Paper structures can be flipped in minutes, but fully upgrading a structure can take hours and can involve a lot of defending, scouting, escorting etc. You take down upgraded structures it also means you deny your opponent those points which encourages a lot smarter gameplay and greatly increases the value of small groups which I love as well.

morrolan.9608:

Sarge.9730:

X T D.6458:

Scoring in WvW cannot be based largely on PPK because it is a 24/7 gamemode, and there aren’t always people to fight for points. You cannot simply look at your server, but gamewide across all servers. Structures can always be captured, lost, and upgraded they don’t go anywhere therefore it makes sense to make them the larger factor in scoring. PPK can already make a bigger impact on scores thanks to skirmishes and with bloodlust you can add more points, it can make a huge difference in a very short amount of time, literally hundreds of points in minutes can be acquired thanks to PPK and bloodlust.

What he said, in addition I don’t feel that a server should we rewarded for ignoring objectives and spawn camping for instance which would become highly beneficial if PPK were the primary source of points.

Before the silly change to increase PPT to T3 objectives PPK was reasonably balanced with PPT and that didn’t happen.

It wasn’t a silly change, it was a logical change, what sense does it make for a tier 1 paper keep/tower to give the same amount of points as a tier 3 upgraded structure. PPK is still a powerful tool because it can add a ton of points very quickly, PPT is timed and progressive.

Also have to keep in mind how point distribution works. Points from PPK are instant, points from PPT are added in timed intervals with some exceptions. Making PPK too much of a factor in scoring can produce a large imbalance and can greatly impact skirmishes by creating a runaway score very quickly, to the point of having the ironic effect of discouraging fights for fear of losing points.

Scoring in WvW cannot be based largely on PPK because it is a 24/7 gamemode, and there aren’t always people to fight for points. You cannot simply look at your server, but gamewide across all servers. Structures can always be captured, lost, and upgraded they don’t go anywhere therefore it makes sense to make them the larger factor in scoring. PPK can already make a bigger impact on scores thanks to skirmishes and with bloodlust you can add more points, it can make a huge difference in a very short amount of time, literally hundreds of points in minutes can be acquired thanks to PPK and bloodlust.

EoTM is not technically part of WvW regarding match ups, what happens in an eotm match has no effect on servers in any way. A winning a color in EoTM can give their home servers a supply drop in citadel, but that is about it.

EoTM is mechanically different then WvW. EoTM uses a megaserver type of system to sort players into different instances, this can and often does create great imbalances in team sizes especially as players come and go after instances are already created, and since it does not give you the option of going into a more populated instance like in PvE. EoTM teams are also divided by color and not servers, so whatever servers are X color for the week will be placed on that team in EoTM. In WvW you can only play for the server you are on, and all teams and maps have the same rules regarding map populations. The matches also reset every 3 hours whereas WvW is 24/7 until it’s weekly reset.

Years ago, the WvW population was much larger and there were queues throughout the day. EoTM was basically created for 2 main purposes, to use as a testing ground for possible WvW features, and for players to be able to play on while waiting in a queue. But as the WvW population began to decrease, EoTM became popular for farming, especially for leveling toons. This led to a very negative attitude towards EoTM by many wvw focused players.

Increase cd to 30-40s
Limit the amount of stacks that can be transferred to 5
Make it blockable

Done.

Yes its a new bug from a recent patch, it often happens at the same time as the rendering and loading bugs. Basically if you are on a map too long for some reason the game starts glitching out at random times, your weapons disappear from view, enemies don’t render, skill effects cant be seen, and loading screens take a very long time. Only thing that fixes it is to restart client.

Great Change! Been asking for this for so long, great to finally see it being implemented. From the patch notes it looks like PPC was added alongside PPU which is great. What sense did it make for a tier 1 paper keep to award the same points as a tier 3 keep?

First of all NEVER send gold to someone for the purpose of transferring to their server, that makes no sense and is obviously a scam…and I sure as hell would like to know who has been telling you this, if this is true.

Players do not control the opening/closing of servers, anet has metrics that they monitor to do this. It focuses on activity and population. Don’t be a fool and think a server is going to magically open for you.

I would really prefer they not tie rewards to server performance but rather individual player progress, much like reward tracks.

Nuzt.7894:

I blame BG, everything is their fault that is wrong with the world.

I am blaming everyone on my server for the rain tomorrow grrrr.

But back to the topic, yea many people got dc’ed tonight and were having issues getting back in, and staying connected.

Seasniffer.1763:

Spotted the YB player.

Everyone used them, including your server and mine. I personally dont want it put back in because I do not think it is good for wvw, especially since siege mechanics are so broken and this item was plagued with issues from the start which really messed up testing.

RyuDragnier.9476:

Noein.7635:

RyuDragnier.9476:

jamesdolla.3954:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

shagwell.1349:

Another day on the forums.

How many transfers from where to where did I miss?

Kazo from TC moved to MAG.
Hs from JQ moved to MAG.

Those are the two big ones stackstackstackstacK$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Hs just showed up on mag last night. they did not get paid. Dunno why they came when our NA is already solid

Not fun to get steamrolled with a blob all the time during NA hours, and we felt like we were carrying JQ’s NA time some (if not most) days alongside Hard. Also couldn’t really recruit for the guild well despite trying for months on JQ, so it was a choice between BG and Mag (since TC is imploding). BG was closed, so Mag was the last choice.

TC is imploding? Do you mean just not stacked to the levels of Mag and BG?

Considering they lost TW and their EU guilds seem to be the ones pulling all nighters to keep them afloat…yes.

JQ also lost some guilds recently, and SE seems to have regrouped again for TC, even saw a WHOA tag tonight. Would say they are more or less competitive with JQ. The important thing of course is the state of militia on a server. And both servers, at least during NA seem to have good numbers.

UnSpokened.6035:

BG has been stacked since the beginning..why..

Our cookies are amazing

joneirikb.7506:

This is also another reason why I keep suggesting the Dynamic Maps.

Make the number of maps adjust itself after the active population, avoid queues, and avoid empty maps. And also reduce map cap a little bit to avoid the lag while at it.

If 200 people per world wants to get into EBG, and only 50 wants to go to BL’s, then roll up 3 EBG’s and 1 BL. If 20 people wants to go to EBG, and 120 wants to go to BL’s, then 1 EBG and 2 BL’s. (Min 1 of each).

Best way to fight queue’s, let people play where they want, reduce the empty maps, and can even be used to counter off-time PPT advantage somewhat.

What about the players on the other side?

Map caps need to be lowered a little, the blobs are big enough, and the lag is too much. Better to encourage people to play on other maps rather then all stacking on EB.

Swagger.1459:

From observations it seems that BG has a lot of regular and dedicated players. They also seem to put in a lot of overtime. The recent dev post stating that BG had less population than JQ and linked worlds lends more credibility to my thoughts.

Despite BG being a top competitive server, that doesn’t mean it needs to be forever locked and players stressed to put in more effort to be successful. Brief periods of being open are healthy for current players and allows for the population to be maintained as other players stop playing or lose interest.

Y’all really have to stop blaming players on this particular server and look to improving your own servers instead.

+1 good post.

Hockey.2417:

X T D.6458:

Towelie.9504:

X T D.6458:

BG was opened on monday, your looking at the current score on a friday night. BG had been closed for months, if you could not get enough people on your servers then stop blaming us we had nothing to do with it. Mag got 2 big guilds last week but for some reason did not show up at all this week.

The point is BG has been winning for months straight in T1. Hence, why does it need any more population at all? It certainly isn’t underpopulated.

This is just yet another error by WvW devs at Anet. Their management or whomever needs to make it mandatory that they actually play the game rather than just theorycraft on “what they think is going on” because that often times isn’t close to reality.

We actually haven’t won every match up, in fact before the last relinking we had lost 3 straight weeks. Our population was/is apparently smaller then JQ’s as pointed out by Mckenna in the other thread, and keep in mind server status is determined by activity now, not population. BG does have a very active militia force which likely contributed a great deal to the server calculations.

Absolutely the most self serving, delusional poster ever…..wow, just wow

Cool, do I get a cookie?

Towelie.9504:

X T D.6458:

BG was opened on monday, your looking at the current score on a friday night. BG had been closed for months, if you could not get enough people on your servers then stop blaming us we had nothing to do with it. Mag got 2 big guilds last week but for some reason did not show up at all this week.

The point is BG has been winning for months straight in T1. Hence, why does it need any more population at all? It certainly isn’t underpopulated.

This is just yet another error by WvW devs at Anet. Their management or whomever needs to make it mandatory that they actually play the game rather than just theorycraft on “what they think is going on” because that often times isn’t close to reality.

We actually haven’t won every match up, in fact before the last relinking we had lost 3 straight weeks. Our population was/is apparently smaller then JQ’s as pointed out by Mckenna in the other thread, and keep in mind server status is determined by activity now, not population. BG does have a very active militia force which likely contributed a great deal to the server calculations.

joneirikb.7506:

X T D.6458:

Not sure if anyone has already suggested this, but for nameplates would it be possible to fit in an abbreviated server tag for linked servers, for example:

[ET] Crystal Desert Invader (ABC)

I didz! (somewhere near end page 3 if you feel like a wall of text).

Red Invader [SIN][Kain]

Ah sorry, was too many posts to go through lol.

LetoII.3782:

X T D.6458:

LetoII.3782:

X T D.6458:

If I came on here, and started posting about wanting a specific server to die off, blaming them for everything, and needing to be locked forever…well I can imagine the responses I might get. But you know its fashionable to hate on BG, as if we forced anyone to transfer here.

Maybe those people should try focusing on building up their own servers rather then hoping for one to be destroyed. BG’s main selling point is that we have a stable server and a great friendly community.

If you come on here and start threatening boycotts and other stupid crap, stop playing wvw, never bother to help your servers get competitive, then complain about population issues…What good are you?

Nice lecture brah
Good thing nobody knows you transferred from SoR last time BG was open right?

I’ve been on BG over 2 years now, your guild has been on how many servers in that time?

So last december 23rd you were still pining away for SoR even though you’d been off the server for a whole year??

That’s some dedication

I’ve been on most every server, to answer your question. Including BG. Odd we didn’t see you there in 2014

Lol I smell a stalker

And yes I do actually care about other servers including SoR which I spent almost 2 years on, and still have friends there. Now..I don’t expect you to actually understand any of that since you server hop as soon as someone tells you to, and would rather talk trash about a server you are not even on, but its ok. To each his own

Krevra.4289:

My vote is def to lower WvW pop caps. I would even vote lower map pops as well, there is NOTHING fun about 60+ man blobs on all sides just to get extremely low fps and server lag so you cant even use skills. This would also spread out the pop a bit more towards the borderlands and maybe even force groups not to blob as a result. Fights would be more fun more dynamic less laggy and alot more playable all around.

And how do you think a lower cap on a servers population would help a smaller world?
Should a server that is medium/high suddenly be locked?

I am all for lowering map caps though.

Princess.7584:

morrolan.9608:

X T D.6458:

KnM and FL are OCX, we recently lost a very important SEA guild in Ng, but FOO transferred here this week. Your guild SoX is on MAG now which I believe still has KnF.
Three guilds came to BG as far as I know this week, and one of them is a havok/small ops guild. One of the reasons the score is so lopsided this week is the fact that MAG basically hasn’t shown up all week, not sure why especially after getting 2 new guilds last week in SoX and KeK, I would have thought they would be even more competitive, but they seem to have taken this week off when it started.

Yesterday knf wasn’t commanding but were running with sox commander and we were still outnumbered by BG blobs at least 3:1.

You are wasting your time. His on BG he has no idea what its like on other servers, he refuses to even see the problems, post after post of his says the same. BG needed more people, BG needed to open, come to BG be competitive, BG open get in now. BG still needs more people we cant queue 4 maps through all timezones.

The Guilds that stacked on there, the Guilds moving to the next bandwagon only pleases Anet sales team. Why fix when it is so profitable.

All your gates belong to me /insert evil laugh

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

X T D.6458:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet you’ve sent our communities into mass chaos. We seriously had a multiple server leader meeting to talk about what we can actually do. Multi Server. BG, JQ, TC, FA, MAG leaders all gathered to talk about what’s going on and what we can do to prevent the suffering of our communities. Yet we are powerless, the only one who can correctly solve these issues is you (Arena Net) however right now you’ve been enabling imbalance and enticing us with it.

Regardless, in that meeting we decided to make a petition for Arena Net to listen to our community leaders. We will add onto the pool of community leaders as we progress through this but you(Arena Net) must listen to what we have to say and what’s going on. No cloudiness just the voices of our respective community leaders.

I need some contacts from GW2 community. We need some SBI, NSP, YB , etc community leaders to get in on this.

At this point we are begging for transparency. We are begging to be heard and we want stability.

Maybe you should change your first post and thread title to….

No, this thread isn’t about the petition. I will not be at the forefront of that. That will be a community wide movement to come and it wasn’t started by me. I was just one of the community leaders who was apart of it. We want to add more it was the first meeting the the guy who started it came from MAG. It went very well and once the time comes there will be a better post talking about it. This post right here is a rant legit because i’m really lost. I’m prepared to bust my kitten for communities in this game and Arena Nets “New World” post and their adjustments has triggered me. So sorry for ranting.

I don’t mind the ranting, 90% of the posts on here are angry rants. I only meant that if you want this to be taken more seriously, don’t make it look like a sarcastic angry venting. Present a clear valid suggestion and offer to discuss it.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

X T D.6458:

I don’t understand your post, you complain about JQ being too stacked but are also complaining about a glicko adjustment that gives them a better chance to NOT be matched against you?

Do you, or do you not want to be matched with JQ?

Im not complaining about JQ being too stacked they are not too stacked currently for the fights at hand. I want them to allow for the communities to be healthy and not eat each other. I don’t want my community to be eaten by yours nor do I want mine to eat yours. The glicko adjustment realistically forced what was already turning into the stacking of a monster server due the the nature of the current mechanics in the game and the opening of Blackgate.

The glicko adjustments are nothing new, and seem like an attempt to adjust for matchup imbalance, also it doesnt guarantee a matchup, it only increases the chances. Don’t you think that FA or MAG would be a better matchup for TC rather then JQ? In terms of population and coverage, this is not about personal preference.

I dont want servers to be destroyed either, but it also falls upon that server community to maintain its servers competitiveness.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet you’ve sent our communities into mass chaos. We seriously had a multiple server leader meeting to talk about what we can actually do. Multi Server. BG, JQ, TC, FA, MAG leaders all gathered to talk about what’s going on and what we can do to prevent the suffering of our communities. Yet we are powerless, the only one who can correctly solve these issues is you (Arena Net) however right now you’ve been enabling imbalance and enticing us with it.

Regardless, in that meeting we decided to make a petition for Arena Net to listen to our community leaders. We will add onto the pool of community leaders as we progress through this but you(Arena Net) must listen to what we have to say and what’s going on. No cloudiness just the voices of our respective community leaders.

I need some contacts from GW2 community. We need some SBI, NSP, YB , etc community leaders to get in on this.

At this point we are begging for transparency. We are begging to be heard and we want stability.

Maybe you should change your first post and thread title to….

I don’t understand your post, you complain about JQ being too stacked but are also complaining about a glicko adjustment that gives them a better chance to NOT be matched against you?

Do you, or do you not want to be matched with JQ?

BG was opened on monday, your looking at the current score on a friday night. BG had been closed for months, if you could not get enough people on your servers then stop blaming us we had nothing to do with it. Mag got 2 big guilds last week but for some reason did not show up at all this week.

morrolan.9608:

Spurnshadow.3678:

So funny seeing all the salty people posting here that have no clue.

The fact is, BG has an active NA population. No OCX guilds.

No? What were the 2 huge BG blobs running around in ocx time yesterday then? And you do have ocx guilds, FL for one.

I just love BG folks implying they’re undermanned while steamrolling the other servers in the game outnumbering the other servers 3-4:1.

KnM and FL are OCX, we recently lost a very important SEA guild in Ng, but FOO transferred here this week. Your guild SoX is on MAG now which I believe still has KnF.
Three guilds came to BG as far as I know this week, and one of them is a havok/small ops guild. One of the reasons the score is so lopsided this week is the fact that MAG basically hasn’t shown up all week, not sure why especially after getting 2 new guilds last week in SoX and KeK, I would have thought they would be even more competitive, but they seem to have taken this week off when it started.

Not sure if anyone has already suggested this, but for nameplates would it be possible to fit in an abbreviated server tag for linked servers, for example:

[ET] Crystal Desert Invader (ABC)

LetoII.3782:

X T D.6458:

If I came on here, and started posting about wanting a specific server to die off, blaming them for everything, and needing to be locked forever…well I can imagine the responses I might get. But you know its fashionable to hate on BG, as if we forced anyone to transfer here.

Maybe those people should try focusing on building up their own servers rather then hoping for one to be destroyed. BG’s main selling point is that we have a stable server and a great friendly community.

If you come on here and start threatening boycotts and other stupid crap, stop playing wvw, never bother to help your servers get competitive, then complain about population issues…What good are you?

Nice lecture brah
Good thing nobody knows you transferred from SoR last time BG was open right?

I’ve been on BG over 2 years now, your guild has been on how many servers in that time?

Both the Daily and WvW resets are now an hour earlier because the anet servers observe daylight savings time.

WvW reset is now Fridays:

9pm EST
7pm Mtn
6pm PST

WvW can be extremely fun if you take it upon yourself to understand it, same as you did to learn pve. Look at it this way, if you wanted to do a pve raid but did not have the proper gear or build, did not know what to do because you didn’t try to learn, and didn’t properly communicate with your team…well you wont have a good time right?

Another thing, don’t take low levels into wvw, if you are trying to level it. There is no point to that, and I suspect you are doing a lot of eotm which is not real WvW. You can use a lvl 80 to get tomes of knowledge from reward tracks if you need them, they are account bound.

Using TS, joining a guild, researching builds, practicing, learning how to read maps, etc will all help you get used to wvw and have more fun. But again its up to you.

Nuzt.7894:

right now 450 gems is 120 gold which is nothing, so 200 is 50ish 500 is 160sih … the idea isn’t terrible but the numbers need to be greatly increased for it to be worth while.

Well the numbers were just used as an example to give an idea of how it would work. The concept is basically reducing incentive to transfer while also allowing players the freedom to transfer if they want to.

There is a thin line when it comes to balancing the costs because an excessive cost might do more harm then good. Have to keep in mind also that players can transfer for reasons like not being happy on their current server so making it excessively difficult for them to find a new server can turn them off wvw completely, further depleting the player base.

Wirriam.1859:

I think you’re mistakenly attributing the cause of bandwagoning here.

If we considered this a breadth vs depth argument (breadth being the total number of players transferring and depth being the number of times each player transfers), bandwagons are not caused by small groups transferring frequently but larger groups transferring sporadically, concentrated around the same time frame.

So your solution wouldn’t really address the issue, I think you’d want to focus on the other side of the transfer process. For example, increasing the cost of transferring to a server that has already received X amount of transfers that week.

Well this suggestion is not meant to completely fix the issues, but maybe it could help. I think the nice thing about it is that it still allows players the option of being able to transfer, but also reduces the incentive to do so because it increases costs each time, and encourages a player to stay on a server promoting server stability. It is not meant to be a 100% fix, but if it could support stability, it might be useful.

Transfer costs are already based on server status, and a server can be locked depending on the transfers that increase its activity level or if anet decides to manually lock it. I think focusing on the individual side of transfering would be more beneficial. And I think this is a more balanced approach.

We are always looking for great people, check us out if you are on BG and like WvW.

RodOfDeath.5247:

You’re on black gate, I dislike you.

However, I like the idea.

Lol thats ok!

And ty

So this idea is pretty simple, basically it adds an extra cost for a player each time they transfer within a certain time period, and puts a limit on the account if it transfers too often within that time period.

6 month Cycle:
First transfer-normal cost based on server status
Second transfer- 200 extra gems
Third transfer-500 extra gems
Cannot transfer again until the cycle is reset.

The numbers are just an example and can be tweaked. Any thoughts or suggestions?