Guild Wars 2

TallBarr.2184:

Remove work on new legendaries (advertised in expansion)

Remove new borderland (advertised in the expasnion)

Anet are u kittening kidding me, what did I pay for? holy kitten you guys gotta be kidding me.

FYI you didn’t pay for the new borderlands with the expansion because it was given to all accounts, including the free ones, it was just thrown in there as an ad for the expansion. Just as silverwastes and dry top were free and not paid for by the expansion.

New legendaries were paid for by that expansion though.

I am disappointed with this community and those that couldn’t compromise….

They do give notifications of a new poll through the mail, as long as you have over 10 wvw ranks, and gain a rank while the poll is running, this way actual active wvw players are getting the notification, and not just pve’ers doing dailies. I got my notice this week when I leveled a rank.

If players can’t spend a minute to log into the forums and check an option on the poll, then they just don’t care, no point trying to force a vote on someone who doesn’t care.

T4 I think should probably be unlocked, T3 maybe. T1/2 not so much.

The purpose of locking the top 12 servers is to try and move some population back to the bottom 12 servers, so that it will be easier to link servers in the future. If you unlock the top 12 which are the primary servers for matchups, players will only choose to move to those over the others.

Having said that, it seems like they’re messing with server caps now, as Ehmry Bay which was on High (I found that hard to believe especially after we lost 2 large guilds plus more), we’re now on Very High status with no word on any guilds moving in….. so what’s going on there? and how is the server suppose to grow being in the locked T4 tier and full cost to transfer to.

P.S Kaineng and Anvil Rock are still medium servers attached to T1 servers, lol.

Akkeros.1675:

Xenesis.6389:

You guys saying to delete and remove the desert borderland realize that:

1. There is a group of players who do like it.
2. Anet has spent a good amount of time developing the map.
3. They were still tweaking it even as it went off rotation… it’s not going away.

So you might as well fall in line and knock off the nonsense of deleting it.
Vote for mixed borderlands when the poll comes, better to have just one desert borderland than three, you’ll still have two alpine maps to visit. Stop being selfish, this change will appease all players.

you do realize that there was a group of people that thought slavery was a good idea too, does that make them right?
Desert BL is bad for the game and ANET now understands that simply by looking at their numbers. You are well within the minority I am afraid.

Comparing a slavery to a borderland map, nice.

BTW if you ever read any of my post in regards to the desert bl, I don’t like it, doesn’t mean I’m selfish and think there aren’t those that do enjoy it. Nor would I ask Anet to trash and delete the map, with feedback it can be made better in it’s own way, but that won’t happen unless it’s playable so people can give that feedback.

If you love alpine, great, it’s not leaving, so why care if one of three are replaced? If anything by your thinking that everyone loves it, the two should fill up every night means better fights on them.

At the end of the day I don’t really give a kitten because I rarely play on borderlands these days.

scerevisiae.1972:

Also, why isn’t Edge of the Mists on the table as a BL map?

So yeah, I’d really like to see another poll that explicitly mentions 3 distinct BL maps as an option, I’m willing to bet $$ this is what most players really want.

Because eotm is not designed as a borderland map, it doesn’t even have upgrades… why do people not understand the differences of these maps?

Can’t have 3 distinct borderland maps if you only have 2 at the moment…. they would work on a third if this poll went through to have different bls up at the same time.. then they would poll again to start developing a map when the next major priority is ready to go… which is after the current scoring changes.

So a bigger stronghold map with smc in the middle.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

I just made a post, addressing these concerns, on page 5 of the official stickied thread, but I’m posting here too for additional visibility. I know a lot of players get into the habit of ignoring stickied posts or only looking at posts the first time they get a red reply.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-31-May-Mixed-Borderlands/page/5#post6185533

That’s what happens when sticky threads stay up there too long, tend to just ignore the top part of the forums. The top sticky in the wvw forums is now 3 years old and outdated. XD The general section has 8 stickies most of which have been there a while, most other forums have dates so you can see what’s been updated recently.

I kinda wish those sticked threads were a different color, and polls were also a different color so you can recognize them immediately.

eko.5213:

Also, where is Taimi in the picture???

Was gonna ask that as well.

Voted for Eternity’s Guard, although I don’t really like any of the three.
I’m sure Dragon’s Watch will win.

Numbers pulled out of the air but from experience basically, anyone who was around at the beginning to now can definitely see a huge difference in population. Everything is a guesstimate especially with numbers loss due to the desert borderland, many other factors played into that as well.

HoT brought a lot of problems for wvw players, desert borderland, guildhalls upgrades, guild wvw upgrades locked behind the guildhalls, schematics locked behind scribing, elite specs throwing balance in the air, pirate ship still going strong, wvw players forced to pve, the savior to gvg’s – guildhall arena was smaller than expected. All that was enough for players to quit or take a break until the april patch.

Teon.5168:

DaoC had the kind of setup for wvw/rvr similar to what the OP is talking about.

Except he wasn’t talking about daoc setup, he was talking about regular battlegrounds which exist in almost every other mmo these days.

“BG’s with goals” – different types of matches
“established number of players”- 10v10, 15v15, 20v20
“think how many different BG types devs could create” – capture the flag, deathmatch, team deathmatch, conquest, stronghold, points race, etc.

Good luck to the OP with BG’s though, considering how fast Anet develops spvp/wvw map currently, it’ll be another decade before that happens.

Wvw is pretty interesting to me, it’s the sole reason I came to GW2, it’s one of the very few games that offers large group wvw fighting. I’ve played in WoW BG’s for many years, most games these days offers BG’s but are unable to offer anything bigger than that. Even WoW’s SSvTM was suppose to be 100v100 player map and it got toned down to 40v40 because of code limitations but it still lagged pretty hard.

If you want Battlegrounds then add it to the spvp side where balance is more tightly controlled with smaller numbers. I wouldn’t allow premade groups into BG’s though, as those tend to wreck BG’s pretty easily.

It’s too bad they didn’t make courtyard bigger to support 20v20 gvg fighting. Anet never seem to think big when it comes to designing arenas.

Desert borderland is not going to get scrapped, deleted, trashed, etc etc.

Get over it already, seriously no amount of crying over the desert borderland is going to get it tossed out.

Now pick the least painful option.
Yes 1 dbl, 2 alpine (this obviously)
Yes 2 dbl, 1 alpine
No 3 dbl on quarterly rotation with alpine.

You might want to reword your suggestion then.

Next time you come up with an idea, think how much it affects the rest of the servers and tiers and not just how much it can screw over BG.

Your idea basically turns keeps into camps which have no protection. One of the reasons why there’s gates and walls is to try and delay the attackers long enough so that defenders(no matter who owns it) can come in to repel them. No one is going to bother defending a structure when at T3 it becomes a camp.

Also home bl is called home bl for a reason, it’s suppose to be a slight advantage to the home team defending the map, if your team refuses to go attack those structures that’s not the home teams fault, that’s your own lazy server’s fault.

If you want to delay something from getting to T3 then keep capping it at T1/2(you figure out why people flip it at these tiers yet?), or cap their camps or kill their dolyaks.

You guys saying to delete and remove the desert borderland realize that:

1. There is a group of players who do like it.
2. Anet has spent a good amount of time developing the map.
3. They were still tweaking it even as it went off rotation… it’s not going away.

So you might as well fall in line and knock off the nonsense of deleting it.
Vote for mixed borderlands when the poll comes, better to have just one desert borderland than three, you’ll still have two alpine maps to visit. Stop being selfish, this change will appease all players.

You can corrupt boons all you want, but then they can put the boons back up just as fast, not the fat stack they had to start with, but nevertheless it isn’t that hard to restack boons.

There should be a hard duration limit to boons, but it’s not needed in spvp hence why nothing like that is enforced in balancing other than “25 stacks”.

I really hate how much this game has made combat revolve much more around boons and conditions since release.

My question is why aren’t servers actively double teaming BG at this point?

I know BG population and coverage are hard to deal with, but morale is the biggest thing that affects servers. If players want to play for second or roll over and go do something else, there’s nothing Anet can do about that, that’s a player problem.

Other reason BG has massive numbers still is because their morale is high so all their pugs and hibernators are coming out to play, meanwhile the other two servers go in hiding because it’s the easiest way to deal with it for them… then run in here and blame anet.

70 man blobs can’t be everywhere, learn to deal with that. The two weaker servers need to stop hitting each other because it’s “easier”, use better map politics and learn to frustrate those blobs.

Unlike the other polls, they sent mail to every wvw player with at least 10 ranks that leveled up a rank this week (active player). So yes 5 days is just fine, I know you’re one of those who voted no, but leaving it up for another 7 or so days wasn’t going to change the outcome. 82% voted yes, not 25, not 50, 82%.

They have the internal numbers on the votes, it was mentioned by one of the devs, they know who voted which way per server.

You might as well call for a recount instead of trying to come up with excuses why the numbers are wrong.

X T D.6458:

Xenesis.6389:

Post it in the spvp forums, that’s where the balance for the game comes from, not from the pve side which wvw falls under.

There should be a general balance forum I think, or something similar.

There should be, and separate balance for spvp wvw and pve too, but it is what it is.

Post it in the spvp forums, that’s where the balance for the game comes from, not from the pve side which wvw falls under.

There’s language barriers for EU, they’re trying to respect that, linking is the least disruptive option.

What other fitting solution is there to do?

Just wondering if you would prefer they stuck with the old system for EU?
Or would you prefer ignoring the languages and just link servers over there like on NA?
Do players generally only move to other servers with their language or do they not care about that?

EU needs to tell Anet what they want if they’re unhappy.

I don’t like the desert bl, but it deserves to be around at the same time with alpine for at least one map, either we get a rotation of maps every 3 months, or both around at the same time which should make most players happy.

Linking schedule? 6-8 weeks seems fair to me.

Deployable mortar or cannon? I think we have enough siege to carry around, it might even make balistas obsolete. I’m sure players will vote this down anyways.

Repair hammer could be interesting. But I like the siege counterplay currently in the game, some siege fights comes down to the last shot for something being destroyed before the countersiege is destroyed.

I wouldn’t want to see something like a zerg hiding behind a catapult all trying to repair it while it pops it’s bubble. So that would also be a no for me.

Thanks for the reply McKenna, appreciate it.

It looked like the servers were just folded over in order, to create the current links, and we’re not sure if other factors were taken into consideration at that time, factors which have been revealed in the last 5 weeks.

But it gave me the answer I was looking for, if it’s still going to stay at the quarterly update for now, it’s still safe to do a transfer and I won’t have to worry about relinks happening in the the next coming weeks at the very least.

SkyShroud.2865:

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

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

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

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

Since we’ve been discussing links the last few days, and proper matching wasn’t exactly done for the first links. Plus we have the poll going on whether or not linking should stay, which seems like it will win. The fact that T1 servers probably shouldn’t have links, T8 servers stating they don’t want to be linked to T1, maybe they should linked to T4.

Is relinking still scheduled to be done at the next quarterly update in maybe july?
Or is there any thought to do it earlier?

Would be nice to see how matches would turn out if proper matching was done. I’d say the glicko has settled enough as even T4 is now locked on itself. The current size of T4 servers probably couldn’t compete in T3.

Tyler B

No player facing features for the ‘WvW overhaul’ were started until after HoT shipped. The frequently referenced ‘1 year of development’ refers to our efforts to restructure the WvW backend to actually be flexible enough to support these types of player facing features that we are working on now.

So yes population control options(linking), reward tracks, scoring changes, QoL changes, are part of the major overhaul that were started on recently or after HoT. It’s being released in pieces now rather than waiting on shoving it out the door at the same time.

I can’t imagine sea/ocx/eu players would want to move to the new servers unless they’re moving with a lot of friends. Because the population is lower for those time zones they tend to move onto servers that would get more fighting, that’s why the majority have moved or were already up in to T1/T2 and then trickles left in the bottom tiers.

So I wouldn’t worry about those zones. This would be a move to try and spread the NA pop over more servers.

I think it’s an interesting idea, there are pros and cons to this of course.

With many smaller worlds around you would be able to mix and match servers a little bit easier to better balance out populations in a cluster of linked servers. I could see the idea of an alliance of friends or players or guilds moving to the same server to play together and grow their numbers. Much like the Empire alliance on TC, and the Rebel alliance that moved from TC to DB to counter them.

But I don’t trust the players to do this properly on their own, even with lower population caps, you open 3 servers and I’m sure one will end up being maxed out with a set of powerhouse guilds, population balance between the 3 would need to be monitored and allowed to grow at an equal pace as well. (Then again I guess it doesn’t matter if anet intends to release more servers after, to continue trying to create more smaller worlds to make it easier to create clusters of balance linked servers.)

One of the cons of this is another server that would lose their identity in the shuffle because only the host is seen for everything that deals with names.

So here’s a question I think needs to be answered first, would we be willing to lose the names of all servers and just name the linked cluster of servers under one new name, to use for display everything in wvw and the server names then become names just for linking purposes? That way server links can change but the main name does not.

For example Tier 4
HoD/EB = Grenth
DH/FC = Kormir
NSP/SF = Jormag

Later the links could change and look like this.
HoD/SF/NS2 = Grenth
DH/SoS/NS1 = Kormir
NSP/EB/NS3 = Jormag

I’ve also been wondering if Anet is able to use the guesting feature for wvw, or if it’s just something that was designed for pve. I’ve been thinking of an idea of doing the alliance idea through that for new servers.

What if they were able to open up 6 new worlds, then allow them to be populated through the guesting feature that would last anywhere from 1 week to 3 months.

So here’s how it would work, 6 servers come up for 1 month, friends from TC SOS EB decide to jump onto NS1, friends from DB HOD BG decide to jump into NS3, etc etc.
The guesting is free but monitored, you can’t get into the server you want until the other 2 are closer in guesting population. Once that’s done the guesting would last 1 month all those players would stay on those servers as guest for just as long. You can drop the guesting and go back to regular wvw, but if you guest again it would be to the server you first chose until the month is up.

Now you would be able to run “tournaments”, or even “seasons” like other games like path of exile or diablo 3 which have seasons that reset and you reroll new characters, compete in leadership boards on completion of challenges which reward unique items for that season, when those seasons are done the characters and the new gear get moved back to the regular leagues.

Obviously you wouldn’t run it the same way, or maybe you would. But once that’s done you drop the guesting and everything returns to normal. Problem of course with this is the regular servers will take an attendance hit, but the guesting options would be picked up or dropped at any time. You’re just linked through guesting to one server the duration of time on a tournament or season.

I’d like to thank Arenanet for the hard work they’ve been putting into wvw lately. The in game mail looks like it worked out well with requirements of wvw rank 10+ and having to level in order to participate.

Seriously I was on the hate train for a while because of the almost non existent communication with us for the past 3 years. Now with the polls and Tyler and team actually reading the responding in the forums, hopefully they can rejuvenate wvw with our directional input of what’s more important to us at the moment.

It’s not going to be perfect and we need to cut them some slack on that, they’re implementing new systems, they’re listening to our feedback and tweaking things, and trying to move wvw into a good direction again.

I don’t know who was responsible for things before, I don’t want to bother blaming people, at this point I just want work done on our favorite mode of the game.

Kano.3720:

Bringing the first year of gw2 with free x-fers is useless since most people didn’t really care about community as much.

Yeah sorry that feels like the reverse to me these days, there was much more server loyalty back then, when players had just picked their server and were willing to stay for a while.

There have been guilds who have been on multiple servers to get “fights”, there have been massive migration of players moving so that they can “play together”, servers have died and tumbled down the ranks because of these events. And they were willing to pay to do it, imagine if they had a free chance at it with no restrictions. Then you had tournaments with free transfers that also screwed up populations because “winning”.

Let’s be real here, players play a huge part with the imbalance of the population starting day -1 in beta when alliances and entire communities choose a server to stack on, to just last month when multiple guilds moved to TC, and then multiple guilds moved off TC cause they hated them.

You really want to hand out a freebie transfer with no restrictions other than an expiry date?

I agree with 5 tiers, but basically T1 unlinked, T2-4 linked, T5 the old T8 unlinked.

Also I’m for new names but maybe as placing servers linked together under names of Gods or Dragons, HoD/EB = Grenth server for example, that way one server doesn’t feel like they lost their server to the host, but each can now feel like they’re playing together for a side of a god or dragon.

Opening all servers and offering free transfers even 1 time will break servers.
Just think about it… the majority of players will move up on the top servers, not spread out as much as some of us would like that to happen. What did you think happened in the first few months of the game.

Meh gvg’s are low on my list of priorities for wvw, sorry.
I see the T3 dead fight tier from last year as the last ditch effort to support it and that’s over with.

Guilds were also given an arena with the halls for HoT, but apparently there’s issues such as it not being big enough. I would rather the pve team work on improving that, so that gvg guilds can hold their scrims and matches in there, they can create and run their own leagues.

Leave the wvw team to work on the important wvw stuff, like scoring which needs to be done to even have a decent chance of a fair season/tournament in the future.

Tyler B, the superstar developer for Anet, seriously dude thanks for reading the forums and posting the information here. Maybe people will read this and understand how you guys came to the decision you did and where it can go from here.

Especially

Notice that Blackgate was not the highest ranking world, and due to transfer bandwagoning Tarnished Coast was rising fast out of T2. Would it have been fair to leave YB, BG and JQ unlinked, but then link TC? Had we done so, we’d just be seeing a different world (or set of worlds) dominating T1 right now.

Anyway, probably the next most reasonable option, other than what we actually did, would be to leave NA T1&2 unlinked and then link T3+T8, T4+T7 and T5+T6. At the time we believed players (especially on T1 & T2) would view this as less fair, but now that players have actually experienced it, perhaps this is the way to go the next time we re-link worlds (assuming World Linking wins the vote.)

Now that players have experienced it, it should be an easier pill to swallow about leaving some servers unlinked.

Next let’s consider the fact that there are 24 worlds in NA. Linking T1 allowed us to match the top 12 with the bottom 12, giving every world a partner. Had we decided not to link T1, then we would have been left with the top 9 and the bottom 12. This no longer links evenly, unless we give one tier a third partner, or leave yet another tier partnerless (most likely T2.)

It’s become apparent that T8 may not want to be linked with any servers either, there’s a subsection of players who don’t want to join in the mass fights. So it could become top 9 matched with bottom 9, with the very top 3 and the very bottom 3 left out. Or if anything link them to the current T4 servers to help those servers better compete with T2/3 servers. (T3/4 glicko gap needs to be fixed though.)

The WvW World Rank leaderboard becomes less meaningful.

It does not matter at this point because there is no seasons, there is no tournaments, what is the point of having rankings for servers? it’s completely meaningless already. Ranks are only used to determine matchup tiers.

At the end of all this though, the point of the changes to me, is to bring all servers close together in population balance and coverage, get the scoring closer, and then looking forward to having enjoyable and close matches the entire week no matter what server you rolled up against. Who cares who’s number one right now, because we all know it’s only because they have more players and better coverage.

2. Acceptance – Our two ‘quick’ solutions were World Linking and World Merging. We went with World Linking because we felt players would be more likely to approve it, due to it better preserving the identity of all original worlds, and being more flexible than a more traditional World Merging solution.

Unfortunately I don’t think the linked worlds identities are being preserved. When you run around wvw now you completely feel like you’re on the host world, being in T4 it feels like my server has completely died already.

If linking sticks around one of the things that needs to be work on right away is actually trying to preserver the link servers. One way may be showing the dual tags in many areas, like the messages of what world just captured a structure.

DeWolfe.2174:

Xenesis.6389:

IT’S BETA.

That excuse got old after the first week. A Beta for a day or a weekend is one thing but, an entire 3 months???? That’s not a “Beta” any longer.

Don’t be ridiculous. To gather any proper information for the system as big as this it requires weeks or months, not a day or a weekend. Do you honestly expect them to look at the numbers for an hour and come up with the perfect solution to matching servers for perfect coverage? 3 months might be a bit long, but not surprising it’s tied to the quarterly updates. 6 weeks might be better as that’s also the expected time for glicko to settle in each time from the link effects, which would then be a good time to shake up the links according to the data they gathered over the prior weeks.

Plus there was a lot of movement once again by players in those top servers, that changes population and coverage numbers again, which a day or a weekend would not properly pick up on.

Did anyone honestly expect BG to wake up all of a sudden? they only did that for tournaments, and we haven’t had one in years with a lot of movement of players in the top tier during that time, they sure as hell didn’t show up when YB finally broke T1 which had the same matchup for over a year.

Linking is in it’s starting stages, it’s not in it’s final development stage, they are asking if this is what you want for population changes. If you don’t they will take it off and look for other solutions down the line. People need read the developer comments and properly understand what’s going on here.

Hamfast.8719:

Ramethzero.3785:

Clearly this woman did not hear about Eir’s unflattering death during HoT storyline.

Neither did I. Thanks a lot for the SPOILER ALERT.

It’s been 7 months, how long do you expect people to talk about it in spoilers?

Guys I haven’t seen the star wars ep 7 movie don’t say anything about it! I’m waiting for the complete 9 episode blu ray edition before watching it.

IT’S BETA.

Also if anyone was watching BG wasn’t exactly dominating matches before all this happened. Anet did not know how many would return because of links and the april patch. There was also a lot of movement of players between those top servers prior to all this. But that’s BG for you, they come out of hibernation and turn the system up on it’s head, and become the one server that upsets the balance up top.

Beta linking starts and anet did the minimum needed to get it up and running, they folded servers over in order, it certainly was not going to work 100% perfect coming out the gates.

If you all decide to keep the system they will work on tweaking it. Or the majority vote fails and we go back to the miserable 24 server system we had before and wait for merges down the line.

As for tweaks. They need to unlink T8 from T1 and put T8 back to itself (because I doubt they would happy linked with even T4 at this point), then open up a limited time free to and from those servers then lock it, roamers go there to live, zergers move up into more populated servers for their fun.

They have the in game email with the link to the poll starting today. The poll went out a few days earlier than planned, but the time for it is extended.

I assume if you had already voted your account was flagged as such and you won’t be getting the message.

Sus.3610:

I had trouble deciding where to put my vote. I don’t hate the linking, but I don’t really love the way it was done. Shoot, I’d take a full out merge just to know where I’ll be in a week or a month.

Then vote No, they will come back to the population issue later on (after the scoring changes are done) with other methods which may include a full merge.

Linking is in beta, they did the most logical order to start the links, which was T8/T1, T7/T2, etc. They’re asking if you want linking to be the method for population boost or, if it’s been voted to stay they will look at improving it. If you don’t like it and want them to try alternative methods later on, then vote no. It’s that simple.

What kind of numbers are you expecting? Wvw has been on the decline since day one, that’s nothing new.

They want to go with changes that the majority of players want, obviously not everyone is going to be happy with every decision. But if 75% say they want population linking I’m not going to sit here and say screw the 75% and take it off because I don’t like it.

Kitten off the 75% or the 25%? It ain’t going to be easy for them to try and make wvw better. They have to make some decisions for the betterment of the game, not just a small sub section of players who like roaming around these huge maps with 5 people. Not that, that gameplay is gone either, you might not find it in T1 much, but it’s still around in T4.

Seriously they just need to unlock the T8 servers and offer free transfers for those players that like running around and not seeing anyone else for 5 mins, then offer free tranfers for players off there that want to link up, to the T4 servers. They want their own backyard instead of being in the playground then give it to them and leave them there cause they ain’t gonna be happy with any type of merge into larger numbers… which wvw was made for.

Stealth is broken in this game, no matter what classes can do it, always has been always will be. Thieves were built around that mechanic, so they won’t rework it at this point.

And stealth pools in smc.. yeah not the most brilliant idea.

Silberfederling.9302:

And then there are people that play the game, are aware of the forum Drama and avoid it the game.
Well should this poll, given to a crowd of forum warriors, actually force the will of the minority on the majority i can guarantee you that the loser tiers will once again loose population.
Giving out advertisements and giving out essential information about a poll that decides whether or not you continue to play the game are worlds apart. By all means defend selected information. The results will speak for themselves.

I really don’t care which way this poll goes, or however they want to collect the information, and I’m already on here giving my feedback to the developers, as the forums will always be the main form of interaction with them.

If you want support then go get it in game, like I said all it takes is one sentence in game, or sit there blame the developers for everything, your choice.

P.S Tyler also mentioned in the reddit thread that the poll came out too early.

Hey guys, sorry about the lack of messaging. As many of you have already guessed, the poll did indeed go live a few days earlier than we had planned. There’s a surprising amount of people involved in making polls and poll-related messaging happen. In any case, we’ll make sure that messaging goes out early next week, and leave the poll open longer than usual, to give players plenty of time to vote on this important topic.

Jerry CCH.9816:

Auric Basin map farm is awsome.

That’s really all that’s needed to explain this post…

Wvw tracks are currently being polished to be be brought out of beta. I’m sure it will get more work on more specific wvw themed tracks when they have time, right now development time is allocated to scoring changes.

Silberfederling.9302:

The facto that 18% right now can force their will in 73% of the voting population does not another any one? Really?
If it is something as significant as this, i really think that should pop up ingame when entering the wvw. Hell we have bloody pvp twitch advertisements ingame. Why such a hush hush vote? Yesterday 9pm i lead an DE zerg with 60 guys in TS and no one knew? Do you know hove bummed my guys were? I think something like this, which finally brought back life into Servers and that, at least for my guys was offen a reason to return should not be such an unkown event.
In a similar matter:
How about linking the patchnotes in the launcher while it updates instead of a semi furry behind….
I am really stunned that the polls are still often unkown in wvw.

Whether you realize this or not, putting in a poll up as soon as you enter wvw would be an annoyance to some people, we even have people complaining about seeing the spvp twitch links in the loading screen for kitten sakes, a loading screen… where they do nothing but wait anyways.

I’ve been saying this… if you want people to vote then tell them in game, tell your guild, tell your server mates, all it takes is one sentence in map chat to spread the word.

The players who want to be heard, want to be involved, want to be kept informed of things, already come to the forums, whether it’s good or bad. Now if you want those beyond that involved, like the pve’ers making a trip in wvw for achievements, or the casuals that clock in an hour a day, or hop in for dailies, you can inform them.

The poll was even linked in the “other wvw forums” within minutes it came out here, it’s been linked on reddit, the other “official” forums, with a few responses from Tyler there as well. https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4kcqok/world_linking_new_wvw_poll/

Tyler and team have been doing a great job and communications with us, even on the weekend he’s posting. If players want to be heard and be more involved they should visit the forums more often now, that is where the communication between developer and player happens.

We have had like half dozen polls already, if players are not talking about them with friends and guild/server mates then people are not interested in getting involved with the changes.

All it takes is one sentence in map chat to inform people.

Depends on what you’re running in and in what type of setting.

Obviously zergs have a much easier time clearing conditions, while roamers will take the chances not to run much condition clears, and there isn’t even an equal balance to classes that can condition clear, smart players will also rely on weapon swaps to help with clearing though.

So duration might be useful for roaming fights, less effective as you engage bigger groups. Condition bombing is more effective in wvw than pve, so you don’t necessarily need that much duration stacking either because of that. Getting as much condition damage as possible is generally better.

For boons, there’s a lot of boons that can be handed out with guardians and elementalist, but really only a few classes to strip or corrupt them them, mainly from necromancers. So boon duration is still decent to have I think.

Also be aware that more defensive stats are needed for wvw, while in pve not so much, duration stats is one of those that’s sacrificed for it.

Way I see it is, if you like the idea of server links then vote yes, if you have other avenues you think they should explore then vote no.

This is a simple yes or no of whether or not you want them to explore this avenue for population grouping.

If you vote no it’s not like it’s a closed and done issue in regards to population balance. It’s always going to be issue, they know this, perhaps they will come up with other avenues to explore other than hard merges.

Read Tyler’s post again.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

What happens if World Linking is voted out?

• We’d unlink worlds at the next reset, and we’d either do another partial Glicko reset, or restore pre-link values. Consider this an immediate return to the old system, with similiar to original populations on each world, excepting of course the players/guilds who have transfered to new worlds while World Linking was active.

• The next time we poll players asking which feature we should prioritize, we’d include population balance improvements as an option. This prioritization poll likely wouldn’t happen until we complete at least a significant part of the Scoring changes that have already been voted on. (Time-slice scoring/Skirmishes)

• If population improvements won that poll, then we’d poll again to ask what type of population balance feature you want to see worked on, including the amount of time each of those features would take. World Merging might be pretty quick to implement (though less reversible if the community later decided they didn’t want it), but most other solutions are likely to take a very long time, and it may be that when completed, the new population still won’t be able to get 75% of the community to approve it.

The only other hitch now is they are already working on the scoring changes(which is expected to take a while), so any other population balance avenues won’t be worked on until that is done.

Roadbull.3457:

I mean…I don’t mean to harp here, but OF COURSE the majority of people are in favor of the linking. The majority of the game’s players are on the host servers who aren’t going to experience any of the community destroying / playstyle wrecking pain that comes with it.

The people stuck on the GUEST servers are eternally doomed to be switched and swapped at ANet’s whim with zero right or influence over when or how this happens even if they had chosen as a player to relocate at a COST prior.

The vote is currently sitting at:
Yes – 74.6%
No – 18.2%
Checking vote – 7.2%

It needs 75% to pass.

If you’re sitting on a lower population server and unhappy about this make sure you and others on your server who feel this way votes. The vote is so close that every vote matters.

If it does not go through then read Tyler’s post above, everything will go back to normal.

Diku man, no offense, but I find your post hard to read with the over use of line breaks and bolding and capitalization. You gotta clean up the format to present your ideas, use the bullet list or something.

Think the issue here is people think the links should fix population coverage problems, and they won’t. Simple reason is most NA server have a decent NA population, for ocx and sea it’s all over the place. They’ll have to play a game of tetris to try and match the servers perfectly with their their coverage numbers.

Even if they do manage a miracle to do that, players would still be able to screw up the system by moving wherever they want. Players screwed up the game from day one coming out of beta when they decided to stack certain servers for reasons, HoD Titan alliance, SoS unofficial ocx/sea, etc. Sure free transfers didn’t help either, but it was still up to the players and their guilds to help balance this out and they didn’t, they didn’t care for balance, they only cared to stack servers for the win.

The only way for them to put a stop to that would be to completely close transfers, and I’m sure players would complain about that as well.

World linking is the FIRST step into trying to fix population problems in general. Do you want them to continue down this path and make improvements to the system? Or do you want them to abandon it?

P.S Tyler you guys should probably open up transfers to NSP/HoD/DH again, that tier is now stuck with themselves, and I doubt anyone wants to move down to their linked servers, there’s already player movement going up in tiers once again.

Probably because there’s already a feedback thread on it since linking went live?