Guild Wars 2

DeceiverX.8361:

Liston.9708:

Dinas Dragonbane.2978:

I’d love to know how many people will end up transferring from servers like Kaineng, Anvil Rock, and Eredon Terrace to their partnered servers Yak’s Bend, Blackgate, and Tarnished Coast.
I shouldn’t really be surprised if it’s an astronomical figure.

2 of the 3 (BG/TC) are full. I hear BG may open up when GW3 goes beta……

Indeed. The only reasonable move would be AR to YB, since nobody’s allowed into BG or TC.

Definitely nobody is moving to BG any time soon, though. Even on TC we were outnumbered-buffed for hours last night during NA prime. I really miss T2.

Well TC voted for this, you reap what you sow.

Johje Holan.4607:

This is probably the best post that illustrates why the coverage problem is the players fault and not Anet.

If you make a game based on players making good unselfish decisions then you will fail. You have to develop game mechanics based on the fact that players will largely make selfish decisions that will get them wins or rewards in the easiest manner possible.

Earix.5684:

According to the poll results, server linking would be reevaluated every month.

What about the people who migrated to our linked server so that they could join our guild because our current server is “full”? Are they supposed to pay for a migration every month?

Yes, its 150 gold which isn’t much. The system isn’t meant for players to hop from world to world following the host world.

Sarrs.4831:

Jim Hunter.6821:

But if it does switch to monthly anet has to give back the smaller servers tags. They can’t keep treating this like a merger.

i got the impression that they wanted to do this anyway, they just can’t put it as a high priority because they’ve got other stuff to do

They should make time, IMO maintaining server identity is clearly what a lot of players want.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

This poll does not require a 75% supermajority vote. If a poll requires 75% approval, the poll question will explicitly state that.

Glad to see you say that. Monthly is clearly the best option overall.

Shazmataz.1423:

MaximillianVonSchatten.6278:

Let’s see,

YB lost a bunch of commanders and is imploding.
DB is a bunch of fairweathers who will quit when they start getting throttled in T1
FA is T3

I guess that leaves JQ as the sensible choice for NA guilds looking to supplement a powerful SEA server and take on the BG / TC monsters.

Or you can always transfer to my server IOJ!

DB a bunch of fairweathers?? I think that you have read too much JQ propaganda. The guilds that moved to DB recently didn’t move to fairweather it but for other reasons.

Yes to battle the kittenters alliance and how long has it been since DB has been in a tier with TC……………

Given all servers except TC and BG have opened why is this thread still a thing?

Very interesting, an indicator that the population has continued to decline or anet manually making a change?

TorquedSoul.8097:

Are you sure it was the maps? Because since the reintroduction of the Alpine maps activity has dropped about 20% and there is still a downward trend. Maybe more people “came back to the game” but if they did, they are doing less … either that or other players have left the game.

Interesting, have you done one of your activity posts recently? Would be interesting to see an analysis from before and after.

Curunen.8729:

To grind for the backpiece.

This.

Aeolus.3615:

80’ish per side

Doubt its that much, it used to be but they reduced the cap to counter lag. They did increase it again but I doubt it was to the original limit, its probably around 70.

Pyriall.5027:

In any situation where there is a winner and a loser this is going to happen.

If matchmaking was fair and balanced players would be matched into matches against those of a similar level where they have an even chance of winning. Clearly if such long losing sequences are happening this is not the case with the system. I would say given the population issues that the best system is the S1 system.

Rococo.8347:

I just double checked on my memory of Super majority in countries around the World.

Not ONE country that uses super majority requires a figure as a high as 75% – so the Democratic standards used by Countries to decide how billions of people live they lives apparently arnt good enough for Anet….

Out of interest what is a common super majority?

Heimlich.3065:

JDjitsu.7895:

Talk about boring matchups. YAWN. I’m definitely glad I bought Overwatch and have 2 other GW2 accts. PvP and WvW are dead in GW2. Most of the pros and streamers are off to Overwatch. It’s too bad really, because GW2 combat had sooooo much potential.

Is Overwatch good? The UI looks like a christmas tree/disaster to me for a shooter, but it’s that or Stellaris for me.

Overwatch is fantastic, very addictive, I play it instead of spvp now.

The UI seems OK to me, it does need more social features though.

Xillllix.3485:

Anet’s going around reinventing the rules of democracy.

There is no way you’ve worked over a year on a WvW overhaul when every significant change still seems too complicated to implement.

I think most of that work must have been scrapped, cause clearly future developments are what they are working on now.

Cerby.1069:

That was the “majority” vote that took place. I mean can anyone spot any problems with calling this a legitimate community polling….? There were tons of threads like that one posted daily during those chaotic months. Anet just happened to pick one they liked, that wasn’t even aimed at the issue specifically, and used it as a poll to determine whether the majority of players want desert replaced with alpine.

I’ve got severe issues with the current poll driven direction at such a granular level but to be fair that was before they implemented the current formal polls and they brought ABL back for a rotation so the DBL wasn’t going to be scrapped. And they are now having a poll on the DBL which will resolve the issue once and for all.

Sird.4536:

Are you freaking kidding me? The majority lost because they were a few short percentage away from the required threshold. So now we are getting a quarter year of DBL or a new vote to scrap DBL all together instead of what the majority voted for?

Read further dev messages.

Puck.9612:

DemonNinja.1602:

@Tyler, I have to admit the action the team is taking based on this polls is not only disappointing but unprofessional. As a game industry veteran myself the weight you are putting on these polls and thier results are disturbing and tells me 1 of 2 things:

1. You’re not empowered to do your job and make effective decisions
2. ANet is now afraid of failure.

Both of these are disturbing to say the least. At the end of the day consumer and player feedback is important but should not be lone driver in critical decisions such as map rotation that are being presented here.

We all understand that WvWvW has been the greatest failure in the game to date over the course of the history of GW2. That being said, I sincerely hope you reconsider the use of these polls, the validity… which there is none… anyone with any level of education understand this… there is ZERO statistical validity in these polls, learn about validity constructs here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_

Grow up, put your big kid designer pants on, and do you what you know is right for the game mode and the community. Period.

That’s how we ended up with the dbl/HoT disaster. WvW is a sandbox and requires a light touch. Trying to shape it to fit their vision by shoehorning in a bunch of gimmicks is not what is right for the game mode and the community.

The DBL disaster happened due to them misinterpreting feedback then not listening to player feedback at all during the beta. There’s a difference between having the entire direction of the mode dictated solely by player polls and listening to feedback and analysing it properly. I agree with Demonninja that this poll direction at such a granular level is an overreaction and almost an abdication of responsibility.

lil devils x.6071:

^scrolls back* This thread is full o people who do not want DBL back… Wonders how I am alone in thinking they do not want DBL back* lol

69.7% of those who voted wanted a combination of ABL and DBL and that was in a poorly constructed poll that worked against that result. A clear majority.

X T D.6458:

morrolan.9608:

X T D.6458:

This poll was messed up from the start in all honesty. The wording of it, the announcement that there would be another poll about removing dbl in the future instead of before this poll.

Sorry everyone who likes dbl and those that worked on it, now I am forced to vote to remove it entirely. I could have lived with a 2alpine/1dbl implentation, but 3 months of all borderlands being dbl, nope not again.

IKR and we will never get a new map because anet will not want to risk going through this again. GG anet for the poorly constructed poll and gg players for consigning WvW to becoming stale very quickly.

Tyler and Anet I would recommend you revisit this poll after the poll on the DBL and specifically state that you will be doing so in the DBL poll because this poll was so poorly done that the results are questionable.

Your gonna find out eventually but thought I would add, they are going to remake and redo this poll. And have the dbl poll next.

Yes I saw that after I posted, that is a wise course of action.

Chaba.5410:

Kraljevo.2801:

75% threshold??? LOL

Almost 70% voted for Yes 2. How is that not enough?

A three-fourths supermajority vote is an extremely rare requirement in most modern democracies.

I get that Anet is trying to ensure that vote results reflect a majority opinion by setting a high threshold, yet supermajority voting is commonly criticized as empowering the minority opinion which is why 2/3rds and 3/5ths thresholds are far more common.

Another metric that should be looked at is % of voting participation. Was it higher than 50%?

I agree 2/3 would be better.

X T D.6458:

This poll was messed up from the start in all honesty. The wording of it, the announcement that there would be another poll about removing dbl in the future instead of before this poll.

Sorry everyone who likes dbl and those that worked on it, now I am forced to vote to remove it entirely. I could have lived with a 2alpine/1dbl implentation, but 3 months of all borderlands being dbl, nope not again.

IKR and we will never get a new map because anet will not want to risk going through this again. GG anet for the poorly constructed poll and gg players for consigning WvW to becoming stale very quickly.

Tyler and Anet I would recommend you revisit this poll after the poll on the DBL and specifically state that you will be doing so in the DBL poll because this poll was so poorly done that the results are questionable.

lil devils x.6071:

ALSO: You might want to let some of your OCX know how much JQ scouts dislike DBL, some seem to think scouts like to hide there… XD

I don’t think thats really necessary, As I told you what I stated was based on direct statements made in TS by those who scout in the ocx timezone regularly.

Nate.3927:

SkyFallsInThunder.8257:

Anyone remember the stronghold announcement when they kept calling it GvG? I guess that ideea got scrapped because they stopped calling it that…

Stronghold is basically GvG though.

In what way?

Puck.9612:

I would not like a match with 3 distinct bl’s.
I’m hoping that since WvW is finally getting the attention it deserves we might eventually hit a point where it can be competitive. This will never happen with 3 unbalanced maps.

What I’d really like to see is for them to work with the community to create new maps and then rotate them on a weekly/biweekly basis.

They have said that is too much work, and from the beginning of the game players players have asked for 3 distinct BLs. Having home BL be a copy across all 3 servers has always seemed an issue of not having enough resources.

lil devils x.6071:

This is how it actually works now:
You have a Group of 25 that is hopping to all maps to defend all objectives. You hop to ABLs to defend/ attack keeps all 25 go and you can do so. You hop to EBG to defend and attack keeps all 25 go and you can do so.

This is how it works with mixed BL:
You have a Group of 25 that is hopping to all maps to defend all objectives. You hop to ABLs to defend/ attack keeps all 25 go. You hop to EBG to defend and attack keeps all 25 go. You hop to DBL only 7 will go. You cannot attack or defend keeps with 7. That means WvW is now a broken game mode for those who do this and many consider that unplayable.

As I’ve said before you lose players hopping from EB to even the ABL not just DBL.

Yes as I’ve said in another thread I actually wonder what happens if the rotation option doesn’t get 75%? If it is the default then it should be stated as such.

Teon.5168:

morrolan.9608:

Loosmaster.8263:

Option 5 was left out, No DBL at all. How much would the numbers change if it was there?

Edit: Option 4 could have counted to that result, lol.

Would have thought they would have given the last option then no vote show the result. If neither option reaches 75% then clearly the ABL will remain and there won’t even be a rotation.

How do you figure that? Anet already said there would be a rotation. The poll is just giving us some options for that rotation.

Rotation is an option, if it doesn’t reach 75% then what? IMO if they rotate the DBL in for 3 months the mode is dead.

Swagger.1459:

A very much anticipated pvp game will come out and make a dent into wvw here, so Anet needs to be aware of that. So do players. There will be guilds and players from here bailing out of wvw in its current form because it doesn’t have any staying and holding power… So instead of just LS, LS, PvE tailored xpac, LS, LS, PvE tailored xpac, LS, LS, LS… How about the devs invest a bit more into WvW, take a harder look at professions and really dig into the engine stuff a bit more at some point?

I mean are any of these unreasonable? Don’t you all want pvp related stuff improved? Or should we just not care that in a year or so pvp might be a ghost ship?

You’re 100% right. And its not really just the 1 game, “there is another”.

I foresee the majority of the WvW guilds still playing this game will leave for these other games leaving purely a militia/pug base left in the mode. Whilst the recent WvW focus is good I still think the actual changes show that anet is not prepared to make hard decisions on the mode for the long term.

Loosmaster.8263:

Option 5 was left out, No DBL at all. How much would the numbers change if it was there?

Edit: Option 4 could have counted to that result, lol.

Would have thought they would have voted the last option no vote show the result. If neither major option reaches 75% then clearly the ABL will remain and there won’t even be a rotation.

lil devils x.6071:

You do realize that the majority of the scouts on JQ were on this very forum already ranting about The DBLS? Scroll back month ago.. Oh wait there are JQ scouts on the very first page in this thread as well. I don;t think you are talking about many JQ scouts.. lol

ASK JQ’s most valuable scout..Dewolfe, he was here..

Every single time we map hopped on JQ to defend DBLs’ we lost half the zerg refusing to hop.

Just to address this point rather than continuing to derail this thread, the clear majority of scouts in JQ OCX time prefer scouting on the DBL given that it is far easier to hide. This has been a clear verbal point made on JQ TS. And I don’t see any JQ scouts posting on the first page, I do see an ex JQer though.

As for losing part of the zerg that happens when map hopping now even with Alpine especially hopping off EB.

And anyway if you don’t want DBL at all just vote the 4th option and try to ensure none of the other 3 reaches 75%, that way clearly the ABL will remain and they won’t even rotate DBL in. But in all likelihood that will mean there will not be any development of a new map at all until at least past the next xpac which means that we would be years away from getting another map by which time they would be probably developing GW3 anyway and WvW will be a ghost town with other competitors out by then.

lil devils x.6071:

1)Will the same amount of players who would defend the keeps on the ABL hop to DBL to defend the keeps? ( No they hate the DBL)

2)Will the same amount of players who build and refresh siege on the ABL hop to the DBL to do the same? ( No they hate the DBL)

3) Will the same amount of players who scout the ABL also scout the DBL? ( No they hate the DBL)
[…]
They do not play the game mode to stay on a map, they play the game mode to actually hop to all the maps to defend the objectives, and when no one shows up or sieges or defends due to most players hating the map.. the game mode is broken/ unplayable.

1. I would bet most would hop to there so long as its only a defence. After the changes to the DBL plenty of people were willing to defenda servers objectives on the map.

2. Those who build and refresh siege are teh deidcated players so I would say yes.

3. Scouts on JQ actually like the DBL better because there are more places to hide.

On your last point I think you are overstating it especially if its 1 DBL and 2 ABL.The map is poorly designed in a strategic sense but was playable once they made the changes to it.

lil devils x.6071:

This is not an argument of different vs the same. It is an argument of : design a GOOD map from the ground up for Nonstop PVP action vs take a crummy broken map and try to make it playable.

Voting out the DBL is voting out bad map and have them make better instead. Players deserve better instead of settling for this.

Tyler has explicitly stated that a vote for simultaneous means it is more likely that they will build another map ie. a vote for rotation means they won’t look at building a new map, at least in the short term. In a pragmatic sense it is the best solution considering the resources required to build a new map.

lil devils x.6071:

Mixed Borderlands = Players that came back for Alpine leave game all together.
Rotate Borderlands = Players only Play when Alpine is in use.
Mixed Borderlands= Broken game ALL the time
Rotate Borderlands= Working game part of the time.

Why would players leave if its mixed? They can only play on the Alpine map(s) if they want in this case which seems like a good result to me.

mcarswell.3768:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4lx2gx/may_31_new_wvw_poll/d3qwc2f

[–]Anet-TylerB 32 points an hour ago
If simultaneous borderlands wins, we’d be more likely to work on another borderlands map. So that each team could have a unique borderland, but it’s not something we are currently working on.

Given this statement I have changed my vote to simultaneous. 3 different BL maps is the dream. Everyone should bear this in mind when voting and you can change your vote later.

SkyShroud.2865:

I doubt BP or ET have gained much.

ET has.

So for comparison Overwatch hasn’t even been out a week and the first major tournament has 36,000 viewers currently.

ETA it ended up over 45,000 viewers.

Baratta.1083:

The match up system is still so broken. I personally am getting sick of fighting the same 2 servers week after week. All the merging has done was kill the possibility of getting a fresh match every few weeks.
It now looks like it will take months to get a new match up. I really hope this is corrected sooner rather than later. It is making it hard to log in and repeat the same type of week that keeps on reoccurring like ground hog day.

I am not sure of a good fix suggestion but I for one hate the way it is currently.

Like some of us have been saying world linking is a band aid, the same problems as before will recur. Its happening now.

DiscoJacen.1590:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Our primary motivation for avoiding running another tournament, is that at the end of every tournament we saw a permanent dip in the number of players playing WvW. Presumably this was due to players burning themselves out during the tournament.

However, we can still run a poll to see if the majority of the community wants another 4 week tournament, even if it might be bad for the long term WvW population numbers. Though even if ‘running another tournament’ won the poll, we’d probably hold off until we get the scoring updates in.

If u’d allow me a sarcastic comment I think it’s more the “we Stopped making tournaments and started ignoring the mode” that was the real reason u saw a dip in population.

No, population dipped directly after tournaments, I saw it myself on T1 servers every tournament.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Hey guys, below is a list of upcoming polls you are likely to see, in roughly the order you are likely to see them.

• Mixed Borderlands – Do you want a mix of Alpine/Desert Borderlands maps?
• World Linking Schedule – How often should we relink worlds?
• Deployable Mortars – Do you want to be able to buy and deploy Mortars?
• Deployable Cannons – Do you want to be able to buy and deploy Cannons?
• Repair Hammer – Do you want to be able to spend supply to repair siege?

Mixed Borderlands a big YES
Linking Schedule – Monthly

Deployable siege – NO!!!!!!!!!!! and NO AGAIN!!!!!!!
Siege is too prevalent in open field anyway.

Repair Hammer YES!!!!!

Ultra Hades.4691:

@ JQ guilds burning out, share those ocx guilds with TC

No burn out, just highlighting a severe problem with the current server system even with linking.

Saern.5619:

If the current goal for WvW is achieving population balance, have you considered compressing it into one tier of three worlds? Hear me out for a moment.

The issue of nightcapping and server-stacking becomes much less of an issue when each population is of a certain size. If this critical mass of players is reached, no one is at a disadvantage because each world has so many players that off-hours would not necessarily exist.

This, of course, creates a relatively extreme issue with queue times.
But, if it were possible to have both the Alpine and Desert borderlands running in tandem (meaning players choose from 7 maps: 3 from Alpine, 3 from Desert, and EB) the queue issues would be less intense, though that may still not be enough, in which case duplicating EB and adding Edge Of The Mists (or an additional map similar to EB) might make enough space for everyone.

Some sort of server alliance system along these lines has been proposed before. Its extreme but they could have different tiers as being for different style of players. As others have mentioned maybe there is 1 tier where ocx players can congregate, 1 for sea and for eu on NA servers. Maybe have 1 tier for those who want smaller group gameplay and restrict map populations on that tier.

lil devils x.6071:

Being one of those guilds who cannot get all our members on server currently, AND being one that has transferred from T1/JQ. I think the point is missing here as to WHY transfer and what they are hoping to achieve.

Guilds do not want to be the only guild on a server, the biggest issue I think is a server being able to provide better coverage and support so your guild is not having to do everything for the server. Guilds want MORE, help not less.

Yes as a member of an ocx guild that is now the main ocx guild on JQ this is a huge problem with the way the system is set up. If you have any sort of server pride you feel like you are letting the server down if you are not out there 6-7 days a week. This is a ludicrous situation, simply ludicrous.

Balthazzarr.1349:

Also, to the HoT comments… People stopped going into WvW for a while after HoT came in because they realized that they had to farm the HoT areas and all over Tyria for the mats needed for their guild hall upgrades, which includes all the WvW claiming buffs. ANet unintentionally pulled many many people out of WvW due to this. Two of the guilds I belong to pretty much stopped WvW altogether for about 3 weeks while we busted our butts trying to get our halls upgraded to the point where it would be useful in WvW.

Yes it was kind of a perfect storm that they should have foreseen. But then clearly the different parts of the company don’t communicate well with each other and those overseeing the whole thing didn’t do their job.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Fairly regularly, I see posts that say something to the effect of:

“The world that most of our guild is on is Full, so we’ve been having our new/returning guild members transfer to the Guest world, but what will happen if the Guest world gets relinked? Will we have to pay to transfer all those members again?”

This solution would give guilds like that an opportunity to freely reform on a world with plenty of space for their entire guild.

Now of course it’s still entirely possible that guilds won’t actually be willing to transfer off their current worlds, even for the opportunity to get all of their members onto the same world. However, that’s exactly why I made this post, just to confirm either case.

I would think if guilds are willing to transfer off their current world they would do so to one of the current low ranked servers. Making new servers isn’t going to change this.

XTR.9604:

Not to shoot it down or anything, but we already have a lot of low population servers that no one wants to transfer to.

What prompts this idea when we have T7 and T8 servers that are nearly dead on their own in NA that was part of what prompted the linking?

This. What would be the reason to transfer to new worlds over existing low pop worlds in say T4 NA?

Nate.3927:

Humphrey Bear.2698:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Chris and I just made several informative posts about World Linking on Reddit. I’m reposting them here.

On Population Caps

Some information behind the current server population cap behavior:
Many may already know this bit, but for anyone else who doesn’t: world population is determined by activity level in WvW (Edge of the Mists and Obsidian Sanctum don’t count). If World A has many-times the number of players on it as World B, but World A does’t play WvW at all and World B plays tons of WvW, A will have the lowest population, and B will have a very high one.

This is the main problem since day 1 . Servers can manipulate their full server status by avoiding WvW for a few weeks so they can recruit more guilds and when they do recruit the server comes out to play again which creates a bigger lopsided score .
Full servers should only change to high status if people transfer off .

that doesn’t work, what if half your WvW population genuinely quit the gamemode but stays on the server and are still doing PvE and PvP? You have no numbers yet you still counted as full.

PvE and PvP are irrelevant only WvW activity counts, despite what Tyler said they were trying to achieve the top tier servers all gamed the system because they were prepared to not play WvW for the month required and the population went down sufficiently to open the servers.

Tyler said they wanted it at more than 2 weeks because it would be gamed but they obviously settled on a period of about 4 weeks and it was gamed successfuly.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

On The Elaborate Solution

Well as an elaborate solution, it would take quite a few words to effectively detail it, but the short version would be: We blow up, and then completely reform worlds quarterly, with a lot of additional rules governing the formation of worlds (dynamic number of worlds, keeping guild members together, not mixing languages, attempting to balance coverage, etc.)

Just to reiterate my reply on reddit and emphasise this comment. I really really think something like this is what you should be aiming to do. Linking is a band aid solution IMO. Obviously details would have to be worked out but this would give the mode something of the flexibility it needs.

Lord Kuru.3685:

What happened, exactly?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4k2lw2/blatant_shameless_hacking_in_spvp/

Xenesis.6389:

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.

Would have thought the beta was to test the technical aspects and player behaviour. On both counts they have enough data to make conclusions now rather than wait another 2 months. They will lose players again, its already happening now. As for it being in its initial stages they are now working on scoring when will they get back to developing the linking tech further when they now consider its working? 6 months, 12 months?

Fatherbliss.4701:

Traditionally TC is pretty cool overall. But we of course still have some folks that have always done exactly what you described above.

Its undoubtedly the kittenter alliance players. Sounds like Dods from TW.