My Issue with FAQ: Why is there World Linking instead of some other solution?

I want to first thanks @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" for coming out and breaking the silence by answering a lot of long standing questions we had. But there are some factors in world linking I just cannot agree on.

Don't get me wrong. I support world linking, and would prefer linking over tiers of dead servers or any other more extreme, bipolar and controversial solutions. What I have huge issue with is the bimonthly relinks.

1. It takes away server culture, identity and general unity as a server community.Server cultures can often clash (example mag & their links). There is no sense of unity, no common goal or position where they would like to see their server be at. Linked server may often find itself to have multiple server voip. Multiple guilds have also stopped using the community voip due to the hassle of changing their voip every two months.There were times in the past where servers each had their own specific ways of coordinating in WvW (e.g. look at how some servers used different tag color to specify their roles in WvW), this is almost impossible to see in the current system. Map assignments on reset are also rarely possible, not only because of no unity in the linked servers, but players just generally care less about their server.
2. Instability every two monthsWhy should anyone care about the position of their server when how they perform in WvW relative to other servers can often be dictated by the links they receive every two months. It is also demoralizing for players who have acclimatized to t1 and t2 in the current link, but finds themselves helplessly in t3, t4 or t5 the next relink. Not to mention how do servers compete with servers with a long standing community that are generally united in their style of play.
3. Breaking up forged relationshipsThere are multiple instances where new players clueless to the linking system find themselves separated from their guild mates or play mates on an relink, where the only solution to reunite with them is to spend $$$$$ in gems to transfer to their server (given that it is open in the first place). This issue is not only exclusive to new players.

Please stop looking at population balance purely with numeric figures. If you want to monitor changes, tweaks and balance "easily", please look at the feasibility of permanent or long term links. Have patience and let population self regulate, and make changes in linking only when it is absolutely necessary. Discourage bandwagoning and encourage population participation not by forcing players to play together or split apart, not by trying to dictate their numbers, but by implementing features that will make players care for their server community and encourage them to invest their time for their server community.

It is the weekend and there is probably no one in the office reading this. But I sincerely hope the WvW team reconsiders bi-monthly relinks that has been detrimental to community unity and morale.

@ThunderPanda.1872 said:I want to first thanks @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" for coming out and breaking the silence by answering a lot of long standing questions we have. But there are some factors in world linking I just cannot agree on.

Don't get me wrong. I support world linking, and would prefer linking over tiers of dead servers or any other more extreme, bipolar and controversial solutions. What I have huge issue with is the bimonthly relinks.

1. It takes away server culture, identity and general unity as a server community.Server cultures can often clash (example mag & their links). There is no sense of unity, no common goal or position where they would like to see their server be at. Linked server may often find itself to have multiple server voip. Multiple guilds have also stopped using the community voip due to the hassle of changing their voip every two months.There were times in the past where servers each had their own specific ways of coordinating in WvW (e.g. look at how some servers used different tag color to specify their roles in WvW), this is almost impossible to see in the current system. Map assignments on reset are also rarely possible, not only because of no unity in the linked servers, but players just generally care less about their server.
2. Instability every two monthsWhy should anyone care about the position of their server when how they perform in WvW relative to other servers can often be dictated by the links they receive every two months. It is also demoralizing for players who have acclimatized to t1 and t2 in the current link, but finds themselves helplessly in t3, t4 or t5 the next relink. Not to mention how do servers compete with servers with a long standing community that are generally united in their style of play.
3. Breaking up forged relationshipsThere are multiple instances where new players clueless to the linking system find themselves separated from their guild mates or play mates on an relink, where the only solution to reunite with them is to spend $$$$$ in gems to transfer to their server (given that it is open in the first place). This issue is not only exclusive to new players.

Please stop looking at population balance purely with numeric figures. If you want to monitor changes, tweaks and balance "easily", please look at the feasibility of permanent or long term links. Have patience and let population self regulate, and make changes in linking only when it is absolutely necessary. Discourage bandwagoning and encourage population participation not by forcing players to play together or split apart, not by trying to dictate their numbers, but by implementing features that will make players care for their server community and encourage them to invest their time for their server community.

It is the weekend and there is probably no one in the office reading this. But I sincerely hope the WvW team reconsiders bi-monthly relinks that has been detrimental to community unity and morale.

The bit about "World linking is also “easier” to change and adjust unlike other systems that have been discussed. The world linking concept utilized a lot of existing tech and required considerably less time to construct, which allowed us to address the growing population issue more quickly while also supporting issues in WvW." comes from practicality than it appears to come from looking purely at numeric figures. I.e. real world problems needed real world solutions within budget.

The now. One idealistic way to look at is if you wanted stability then transferring your whole community to one of the floater servers would give ANET more control to step in when matchups become a mess while still retaining your whole community on that floater (yes, floaters are poops. Thank you for addressing this future commentators). The question is if those floaters becomes too massive would they lose their status, and turn into a "sinker" server? I couldn't resist at this point.

There would still be some issues with voip, but the current link this alt account is on has their own TS. I can't say the apathy about reset is specifically related to linked servers or the natural aging of games in general. Being a link would still have the issue of tier progression being even more meaningless (which is determined by coverage anyway). Assuming the whole community is on the linked server then the breakup isn't necessarily there until you form cross server relationships again, and depart. Again. At the very least it will be "fresh" every 2 months, no?

P.S. I tried. I really did. D:

As someone from a link who very much prizes my server's association with my favorite content from GW1, I think being a link is absolutely the worst fate possible for me as a player and would rather give up my server (though I'm not so invested in WvW as to pay gems for the privilege). It's pretty clear to me that what Anet really wants out of any solution is the avoidance of the m-word and the press fallout from announcing that GW2 has merged servers. It gives the impression (however correct) that the game is in decline which people will take to mean "dying" (however incorrect).

But for those of us on links, we have neither our own server identity (no borderlands) nor a permanent association with another's. We just get passed around to pad out the numbers wherever it's convenient, for Anet to make WvW look more balanced than it is. This seems to be based on the idea that as long as they keep fiddling with the minor things there will be some kind of change, or at least enough distraction, to keep people from focusing on the elephant in the room, which is that this is a one-server meta. That will not change until Anet is willing to make truly disruptive changes to WvW.

@"Leablo.2651" said:As someone from a link who very much prizes my server's association with my favorite content from GW1, I think being a link is absolutely the worst fate possible for me as a player and would rather give up my server (though I'm not so invested in WvW as to pay gems for the privilege). It's pretty clear to me that what Anet really wants out of any solution is the avoidance of the m-word and the press fallout from announcing that GW2 has merged servers. It gives the impression (however correct) that the game is in decline which people will take to mean "dying" (however incorrect).

But for those of us on links, we have neither our own server identity (no borderlands) nor a permanent association with another's. We just get passed around to pad out the numbers wherever it's convenient, for Anet to make WvW look more balanced than it is. This seems to be based on the idea that as long as they keep fiddling with the minor things there will be some kind of change, or at least enough distraction, to keep people from focusing on the elephant in the room, which is that this is a one-server meta. That will not change until Anet is willing to make truly disruptive changes to WvW.

I get this and I understand why some people cling to the servers like it was 2013.

The game has changed, the population has changed, you are an old dog clinging to a bone, the time has come for radical change.

Blow it all up, the whole system, introduce Battlegroups and watch the old system burn while the new one gains players who wouldn't step foot into existing servers.

I hate world linking and would prefer they just straight up merged servers rather than this band aid fix.

I am on a server that is low pop, I cannot do anything about it and because of this the server gets passed around more times than a blunt at a frat party. It is hard to build up a community spirit or get involved properly with WvW when things are constantly changing on a frequent basis.

In the same sense it must be a nightmare being a commander on servers that get linked together. Constantly getting paired up with people who may or may not know any better and them probably not wanting to teach anyone because within a couple of months they could find most of those new people are gone and onto pastures new. Because of this it is a roll of a dice wither the server I am on gets linked to one who is welcoming or one that hates you being there.

There is nothing I can do about it and as such I do not log into WvW anymore as its a waste of time. I play mmo's to have fun with like minded people and at some stage I know that the server I am on is moving at some point and more than likely those that I enjoyed playing the mode with will be gone along with it.

@Scarran.9845 said:I hate world linking and would prefer they just straight up merged servers rather than this band aid fix.

This is what I would prefer, but permanent linking I believe is more of a compromise than anything else

We had this argument in polls before the links where even implemented and the answer to all questions is that the end result is a compromise on the basis that Anet was adding links no matter what we said. Two months is less than what Anet wanted if I recall correctly - we needed some volatility, not breaking apart deeply rooted relationships.

I am not disappointed over the links as a concept. In theory its ok-ish. I am disappointed that afterwards Anet obviously tossed their hands up, called it done and did nothing more to address issue we had brought up. The most important one being as OP stated, server identity. I thought we would be able to identify who our new "allies" was. We cant. Links dont have identities. Its dead. Why cant we see them in WvW? Why cant we see that Sea of Sorrows pugs defended an ally keep claimed by Isle of Janthir just in time for a large guild group from SoS to arrive and take the enemy Blackgate zerg head on while a smaller IoJ group hit them in the back. Stuff like that would make the onlooker realize that yes, they are two different servers but they fight on one side as allies. This would have kept visible server identities within the "mercenary link for 2 months" concept.

Pretty sure the most frequently asked questions include:1) When will you fix the condi spam2) When will you release a new map3) When will you ever fix the lag4) We all know there isnt a WvW dev team, why wont you admit it5) Why are you always tripping over loot in PvE whilst in WvW you have to work hard and all you get is a spike, reward tracks still doesnt bring the balance even close to PvE level loot!6) Why do we have to pay gems for server transfers when PvE have it all and do not need to transfer anywhere due to a dead server.

@ThunderPanda.1872 said:I want to first thanks @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" for coming out and breaking the silence by answering a lot of long standing questions we had. But there are some factors in world linking I just cannot agree on.

Don't get me wrong. I support world linking, and would prefer linking over tiers of dead servers or any other more extreme, bipolar and controversial solutions. What I have huge issue with is the bimonthly relinks.

1. It takes away server culture, identity and general unity as a server community.Server cultures can often clash (example mag & their links). There is no sense of unity, no common goal or position where they would like to see their server be at. Linked server may often find itself to have multiple server voip. Multiple guilds have also stopped using the community voip due to the hassle of changing their voip every two months.There were times in the past where servers each had their own specific ways of coordinating in WvW (e.g. look at how some servers used different tag color to specify their roles in WvW), this is almost impossible to see in the current system. Map assignments on reset are also rarely possible, not only because of no unity in the linked servers, but players just generally care less about their server.
2. Instability every two monthsWhy should anyone care about the position of their server when how they perform in WvW relative to other servers can often be dictated by the links they receive every two months. It is also demoralizing for players who have acclimatized to t1 and t2 in the current link, but finds themselves helplessly in t3, t4 or t5 the next relink. Not to mention how do servers compete with servers with a long standing community that are generally united in their style of play.
3. Breaking up forged relationshipsThere are multiple instances where new players clueless to the linking system find themselves separated from their guild mates or play mates on an relink, where the only solution to reunite with them is to spend $$$$$ in gems to transfer to their server (given that it is open in the first place). This issue is not only exclusive to new players.

Please stop looking at population balance purely with numeric figures. If you want to monitor changes, tweaks and balance "easily", please look at the feasibility of permanent or long term links. Have patience and let population self regulate, and make changes in linking only when it is absolutely necessary. Discourage bandwagoning and encourage population participation not by forcing players to play together or split apart, not by trying to dictate their numbers, but by implementing features that will make players care for their server community and encourage them to invest their time for their server community.

It is the weekend and there is probably no one in the office reading this. But I sincerely hope the WvW team reconsiders bi-monthly relinks that has been detrimental to community unity and morale.

Server linking is fine and servers are better balanced. Why you losers keep complaining the linking system?

@cpchow.7416 said:

@ThunderPanda.1872 said:I want to first thanks @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" for coming out and breaking the silence by answering a lot of long standing questions we had. But there are some factors in world linking I just cannot agree on.

Don't get me wrong. I support world linking, and would prefer linking over tiers of dead servers or any other more extreme, bipolar and controversial solutions. What I have huge issue with is the bimonthly relinks.

1. It takes away server culture, identity and general unity as a server community.Server cultures can often clash (example mag & their links). There is no sense of unity, no common goal or position where they would like to see their server be at. Linked server may often find itself to have multiple server voip. Multiple guilds have also stopped using the community voip due to the hassle of changing their voip every two months.There were times in the past where servers each had their own specific ways of coordinating in WvW (e.g. look at how some servers used different tag color to specify their roles in WvW), this is almost impossible to see in the current system. Map assignments on reset are also rarely possible, not only because of no unity in the linked servers, but players just generally care less about their server.
2. Instability every two monthsWhy should anyone care about the position of their server when how they perform in WvW relative to other servers can often be dictated by the links they receive every two months. It is also demoralizing for players who have acclimatized to t1 and t2 in the current link, but finds themselves helplessly in t3, t4 or t5 the next relink. Not to mention how do servers compete with servers with a long standing community that are generally united in their style of play.
3. Breaking up forged relationshipsThere are multiple instances where new players clueless to the linking system find themselves separated from their guild mates or play mates on an relink, where the only solution to reunite with them is to spend $$$$$ in gems to transfer to their server (given that it is open in the first place). This issue is not only exclusive to new players.

Please stop looking at population balance purely with numeric figures. If you want to monitor changes, tweaks and balance "easily", please look at the feasibility of permanent or long term links. Have patience and let population self regulate, and make changes in linking only when it is absolutely necessary. Discourage bandwagoning and encourage population participation not by forcing players to play together or split apart, not by trying to dictate their numbers, but by implementing features that will make players care for their server community and encourage them to invest their time for their server community.

It is the weekend and there is probably no one in the office reading this. But I sincerely hope the WvW team reconsiders bi-monthly relinks that has been detrimental to community unity and morale.

Please work on your comprehension skills. I never said server linking is bad. It's the bi-monthly relinks I have issues with

@cpchow.7416 said:

@ThunderPanda.1872 said:I want to first thanks @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" for coming out and breaking the silence by answering a lot of long standing questions we had. But there are some factors in world linking I just cannot agree on.

Don't get me wrong. I support world linking, and would prefer linking over tiers of dead servers or any other more extreme, bipolar and controversial solutions. What I have huge issue with is the bimonthly relinks.

1. It takes away server culture, identity and general unity as a server community.Server cultures can often clash (example mag & their links). There is no sense of unity, no common goal or position where they would like to see their server be at. Linked server may often find itself to have multiple server voip. Multiple guilds have also stopped using the community voip due to the hassle of changing their voip every two months.There were times in the past where servers each had their own specific ways of coordinating in WvW (e.g. look at how some servers used different tag color to specify their roles in WvW), this is almost impossible to see in the current system. Map assignments on reset are also rarely possible, not only because of no unity in the linked servers, but players just generally care less about their server.
2. Instability every two monthsWhy should anyone care about the position of their server when how they perform in WvW relative to other servers can often be dictated by the links they receive every two months. It is also demoralizing for players who have acclimatized to t1 and t2 in the current link, but finds themselves helplessly in t3, t4 or t5 the next relink. Not to mention how do servers compete with servers with a long standing community that are generally united in their style of play.
3. Breaking up forged relationshipsThere are multiple instances where new players clueless to the linking system find themselves separated from their guild mates or play mates on an relink, where the only solution to reunite with them is to spend $$$$$ in gems to transfer to their server (given that it is open in the first place). This issue is not only exclusive to new players.

Please stop looking at population balance purely with numeric figures. If you want to monitor changes, tweaks and balance "easily", please look at the feasibility of permanent or long term links. Have patience and let population self regulate, and make changes in linking only when it is absolutely necessary. Discourage bandwagoning and encourage population participation not by forcing players to play together or split apart, not by trying to dictate their numbers, but by implementing features that will make players care for their server community and encourage them to invest their time for their server community.

It is the weekend and there is probably no one in the office reading this. But I sincerely hope the WvW team reconsiders bi-monthly relinks that has been detrimental to community unity and morale.

The mode is in the worst state its ever been in and part of that is due to the linking system and how poorly it was implemented and remains to this day.

@morrolan.9608 said:

@cpchow.7416 said:

@ThunderPanda.1872 said:I want to first thanks @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" for coming out and breaking the silence by answering a lot of long standing questions we had. But there are some factors in world linking I just cannot agree on.

Don't get me wrong. I support world linking, and would prefer linking over tiers of dead servers or any other more extreme, bipolar and controversial solutions. What I have huge issue with is the bimonthly relinks.

1. It takes away server culture, identity and general unity as a server community.Server cultures can often clash (example mag & their links). There is no sense of unity, no common goal or position where they would like to see their server be at. Linked server may often find itself to have multiple server voip. Multiple guilds have also stopped using the community voip due to the hassle of changing their voip every two months.There were times in the past where servers each had their own specific ways of coordinating in WvW (e.g. look at how some servers used different tag color to specify their roles in WvW), this is almost impossible to see in the current system. Map assignments on reset are also rarely possible, not only because of no unity in the linked servers, but players just generally care less about their server.
2. Instability every two monthsWhy should anyone care about the position of their server when how they perform in WvW relative to other servers can often be dictated by the links they receive every two months. It is also demoralizing for players who have acclimatized to t1 and t2 in the current link, but finds themselves helplessly in t3, t4 or t5 the next relink. Not to mention how do servers compete with servers with a long standing community that are generally united in their style of play.
3. Breaking up forged relationshipsThere are multiple instances where new players clueless to the linking system find themselves separated from their guild mates or play mates on an relink, where the only solution to reunite with them is to spend $$$$$ in gems to transfer to their server (given that it is open in the first place). This issue is not only exclusive to new players.

Please stop looking at population balance purely with numeric figures. If you want to monitor changes, tweaks and balance "easily", please look at the feasibility of permanent or long term links. Have patience and let population self regulate, and make changes in linking only when it is absolutely necessary. Discourage bandwagoning and encourage population participation not by forcing players to play together or split apart, not by trying to dictate their numbers, but by implementing features that will make players care for their server community and encourage them to invest their time for their server community.

It is the weekend and there is probably no one in the office reading this. But I sincerely hope the WvW team reconsiders bi-monthly relinks that has been detrimental to community unity and morale.

Tyler also had that poll and discussion on how to solve/ make compromises to encourage keeping server identity. It went straight to the dump after he left the team

Anet already know the best solution is to blow up the servers and remake them with less servers, however they are not brave enough to do it, FACT.

@Vavume.8065 said:Anet already know the best solution is to blow up the servers and remake them with less servers, however they are not brave enough to do it, FACT.

Not really ANet want ktrains, every server have to farm pips or rewards with diferent shedules, that's what ANet mostly wants since figths will stale the gamemode that was designed to be a cap strutures with blob and recap lost strucure race, ANet dev's dont like when guilds defend srcuctures as well, ive listened to some idiotic comments on private ts runing with a dev and a blob.... from the tags since enemy team didnt wanted to lost strucure.

players being rewarded by ktrain and the other side by pip farming is what this game was aimmed for... easy access to rewards rewards rewards... all that matters.

I rather like the current 2 month link. In some cases I wish it was shorter, lol. I see it as a free transfer every 2 months.

I have yet come across any host server that I would transfer to yet alone being attached to longer or permanently.

If they offered me a free transfer to ANY server of my choice I would. I am not going to grind for gold or buy gems to do so...

ESO figured this out ages ago with a guesting system.

@Xillllix.3485 said:ESO figured this out ages ago with a guesting system.Anet did it with EoTM. Its the same functionality, 3 factions that can join any instance. Granted ESO did it fairly good with the campaigns, but that still comes at a major loss - the death of server pride. An entire faction is too large for a community to handle and take active part of, we would all become pawns.

@Leablo.2651 said:Snip<...But for those of us on links, we have neither our own server identity (no borderlands) nor a permanent association with another's. We just get passed around to pad out the numbers wherever it's convenient, for Anet to make WvW look more balanced than it is. This seems to be based on the idea that as long as they keep fiddling with the minor things there will be some kind of change, or at least enough distraction, to keep people from focusing on the elephant in the room, which is that this is a one-server meta. That will not change until Anet is willing to make truly disruptive changes to WvW.

This.

I am on a server that has been linked twice in a row with the same T1 server. We never seem to get paired anywhere but in the upper tiers anymore. Our population fluctuates especially when folk bandwagon to our server so they can play with their chosen server that they can't get into so it gives a false impression that we are more active than we really are. They leave when the pairing is over. It gets really old when you are in the catch-22 loop we have been in for months....

We can't get new commanders to come and stay and try to build up our server so we are no longer linked. No one wants to come to a linked server. So we do the best we can with the existing guilds who do WvW and get out there and try help the paired server. Some servers have been more overtly friendly than others which has helped a lot in working with them. But we have also had our commanders yelled at on reset night for showing up in our home borderlands because the main server wanted their people all in there instead and we were in the way despite our group doing a great deal on the map that night.

Change is needed badly in WvW. We have to sit and watch the bigger servers play Tanks Wars and have to follow along because we have no choice. It is hard to convince new folk they will have fun in WvW in the current climate where there are no true battles any more. Just massive blobzergs that respond when a camp is taken so roaming is a thing of the past and the only thing your server can do for the week is reclaim when the other two decide to come in and take everything on either side of your spawn at the same time. I am seeing more folk just in for their pips and then out for the rest of the week because WvW has gotten too tedious to bother with.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Xillllix.3485 said:ESO figured this out ages ago with a guesting system.Anet did it with EoTM. Its the same functionality, 3 factions that can join any instance. Granted ESO did it fairly good with the campaigns, but that still comes at a major loss - the death of server pride. An entire faction is too large for a community to handle and take active part of, we would all become pawns.

ESO has faction pride, its actually quite interesting each of the 3 factions has developed something of a distinct identity.

@morrolan.9608 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Xillllix.3485 said:ESO figured this out ages ago with a guesting system.Anet did it with EoTM. Its the same functionality, 3 factions that can join any instance. Granted ESO did it fairly good with the campaigns, but that still comes at a major loss - the death of server pride. An entire faction is too large for a community to handle and take active part of, we would all become pawns.

Yes exactly. GW2 copied the megaserver idea from ESO, but they didn't implement it to WvW. Honestly they just need to copy ESO's campaign system, specially since they can't figure it out anyway. The ESO team figured it out.

@"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.

Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ??

edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system.

First thank you for your post and breaking silence on these issues!

Maybe I misunderstood your post? Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong! You use average weekly playtime and don't consider population at all when it comes to servers being open or closed? Maybe I missed something but that seems kind of negligent on your part. You obviously have servers tanking just so they can man handle the lower tier servers, while they high five each other on obliterating the smaller servers. Or maybe you really are not aware this is going on?

Since making links permanent can and I would agree make people unhappy permanently, why not blow all the servers up instead of linking? Starting fresh will invite fewer questions. It just depends how this will be carried out.

Finding people to fight, even with linked servers is becoming more and more difficult during all times zones. If you did away with linked servers things would be much worse. This does not mean there isn't a host of problems with linking.

Perma linking servers has its own set of problems.

What we need is a third, fresh solution. Be it battlegroups, time-slices, or whatever.