Frequent relinkings ruin matchmaking — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

Frequent relinkings ruin matchmaking

Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited December 21, 2020 in WvW

Not balanced at all matchups, and it has been already 3 weeks, NA doesn't look any better

Time to abolish 2 monthly relinking system! Delete linked servers so we can have working population algorithm! Let lower tier servers be less active, still better than being fully dead like right now! Why would guilds and roamers transfer to lower tier for 500 gems when they can go to higher tiers? Go with trickle down policy like true US company!

Ri Ba - Charr of logic
~Key to fixing WvW with minimal effort resides in my post history~

Comments

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If you take what you have now and delete linked servers, you have exactly the same thing without linked servers.

    What did you think was going to happen?

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • anduriell.6280anduriell.6280 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The only way to fix that is to move on to alliances.

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 21, 2020

    Not to mention all the people who have left servers that they can't come back to because those servers are full.

    What do you expect them to do? Just quit the game? Because that is what they will and those players include primary commanders and server-managers for their respective servers. A return to a worse system that had to be left because some servers were already dying in 2016 is hardly the way forward. Also, given what we know today it should be obvious to everyone that life on server is far more about content-creators (aka. enablers and instigators with EVE-terminology; such as commanders and server organizers) than actual numbers.

    A small server with good organization and commanders do not stay small for long. The only negative impact numbers have is that they can lock servers and maps down, making life harder for those commanders and organizers. The way forward is for some way to encourage and support those content creators. The most important steps in that involves doing away with the locks on servers and maps that stops those players from playing with their friends and using their friends to leverage and help out their effort. Other important steps involve giving them things to do with their friends that may not directly aid their server effort but could indirectly benefit their server effort because it keeps those players happy, active and playing.

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    If you take what you have now and delete linked servers, you have exactly the same thing without linked servers.

    >

    Not quite the same.
    If they stopped linking they'd eliminate the payday every 2 months and leave things to chance.

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 21, 2020

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:
    Not to mention all the people who have left servers that they can't come back to because those servers are full.

    What do you expect them to do? Just quit the game? Because that is what they will and those players include primary commanders and server-managers for their respective servers. A return to a worse system that had to be left because some servers were already dying in 2016 is hardly the way forward. Also, given what we know today it should be obvious to everyone that life on server is far more about content-creators (aka. enablers and instigators with EVE-terminology; such as commanders and server organizers) than actual numbers.

    A small server with good organization and commanders do not stay small for long. The only negative impact numbers have is that they can lock servers and maps down, making life harder for those commanders and organizers. The way forward is for some way to encourage and support those content creators. The most important steps in that involves doing away with the locks on servers and maps that stops those players from playing with their friends and using their friends to leverage and help out their effort. Other important steps involve giving them things to do with their friends that may not directly aid their server effort but could indirectly benefit their server effort because it keeps those players happy, active and playing.

    Issue with current system is that there are 5 to 8 full servers all the time, old system had maximum 2. And servers were more frequently open. I would say current system is terrible for playing with your friends because your friends are most likely on a permafull main server. Maybe your friends log in once in 3 weeks and they need to get in your server, but it is full. Yes you can go to link but it isn't worth spending money for a game that you only play once in 3 weeks. Wasn't that exactly your problem? Your friends not getting in your server? Less full servers and people transferring around less sounds like better system for staying with your friends....

    Currently as people transfer to link servers (because pretty much all reasonable main servers are full), main servers can also fit less people. So you can have amazing server but only be able contain half the people. For example, if every main server lost 2 guilds and 40 people to "before empty" link servers, every main server can now fit 2 guilds and 40 players less before getting full. Which means fun servers with "good organisation and commanders" can't fit many people inside them anymore as the system gets gradually worse and worse.

    Overall system where transfer costs are arbitrary, sometimes you get to tier 1 highly populated linking for 500 gems and sometimes servers struggling with numbers are full stuck in tier 5 unlinked, is a pretty bad system. Not to mention mass transfers for 500 gems to leech main servers instead of going to an emptier place.

    TLDR;

    • Transfer costs are not consistant from bottom to top
    • More servers are full (your non-hardcore friends are actually more hindered than with the old system)
    • Main servers can fit way less people before getting full as full status cap gets lower as guilds and people transfer to links
    • Matchmaking is a joke with some linkings having 2 full servers and some having 2 medium.

    Ri Ba - Charr of logic
    ~Key to fixing WvW with minimal effort resides in my post history~

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 21, 2020

    Not to mention that timezones that servers are active in vary massively every 2 months making the system terrible and confusing for new players. Your server might be completely dead some 2 months and even in best case scenario, if you don't transfer, you have to swap timezones you play in to get action in every 2 months. Like lets say you play WvW for 2 months with amazing commander around same timezone, then he disappears. He was on linking, or he transferred because the relinking wasn't to his taste.

    And it isn't just newbies, this affects everyone on every server. Consistant timezones, tiers, guilds and commanders are good for community and wvw

    Ri Ba - Charr of logic
    ~Key to fixing WvW with minimal effort resides in my post history~

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @LetoII.3782 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    If you take what you have now and delete linked servers, you have exactly the same thing without linked servers.

    >

    Not quite the same.
    If they stopped linking they'd eliminate the payday every 2 months and leave things to chance.

    Except the "fight guilds" would still transfer to lower tier servers because there is too much blobbing in high tier, then those lower tier servers start winning and the servers they moved from start loosing. And the cycle repeats once they swapped tiers.

    Unless you are implying that we should also delete the players in the addition to the servers. No players, nobody transfers.

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭✭

    You highlight things that were player created. The mismatches are because of transfers and player behavior. You know they ran to RoF and that didn't work cause of all who stacked UW so now they ran to DZ. Like one transfer every 2 months now players are stacking if that fails restacking another spot to try again. Only one way to stop is limit transfers. Could be achieved multiple ways but they don't even care getting no pips for multiple weeks by transferring twice already what 3 weeks in?

    WvW band wagoners ruin the game mode just like Karen's ruin these forums.

  • Kylden Ar.3724Kylden Ar.3724 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @anduriell.6280 said:
    The only way to fix that is to move on to alliances.

    Alliances when!?

    No, really, we're tired of this re-link stuff. Admit you have delayed Alliances cause the bandwagon transfers are the only way you make money on WvW, stop re-linking, and let people settle back into their tiers they want, or give us Alliances!

    How many times we gotta tell you GRIND IS NOT CONTENT there ANet?

    Leader of Tyrian Adventure Corp [TACO], member of [RaW][TACO][Owls][HELL] Alliance, Kaineng.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 22, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    You highlight things that were player created. The mismatches are because of transfers and player behavior. You know they ran to RoF and that didn't work cause of all who stacked UW so now they ran to DZ. Like one transfer every 2 months now players are stacking if that fails restacking another spot to try again. Only one way to stop is limit transfers. Could be achieved multiple ways but they don't even care getting no pips for multiple weeks by transferring twice already what 3 weeks in?

    If you remove police, world will go crazy. Underlying system allows transferring to higher tiers to populated servers with ton of active commanders for cheap.

    The system does absolutely nothing to prevent this kind of cheap stacking. If they had to start from tier 5 (500-1000 gems) and PPT their own way up instead of already going to populated linkings, they wouldn't be leeching and killing existing servers in 1 day. Also the servers they originally left wouldn't have had drastical changes that cause their transferring (being unlinked+full or main server), but it would rather be gradual the ups and downs of the servers.

    Overall they made it so with relinkings that transferring in masses is just the only way for a group to have consistant timezones and activity.

    Ri Ba - Charr of logic
    ~Key to fixing WvW with minimal effort resides in my post history~

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 22, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    You highlight things that were player created. The mismatches are because of transfers and player behavior. You know they ran to RoF and that didn't work cause of all who stacked UW so now they ran to DZ. Like one transfer every 2 months now players are stacking if that fails restacking another spot to try again. Only one way to stop is limit transfers. Could be achieved multiple ways but they don't even care getting no pips for multiple weeks by transferring twice already what 3 weeks in?

    If you remove police, world will go crazy. Underlying system allows transferring to higher tiers to populated servers with ton of active commanders for cheap.

    The system does absolutely nothing to prevent this kind of cheap stacking. If they had to start from tier 5 (500-1000 gems) and PPT their own way up instead of already going to populated linkings, they wouldn't be leeching and killing existing servers in 1 day. Also the servers they originally left wouldn't have had drastical changes that cause their transferring (being unlinked+full or main server), but it would rather be gradual the ups and downs of the servers.

    Overall they made it so with relinkings that transferring in masses is just the only way for a group to have consistant timezones and activity.

    Yeah transfers is the problem not relinking not what the links start at as all they do is look at 2 months of stats and put the 3 top hours w no link and then try to match up everyone else kinda even in total hours it is undone by players abusing the transfer w no limits. It hasn't been exploited this badly until 8 months ago so they need to do something. Some ideas
    2 transfers per year per account
    instead of a 7 day CD on transfers make it 3 months so the can only stack every couple relinks
    progressive gem increase per transfer 500-800-1100-1400-1700-2000 etc per account to stop the main problem players
    No transfers 1 week before relink to 2 weeks after relink
    Limit 20 transfers off/on to a server per week so if 20 leave WSR no one else can till next week to slow the stack down and let system recalculate
    Things like that any one would slow this down and of course players would complain esp the frequent transfers but they are the problem so let them complain

    People will still outnumber enemies, just transfer less frequently. Your system just allows alt abuse while keeping linkings open that should be closed. Lets say you're new player to the game and haven't found "your home server yet", you basically only get 2 shots at it.

    But yes, maybe 1st transfer a year should be 500 gems, 2nd transfer 1000 gems, 3rd 1800 gems, etc, it is not a bad idea. Relinkings are definitely part of the problem because people do not want to be on equally populated servers or play against them. Higher tiers just have much better activity and it isn't just guild groups. Thats why it was better when roamers/laggers/smaller guilds could stay on lower tiers and server positions were more constant instead of them being forced to higher tiers every 2 months. WvW just doesn't have pop to sustain all the tiers with desirable activity, thats why artificially forcing every linking to have same population is just a failure. Reason relinking fails is because some people want more activity and some want less. So in most cases the less ones play desert map only and more ones transfer to higher tiers.

    Btw forcing people to suffer on a server they do not like is not sustainable as they will just quit the game, it isn't a real life job. One should focus on making WvW more fun and meaningful. Forcing players to do something or stay somewhere is not sustainable.

    Ri Ba - Charr of logic
    ~Key to fixing WvW with minimal effort resides in my post history~

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    You highlight things that were player created. The mismatches are because of transfers and player behavior. You know they ran to RoF and that didn't work cause of all who stacked UW so now they ran to DZ. Like one transfer every 2 months now players are stacking if that fails restacking another spot to try again. Only one way to stop is limit transfers. Could be achieved multiple ways but they don't even care getting no pips for multiple weeks by transferring twice already what 3 weeks in?

    If you remove police, world will go crazy. Underlying system allows transferring to higher tiers to populated servers with ton of active commanders for cheap.

    The system does absolutely nothing to prevent this kind of cheap stacking. If they had to start from tier 5 (500-1000 gems) and PPT their own way up instead of already going to populated linkings, they wouldn't be leeching and killing existing servers in 1 day. Also the servers they originally left wouldn't have had drastical changes that cause their transferring (being unlinked+full or main server), but it would rather be gradual the ups and downs of the servers.

    Overall they made it so with relinkings that transferring in masses is just the only way for a group to have consistant timezones and activity.

    Yeah transfers is the problem not relinking not what the links start at as all they do is look at 2 months of stats and put the 3 top hours w no link and then try to match up everyone else kinda even in total hours it is undone by players abusing the transfer w no limits. It hasn't been exploited this badly until 8 months ago so they need to do something. Some ideas
    2 transfers per year per account
    instead of a 7 day CD on transfers make it 3 months so the can only stack every couple relinks
    progressive gem increase per transfer 500-800-1100-1400-1700-2000 etc per account to stop the main problem players
    No transfers 1 week before relink to 2 weeks after relink
    Limit 20 transfers off/on to a server per week so if 20 leave WSR no one else can till next week to slow the stack down and let system recalculate
    Things like that any one would slow this down and of course players would complain esp the frequent transfers but they are the problem so let them complain

    People will still outnumber enemies, just transfer less frequently. Your system just allows alt abuse while keeping linkings open that should be closed. Lets say you're new player to the game and haven't found "your home server yet", you basically only get 2 shots at it.

    But yes, maybe 1st transfer a year should be 500 gems, 2nd transfer 1000 gems, 3rd 1800 gems, etc, it is not a bad idea. Relinkings are definitely part of the problem because people do not want to be on equally populated servers or play against them. Higher tiers just have much better activity and it isn't just guild groups. Thats why it was better when roamers/laggers/smaller guilds could stay on lower tiers and server positions were more constant instead of them being forced to higher tiers every 2 months. WvW just doesn't have pop to sustain all the tiers with desirable activity, thats why artificially forcing every linking to have same population is just a failure. Reason relinking fails is because some people want more activity and some want less. So in most cases the less ones play desert map only and more ones transfer to higher tiers.

    Btw forcing people to suffer on a server they do not like is not sustainable as they will just quit the game, it isn't a real life job. One should focus on making WvW more fun and meaningful. Forcing players to do something or stay somewhere is not sustainable.

    It's not forcing it's limiting tranfers. Nwe players get 3 shots year one and 2 every year after if anet chose my 1st option. Some remain unlimited if you don't care about gem amount. Most of us stay on one server. You keep saying higher tiers have more action yes because the same dudes keep transferring up there.
    Like your T1was full and a med vs a full and a med but the transfers changed that to a full and VH and a full and VH so yeah more action only because of transfers or every tier would be about equal.
    Then obviously the lowest tier has less cause WSR and JS emptied to jump to a higher tier. All these excuses I want more action I'm a fight guild We got no link I want to play w my friends are to excuse their bandwagon behavior.
    The obsession thinking a higher tier means your a good players is wrong to. I've been in every tier and it's not much different until all of a sudden 200 dudes go hey lets go here then 200 other dudes see that and go hey lets go there to fight them.
    You can't fix player behavior unless you make them pay or punish the frequent bandwagoners better then 1 week w/o pips like who cares at rank 5000 anyway.
    The alt abuse thing to is not anet. It's player behavior and only way to fix that is link transfers to ip address or acc owner but of course player behavior can get by those limitations too.

    WvW band wagoners ruin the game mode just like Karen's ruin these forums.

  • Another issue is Anet bases links on the stats they have at relink. They get relinked, then all of a sudden everyone switches servers and throws things off. They should not allow server switching for the first week or two after relinks temporarily and see if that fixes things. I get what they are trying to do but it's not working.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 22, 2020

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:
    Another issue is Anet bases links on the stats they have at relink. They get relinked, then all of a sudden everyone switches servers and throws things off. They should not allow server switching for the first week or two after relinks temporarily and see if that fixes things. I get what they are trying to do but it's not working.

    One of the reasons we've said that Anet should implement their own kitten ideas they said they where going to implement 2 years ago - allow "reserved" transfers week 1-7 (ie a player can select a world to transfer to, but he wont actually transfer yet), lock them down week 8 and then calculate the new links based on the new numbers they will have week 1. First reset people will have transfered to their new world automatically and they will be there the next 2 months. Anet also added a point that they still wanted to allow forced instant transfer... Easy peasy just make it cost 2000 gems period regardless of size of server or something (full would of course still be locked). Guilds have to be pretty dedicated to move mid season then.

    Will it work to deter bandwagoners? Who the kitten knows. I dont know how it can get any worse. And they moved at least one step closer to alliances. But given the probably extra little cash they get now from guilds transfering... never gonna happen.

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • vier.1327vier.1327 Member ✭✭✭

    When was the last link? I think it was like a few weeks ago...

    Nevertheless, we all know how volatile are the servers after one of them, there was a word to describe jump to the winning side but I do not remember ( band-something), and how many guild transfer to be in the same spot as before.

    If you think about it, the vast majority of the server transfers must happen during the first month after new linkings... I do not know if this is true, I have not seen any data to support this, just speculation.

    However, this would support the idea of why this system has been prolonged for so long. After all, Arenanet is a company and does not make a move without thinking about consequences.

  • Yasai.3549Yasai.3549 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Link system was fine.

    But here comes server transfer bandwagoning and poof, the entire system is invalid.

    If I play a stupid build, I deserve to die.
    If I beat people on a stupid build, I deserve to get away with it.

  • aiinseinn.5914aiinseinn.5914 Member ✭✭
    edited December 28, 2020

    @anduriell.6280 said:
    The only way to fix that is to move on to alliances.

    thats more trouble inc .. sry make it like "you only can switch server once every 6 month"

  • because your friends are most likely on a permafull main server.

    yaaay. have a few months without wvw, because it was dead. Then after another relinking can't play wvw because of permanent queue at my prime time. After anet decreased map limit, queue became a really problem. I can't sit in DR for 3 hours and wait. And can't move to my guildmates, so i must play alone\solo\boring\don't play. In mmo! i can't play with peoples i want.
    Finally after another server hoppers epidemy, WSR became empty and i can transfer.

    Current system must be good in theory - weak servers have a strong allies. But in reality something goes wrong.

    Any permanent server its a archaic solution from 10-20 years old limitations. And for pve doesn't matter where you are. it's good and no troubles like in WoW.
    Yes we can't create 1 super server for wvw\pvp without using channel system. But we can dynamically remove low populated server which really bad at current time. like Docker balancing.

  • enkidu.5937enkidu.5937 Member ✭✭✭

    Butbutbut wait, its soo much fun isnt it?

    • you can gank half-empty servers and pretend you're fight elite
    • you can lemmingtrain empty maps all day and pretend you're the best server
    • you can watch blue defend a red keep from a green siege, just because blue desperately wants to drop from Tier 1 and play some WvW
    • you can build siege at enemy spawn
      . . . .

    We cant just take all this fun away from the kiddoes, feelsbadman :'(

  • Hannelore.8153Hannelore.8153 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 28, 2020

    Two months isn't frequent. If anything relinks should happen every matchup. If you've ever been stuck in a stale or unbalanced linkup you'd realise just how terrible it is to wait two whole months just for it to get "fixed".

    Hannah | Daisuki[SUKI] Founder, Ehmry Bay, NA | 22 charas, 17k hours, 28k AP | ♀♥♀
    Mains Mariyuuna/Auramancer(PvE) & Terakura/Healbreaker(WvW) aka Sea of Sorrows Silver Assaulter [SUKI]
    No need to be best, only good and kind.

  • kamikharzeeh.8016kamikharzeeh.8016 Member ✭✭✭✭

    funnily, on desolation the queues became smaller with each month. we had 70-80 queues like 2 years ago. last relink we had only a 2 ppl queue, and later a 20 ppl queue, which is absurdly few for a relink. we somehow have ppl filling the maps by just afking on alt accounts...

    i would switch server myself, but most aren't attractive. i rather learnt to somehow hate most servers, so i'd never swap to them.

    the nomad server WSR exists basically half of the time on other servers that they stack onto and bandwagon for content. guilds hop around all the time, tho not many serious battle guilds even exist anymore.

    @Hannelore.8153 two months is far too short if u have a good link. far too long if unlinked.
    you can just delete everything if u relink every week. would be a absurd mess.


    i also only see Alliances as the last chance to fix something. change is needed, the current system is just horrific. it cannot get worse.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 30, 2020

    @Hannelore.8153 said:
    Two months isn't frequent. If anything relinks should happen every matchup. If you've ever been stuck in a stale or unbalanced linkup you'd realise just how terrible it is to wait two whole months just for it to get "fixed".

    1. First 3 weeks are scrapshoot when everyone transfers around and servers settle to their tiers
    2. Then you need to find timezone that your server/tier has desirable activity in
    3. Start over after 2-3 weeks of settled WvW

    Overall I really dislike "Hey, this linking might be terrible but man at least it only lasts 2 months and we might get lucky after 2 months" mentality... Please guys, you deserve better system than that. Why have terrible 2 months just followed by lot of enemy server people having terrible 2 months? Do you have no empathy, especially for newer players that have absolutely no clue why your timezones had a do over?

    Reducing tiers was already enough to fix the activity on lower tiers. Now you just need to give them also transfer cost advantage. With 1-up-1-down it only takes 2 weeks for server to arise from depths anyways, there will be plenty of guilds and server communities doing their mini projects to climb from lower tiers even if we go back to old system with only 4 or 5 tiers. Yes it will be bandvagoning but at least they'll have to PPT and wont outnumber enemies with 2 full servers combined.

    Ri Ba - Charr of logic
    ~Key to fixing WvW with minimal effort resides in my post history~

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Hannelore.8153 said:
    Two months isn't frequent. If anything relinks should happen every matchup. If you've ever been stuck in a stale or unbalanced linkup you'd realise just how terrible it is to wait two whole months just for it to get "fixed".

    1. First 3 weeks are scrapshoot when everyone transfers around and servers settle to their tiers
    2. Then you need to find timezone that your server/tier has desirable activity in
    3. Start over after 2-3 weeks of settled WvW

    Overall I really dislike "Hey, this linking might be terrible but man at least it only lasts 2 months and we might get lucky after 2 months" mentality... Please guys, you deserve better system than that. Why have terrible 2 months just followed by lot of enemy server people having terrible 2 months? Do you have no empathy, especially for newer players that have absolutely no clue why your timezones had a do over?

    Reducing tiers was already enough to fix the activity on lower tiers. Now you just need to give them also transfer cost advantage. With 1-up-1-down it only takes 2 weeks for server to arise from depths anyways, there will be plenty of guilds and server communities doing their mini projects to climb from lower tiers even if we go back to old system with only 4 or 5 tiers. Yes it will be bandvagoning but at least they'll have to PPT and wont outnumber enemies with 2 full servers combined.

    But you dont want links and you want heavy penalties on transfers.

    Who exactly would fight their way from the depths on the servers that has no population and will never get new population?

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 31, 2020

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Hannelore.8153 said:
    Two months isn't frequent. If anything relinks should happen every matchup. If you've ever been stuck in a stale or unbalanced linkup you'd realise just how terrible it is to wait two whole months just for it to get "fixed".

    1. First 3 weeks are scrapshoot when everyone transfers around and servers settle to their tiers
    2. Then you need to find timezone that your server/tier has desirable activity in
    3. Start over after 2-3 weeks of settled WvW

    Overall I really dislike "Hey, this linking might be terrible but man at least it only lasts 2 months and we might get lucky after 2 months" mentality... Please guys, you deserve better system than that. Why have terrible 2 months just followed by lot of enemy server people having terrible 2 months? Do you have no empathy, especially for newer players that have absolutely no clue why your timezones had a do over?

    Reducing tiers was already enough to fix the activity on lower tiers. Now you just need to give them also transfer cost advantage. With 1-up-1-down it only takes 2 weeks for server to arise from depths anyways, there will be plenty of guilds and server communities doing their mini projects to climb from lower tiers even if we go back to old system with only 4 or 5 tiers. Yes it will be bandvagoning but at least they'll have to PPT and wont outnumber enemies with 2 full servers combined.

    But you dont want links and you want heavy penalties on transfers.

    Who exactly would fight their way from the depths on the servers that has no population and will never get new population?

    The transfer communities and guilds will. It only requires 1 or 2 active commanders to win the lower tier matchups. And as bottom 2 tiers will be only place to transfer with 500 gems, they will do so.

    So aim would be to fix 5 problems:

    • Higher tier servers can't be transferred to with 500 or 1000 gems
    • Timezones are very inconsistant due to 2 monthly relinkings: So fixing the 2 monthly mess and making it more infrequent
    • Population extremes: super empty servers (medium+medium/medium) and super full servers (full+full)
    • Too many full main servers
    • Community building and player training not mattering due to relinkings resetting everything and punishing doing well by setting you full (and usually unlinked)

    And yes, lower tiers servers will have less players but if you think every guild and player prefers higher tiers, no they do not. There will still be decent amount of activity as long as there are only 4 or 5 tiers. Unlike some people think it won't be only 5 people on lowest servers like pre-linkings.

    Undoubtely people would still transfer but at least the servers would have more stability so players could settle somewhere instead of optimal solution being transferring every 2 months.

    And I never wanted penalties on transfers. Just for the system to be logical where transferring to higher populated servers is more expensive instead of there being links to circumvent that. And less full (main) servers. And much less relinkings.

    Ri Ba - Charr of logic
    ~Key to fixing WvW with minimal effort resides in my post history~

  • Isn't possible for players and guilds to create alliances right now?

  • @aiinseinn.5914 said:

    @anduriell.6280 said:
    The only way to fix that is to move on to alliances.

    thats more trouble inc .. sry make it like "you only can switch server once every 6 month"

    The answer to this proposed 6 month solution really is this:

    @Hannelore.8153 said:
    Two months isn't frequent. If anything relinks should happen every matchup. If you've ever been stuck in a stale or unbalanced linkup you'd realise just how terrible it is to wait two whole months just for it to get "fixed".

    I love my server, we have some great guilds and a really good collective community that works well together. But some of the servers we get stuck with . . . well, I will just say that we don't mesh well. It ends up being a long and somewhat miserable couple months. There are 2 servers in particular that if we got stuck with either of them for 6 months straight it would have a truly serious negative impact on our server community. I would love to see the Alliances feature actually implemented, but the pessimist in me has come to view it as just vaporware. I really hope I am wrong but I have long since given up on the possibility of actually seeing this feature. Now I am just trying to hold out hope that the legendary armory won't go the way of alliances. . . . but that is a topic for a different thread.

  • Bristingr.5034Bristingr.5034 Member ✭✭✭

    @Junkpile.7439 said:
    Anet could add pips in eotm. That would solve many problems.

    Do something that actually makes sense? You're putting too much faith into Anet.

  • GW2 WvW is Pay to Win, as long as you keep transferring to the paired server for the matchup (example: BG's paired server Eredon Terrace currently). You can still be part of said main server and therefor break the server limit of Full.

    What I would like to see but doubt, is a graph of active players in WvW for each server/maps, days and time.

    I would like to hear how this isn't a Pay to Win feature...

  • kamikharzeeh.8016kamikharzeeh.8016 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Deganation.9604 u cannot break the limits of fullness, since the servers have, probably, all the same/similar capacity for players (ok, the existance of BB says else). but yeah, as well link and host server can become full with the current system. hosts can also become links if they loose too many players and vice versa.

    it's rather a pay to play "feature", i mean the freaking ppt score only has value as you can manipulate matchups with it. "winning" the ppt wars, "rising" in tier... that's all meaningless, since u get across all tiers the same rewards. most people who transfer actually seek for a better fighting environment, be it transfering guilds or pugs or roamergroups.

    t5 is simply dead bc only the very low populated servers stay there. t1 and t2 are also really bad, and this EU matchup also t3 was really bad quality (last week). only very few people will really transfer due to the reason of "winning ppt matchup"... that'd be super weird to use as reason for a transfer actually.

  • Deganation.9604Deganation.9604 Member
    edited January 5, 2021

    @kamikharzeeh.8016 What I mean by breaking the limits of a server is when you have a full server lets say, how many people on that server actually play WvW? and those who don't still count towards the server being full. With that in mind, your limited to how many players who do actually play WvW on a server.

    I got at least 3 friends who joined the JQ server and never play, tried it once or twice and are never on anymore. What im trying to say is that if you got a group of people who are dedicated players and want to be in the top tiers like T1 and/or T2, then they would move to a main server that can accomplish that, and if there is no room, then they will just continue to switch servers to pair up with the best server. and when that happens, you can almost always join a Zerg or bigger group of people to farm others and gain lots of bags that way.

    I would assume that the purpose of WvW is to be in the T1 as the winning server, other than that, what would be the purpose of defending or taking over towers/keeps/camps/smc.

    What is the purpose of WvW if not for bag farming.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Deganation.9604 said:
    @kamikharzeeh.8016 What I mean by breaking the limits of a server is when you have a full server lets say, how many people on that server actually play WvW? and those who don't still count towards the server being full. With that in mind, your limited to how many players who do actually play WvW on a server.

    I got at least 3 friends who joined the JQ server and never play, tried it once or twice and are never on anymore. What im trying to say is that if you got a group of people who are dedicated players and want to be in the top tiers like T1 and/or T2, then they would move to a main server that can accomplish that, and if there is no room, then they will just continue to switch servers to pair up with the best server. and when that happens, you can almost always join a Zerg or bigger group of people to farm others and gain lots of bags that way.

    Indeed, it is too cheap to transfer to higher tier servers with the linking system. And even if they had population to be full, their link won't

    I would assume that the purpose of WvW is to be in the T1 as the winning server, other than that, what would be the purpose of defending or taking over towers/keeps/camps/smc.

    Yes, Tier 1 should be the goal. But defending isn't that enjoyable fightwise anymore since they added claimbuff. Or siegewise since they added shield gens. You manage to defend with 800 stats? You can never go on offense else you get onepushed. Only 2 things can occur: either have overly easy fight or be stuck defending. In the past defending was done for nice fights (body), or to fend of bigger groups with siege (Brain). Both usage of body and brain were removed and only numbers were left. The fact that shield gens are still doing exactly the same than what they tried to remove is proof of that.

    What is the purpose of WvW if not for bag farming.

    As the balance is, nothing. Objectives are not fun places to hang around anymore. The thrills are dead. People just log in for social interaction or because they think they are too old to learn a new game.

    Ri Ba - Charr of logic
    ~Key to fixing WvW with minimal effort resides in my post history~