Can we just remove all servers

This is an idea that I've had since the early days. Why have servers at all? Instead of the current system. Make it more random and have guilds (the ones that you currently rep) assigned to a new group every week. Pugs can be assigned to random groups. Remove bandwagon servers and servers buying whole guilds like mercenaries.

The only downside would be communication between guilds if paired with randoms every week.

Just an idea to balance out WvW. I realize that wvw will probably never make such a dramatic change to the system (especially when anet can make a buck on server transfers)

I believe they considered having an alliance system with guilds instead of servers for a brief time, pretty sure they scrapped it though

I think we need ANET to eliminate the "full "status servers get. Then we can all transfer to one server and focus on what is most important... PvE, PvD, and PvW in WvW.

I like the server system, when PvE was also server based it took combined WvW guilds to run large events across the PvE Maps sometimes and promoted a sense of community. Also most servers have a Team Speak and it would be a nightmare getting everyone verified every week

things are ok as it is now. maybe what your looking for can be another game mode?

I wouldn't mind the removal of servers and an implementation of another system. The megaserver pretty much made them pointless for everything but WvW and that has population issues due to the servers.

Spitballing ideas here, but what about a campaign system. You join a campaign that has a specific en date. Winners are declared, rewards are given, campaign resets. This game already has three orders, so why not just use those and have players pick a campaign and a side.

The number of campaigns can be adjusted up or down based on need, no server nonsense. It's already a proven concept elsewhere.

My only guess is to why the current system stands is paid server transfers.

Great way to destroy the community in WvW and turn it into a EotM Blobfest. There are other alternatives that can provide more even matches.

@Mira.4906 said:I like the server system, when PvE was also server based it took combined WvW guilds to run large events across the PvE Maps sometimes and promoted a sense of community. Also most servers have a Team Speak and it would be a nightmare getting everyone verified every week

I agree communications would be a problem, but I play on GoM. We never have communications with our host server, but we still manage with what we have. For people on full servers this isn't a problem, they just run as one massive blob and it works.

I'm just looking for ways to deal with the bandwagon effect and balance out the game is all.

@Sovereign.1093 said:things are ok as it is now. maybe what your looking for can be another game mode?

Not saying i don't like WvW, in fact it's exclusively why i play these days. Just looking for ways to improve the system.

@Arcuss.6457 said:

@Mira.4906 said:I like the server system, when PvE was also server based it took combined WvW guilds to run large events across the PvE Maps sometimes and promoted a sense of community. Also most servers have a Team Speak and it would be a nightmare getting everyone verified every week

@Sovereign.1093 said:things are ok as it is now. maybe what your looking for can be another game mode?

no worries. anything that improves wvw is fine with me since thats what my guildies and i do most of the time.

I am also from Gates Of Madness, but the idea is simple and sound yes to remove servers. But there are some that still believe in their communities even with the shattering of most of them when Mega Servers became a thing, I think Arenanet is very hesitant on making anything that could cause torrential amounts of community backlash. I believe making a constructive thread with the proper feedback in order to address this problem would be nice, rather than it devolve into name calling or aka match up thread non sense. Remember keep it civil no reason to get to upset over things, I am sure that we will come to a good solution at some point.

could have a trial phase then vote

No thanks. It would ruin the community aspect and turn it into an EotM style game where you don't know/trust anyone and they're all just randoms.

I dont think that will work very well.Instead how about we have players still pick servers when starting, but that server only acts as your solo WvW world.When a guild is formed, it is decided which world said guild belongs (maybe match it to the creators world?), when repping a guild, you play on that guild's world WvW server.That way it becomes much cheaper as a whole to play with your guild mates that you met via map chat (thanks to the megaserver). And if the guild wants to play on a diffrent server, the guild can pay to have it change over... yet again reducing overall costs(to the dismay of the devs tho).Can this be abused? hell yes it can. You have 5 guilds, but you can honestly swap in and out of guilds as you wish... which can hurt WvW as a whole... And a single guild could have multiple sects which each reside in different worlds....So no matter what you do, new limitations would have to be put in place.

we need wvw season

@QuantumCat.9051 said:Great way to destroy the community in WvW and turn it into a EotM Blobfest. There are other alternatives that can provide more even matches.

WvW server "community" is a joke, most players have switched servers multiple times and only have "community" with a guild not a server and that is without going into how linking has already wrecked what community there was a lot of servers, you don't need servers for a "community", look at EVE Online that has a far stronger, deeper community than the very shallow one that exists in GW2.

@zinkz.7045 said:

@QuantumCat.9051 said:Great way to destroy the community in WvW and turn it into a EotM Blobfest. There are other alternatives that can provide more even matches.

It's a joke... for some. For others, the sole reason they play.

We're humans, and all humans are different, and play for different reasons. It serves no ones purpose to make blanket statements over what the "community" wants, either direction.

The simple fact is that some players care for and plays for server community, others plays for other communities (guild, friends etc), others plays for themselves etc.

@joneirikb.7506 said:

@zinkz.7045 said:

@QuantumCat.9051 said:Great way to destroy the community in WvW and turn it into a EotM Blobfest. There are other alternatives that can provide more even matches.

You missed the point, I wasn't saying that there aren't players who value a server community, or the notion of one is a joke, I was saying it was a joke in regard that it is only a minority of people that have stuck to a server, the reality is most of the playerbase move with their guild for fights, bandwagon to wherever, leave a server not long after it starts to struggles, etc, so in terms of the importance to the overall playerbase it is a joke, even if you personally value it.

I think the problem is not server-related, but rather the division mode, analysis, and reward structure that ANet does to WvW because of:

1 - It is not counted only the people who are part of WvW to determine if Sever is full or not, but the entire server including who does PvE.

2- Division per server allowing to change at any time if it is not full does not make sense to the name of the game and many less brings a certain "seriousness" so that people are really competitive and can perform at least training and improvement of those who play together stop arrive at the top.

3- There is not a considerable award to take us to get the first place because currently being last for the vast majority is better getting outnumbered and earning more PIP's.

Among other points ...

In my opinion, I spent some days thinking about what could be done to try to improve the WvW and one of the conclusions I got is:

1- Do not divide into servers, but in legions (guilds) and smaller amounts but more players per border land that are chosen in your account when you first enter WvW with the impossibility of being changed (many will discuss it), but rather, I believe that the game should provide a fixed community in WvW, because in PvE this does not make any difference. Now why in lesser quantity? Simple, currently the WvW does not have so many people and the big battles have been lost, today there are only pugs and countless people asking not to kill because they are dueling (please, duel in WvW can only be a joke), among other reasons , I put the most important ones I remember now.

2- There should be a system of rewards for the legion (guild) that was first in their tier in the week to asism to force all to train more and more to be in first being these prizes like: WvW ticket, gold, potion of exp in WvW, among other things that does not come to mind now.

3 - I do not know how ANet could do it and I believe that the community here can help to think about it, but something should be done to eliminate spies, nowadays besides WvW being weak in general there are innumerable spies and all this has started since it was released account free and no one else can take it, this ANet is anti-gambling and not strategy.

Well folks, before I start losing myself due to the size of the post, stay a little bit of my WvW review and I'm sure everyone may be commenting on or even implementing this post!

From the more, congratulations to ANet for the great game and good game to all !!

@"Kadeshy.7258" Only the wvw players count to determine if a server is full. As far as I remember it depends on how much hours people spend in wvw.

There also shouldn't be rewards for servers that have the best coverage at off times. Just look at Baruch. Their prime time is different to the other EU servers, so they "win" while everyone else is sleeping.We had more rewards for the winner in the seasons. You saw how that ended (bandwagoning, drop in population...).

Legions/guilds:I'm not sure how this would change anything. When you have a guild with 500 members, you sometimes have 50 online and sometimes 200. So you'll most likely get more population imbalance than what we have now.And as long as you don't invent a completely new game mode, Baruch (just an example) will still win, because they play when others log off. The others can train more and more but still won't win due to a different coverage.

Spies:I don't see a problem with spies. Nowadays someone from our server just asks someone from the enemy (per whisper) where we could meet to have some fights. So they are openly discussing where we are and who is leading and how many we are. So there is no need for spies.BTW you simply can't forbid someone to have more than one account.

@Rhiannon.1726 said:@"Kadeshy.7258" Only the wvw players count to determine if a server is full. As far as I remember it depends on how much hours people spend in wvw.

There also shouldn't be rewards for servers that have the best coverage at off times. Just look at Baruch. Their prime time is different to the other EU servers, so they "win" while everyone else is sleeping.We had more rewards for the winner in the seasons. You saw how that ended (bandwagoning, drop in population...).

Legions/guilds:I'm not sure how this would change anything. When you have a guild with 500 members, you sometimes have 50 online and sometimes 200. So you'll most likely get more population imbalance than what we have now.And as long as you don't invent a completely new game mode, Baruch (just an example) will still win, because they play when others log off. The others can train more and more but still won't win due to a different coverage.

Spies:I don't see a problem with spies. Nowadays someone from our server just asks someone from the enemy (per whisper) where we could meet to have some fights. So they are openly discussing where we are and who is leading and how many we are. So there is no need for spies.BTW you simply can't forbid someone to have more than one account.

1- Did not say for every skirmish, but said in the week and as to the bedtime or not this does not make any difference, every server always has its peak time!

2- When I say in legions it is primarily to make more sense to the name of the game, but also improves some aspects that are happening nowadays like no incentive to train your server or something, most of them cry and then think about changing servers and this game of exchange exchange ends with a community that could be focusing on serious training and fighting for victory, now regarding the imbalance ANet must modify the way of analyzing it and / or controlling as much as possible mainly in the matter of reducing the amount of server / legion and increasing the number of players by the edges bringing back the great battles and not only a lot of people walking by the map or duelando that this type of game is legal in the beginning, but it gets annoying and tiring, not excluding the pugs, the WvW need them, have a great function, but bring back the great battles again!

3- I'm sorry, but there are spies and there are not a few, they are innumerable, I am not depriving people of having more than one account, at no time did I put this and since I could not think of a way to solve it just said that ANet should think of something to to solve this question and that the comudidade can post here some suggestions! But spies should rather be exterminated because I say again, this is anti-gambling and not strategy. Maybe putting a report to spy, and that ANet take this report into consideration performing a more serious / heavy and / or even prohibiting the legions can talk to each other at least to minimize!

@Arcuss.6457 said:Make it more random and have guilds (the ones that you currently rep) assigned to a new group every week.

And how will you ensure that each and every guild I am in is linked together?

Pugs can be assigned to random groups.

At this point, "PUGS" are familiar with each other, a communist among themselves for the most part.

Remove bandwagon servers and servers buying whole guilds like mercenaries.

Define "bandwagoning" as you see it?

Servers are not entities, thus it is not rational to suggest they can "buy" anything, much less guilds or players. All it seems you are referring to is a request to "ban" free market agreements of mutual benefit because, well, I do not know why, could you explain it?

The only downside would be communication between guilds if paired with randoms every week.

I do not think "only" means what you appear to believe it means. many many downsides have been pointed out in the many many discussion on this topic before this thread.

Just an idea to balance out WvW.

Unless you can force the same amount of players to play at the same time on all three servers, and play in the same manner, with the same skill level, it is irrational to assume there will be some form of equality and thus balance.

I realize that wvw will probably never make such a dramatic change to the system (especially when anet can make a buck on server transfers)

You appear to assign a motive here, yet I see no evidence that server transfers account for even .0001% of Anets income. Could you link me a source to support this motive? or is it completely fabricated?

@zinkz.7045 said:most players have switched servers multiple times

Can you link or share evidence to support that or is it simply fabricated because you needed something to support your perspective?

look at EVE Online that has a far stronger, deeper community than the very shallow one that exists in GW2.

Why would anyone look to compare a game that is advertised as casual to one that is known to be particularly hard core?

While we do need something different, we can't remove what we have until we have something better.

The issue currently is that servers are full. So guilds cant play together/recruit from other servers unless they go to a linked server which definitely is not what most guilds want.PoF will make servers even more full and RIP reforming guilds during expansion, imagine coming back to game after 1 year and having to farm 600 gold to transfer to a server you will most likely leave in 2 months., doesnt seem too good of a start.

The current system is ok otherwise.

And dont make community vote for anything, just look what happened with desert map and only argument people have for keeping it is "BUT WE VOTED FOR IT, LETS KEEP IT EVEN THOUGH ITS A DEAD MAP".

@zinkz.7045 said:

@joneirikb.7506 said:

@zinkz.7045 said:

@QuantumCat.9051 said:Great way to destroy the community in WvW and turn it into a EotM Blobfest. There are other alternatives that can provide more even matches.

Please provide statistics to back up your claim. I'm in a 500 person guild and only a few have ever transferred servers. Amongst the fighting guilds on our server the majority have been here the entire time, and only a small number have frequently jumped servers. Look at the history of WvW in GW and you'll see that it's the same guilds jumping around, not "most of the playerbase". One or two guilds in a particular timezone can tip the balance heavily in a server's favor.

@Threather.9354 said:

And dont make community vote for anything, just look what happened with desert map and only argument people have for keeping it is "BUT WE VOTED FOR IT, LETS KEEP IT EVEN THOUGH ITS A DEAD MAP".

Desert BL is not dead.Far from it.There are many players that prefer it to Alpine,and wanted it to stay in the game,and so voted for it.