Why did servers even get linked to begin with? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Why did servers even get linked to begin with?

Zefrost.3425Zefrost.3425 Member ✭✭✭
edited April 30, 2018 in WvW

Seriously?

I want my WvW back where mid/low tiers had the roamers and the players who actually played for fun and all the trihards were in the bandwagon servers (JQ/BG/etc.) Now I have absolutely no choice but to fight against megablobs. For what reason was there to do this linking garbage? The only reason that I can think of is some sort of data cost to save like $50 a month or something on your end.

I have never participated in the GvG garbage where the leader yells at you all day (tried once or twice, never again) nor have I ever liked the full on blob battles. I just want to get on after a day of work and roam like I used to. Is this going to get even worse with the upcoming update? The last time that I even made any WvW videos was before the kitten Reaper specialization and all of the other first elite specs even existed. That's the era that I'm talking about. Why was it changed? I didn't see a kitten problem with it every day that I logged in to play.

Once in a while I heard something about people complaining about gates and arrow carts or something? I don't even know. Who even cared or paid attention to this junk? Just log in and play the kitten game. That's what I did, and I enjoyed it.

There was nothing wrong with WvW before. The vocal minority is ruining WvW. Scratch that, has already ruined WvW.

<1

Comments

  • It's probably a population issue. If you're talking about the days of WvW pre Heart of Thorns, that was over 2.5 years ago. Even in HoT, I remember roaming the desert BLs and maybe seeing 1-2 human player enemies in 30+ minutes. As it stands, I think roamers still hit the BLs and rotate around camps, while the blobs are busy in EBG/keeps.

    I don't see how you have absolutely no choice but to fight against megablobs, unless "roaming" to you is taking a keep with 5 or so people. Then the megablobs will come hit you. Otherwise if you see them on the horizon, odds are they aren't trying to cross paths with you, I'd wager.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2018

    i quit gw2 for a year and when i got back, things were already like this. seems like the player base then voted for it.

    imo. servers ought to be deleted. and a new one made whereby everyone chooses where to group atleast every 2 months.

    this would fix the stacking problem instantly. =p maybe even reduce the existing servers.

    wvw is not only for roamers. maybe i suggest make a duel guild where you can invite ppl to join and schedule skirmishes.

    imo. the one thing ruining wvw is 4k ping. because of this, i play wow now. yup it's a subscription game but, i'm one of those who spend money for his hobbies.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Taygus.4571Taygus.4571 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2018

    Servers are linked due to a lack of population .

    However they have plans of changing this and getting rid of servers altogether.
    And setting up a system that pairs up guilds and level of playtime among players to make the populations more even.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    ^
    hope they implement it soon.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Taygus.4571Taygus.4571 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    ^
    hope they implement it soon.

    As do most WvW players.

  • Essentially they added linking because Heart of Thorns decimated the WvW population to a point where many servers had very low activity out of prime time, especially on the Desert Borderlands.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    =) dont forget the hacks

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • DeWolfe.2174DeWolfe.2174 Member ✭✭✭

    @Zefrost.3425 said:
    Seriously?

    I want my WvW back where mid/low tiers had the roamers and the players who actually played for fun and all the trihards were in the bandwagon servers (JQ/BG/etc.)

    Around the time HOT dropped the Dev's made a choice to manipulate our world populations to create rotations. This was a poorly thought out idea promoted by a handful of guild leaders. It should have been obvious that this type of heavy handed manipulation was never going to be good for a competitive game mode. That fun pre-HoT WvW is likely never going to be again in GW2 or even a GW3. Certainly not with this group of Dev's running WvW.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    its all about the tourneys

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zefrost.3425 said:
    Seriously?

    I want my WvW back where mid/low tiers had the roamers and the players who actually played for fun and all the trihards were in the bandwagon servers (JQ/BG/etc.) Now I have absolutely no choice but to fight against megablobs. For what reason was there to do this linking garbage? The only reason that I can think of is some sort of data cost to save like $50 a month or something on your end.

    I have never participated in the GvG garbage where the leader yells at you all day (tried once or twice, never again) nor have I ever liked the full on blob battles. I just want to get on after a day of work and roam like I used to. Is this going to get even worse with the upcoming update? The last time that I even made any WvW videos was before the kitten Reaper specialization and all of the other first elite specs even existed. That's the era that I'm talking about. Why was it changed? I didn't see a kitten problem with it every day that I logged in to play.

    Once in a while I heard something about people complaining about gates and arrow carts or something? I don't even know. Who even cared or paid attention to this junk? Just log in and play the kitten game. That's what I did, and I enjoyed it.

    There was nothing wrong with WvW before. The vocal minority is ruining WvW. Scratch that, has already ruined WvW.

    I guess you didn't realise that the low tier is basically ghost town, literally.

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    there ought to be a full rebirth every so often

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    there ought to be a full rebirth every so often

    There will be: every 8 weeks.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    there ought to be a full rebirth every so often

    There will be: every 8 weeks.

    hope so. =)

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Red Haired Savage.5430Red Haired Savage.5430 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 1, 2018

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Zefrost.3425 said:
    There was nothing wrong with WvW before. The vocal minority is ruining WvW. Scratch that, has already ruined WvW.

    I guess you didn't realise that the low tier is basically ghost town, literally.

    Pretty much what SkyShroud said, that and the mega blob servers "ruined" it before those of us in the "vocal minority" by buying up guilds and getting them to come to their server. Oh and guilds/alliances/commanders ego's ruined it too. There were many things that caused the population disparities we have.

    #nornmodeisbestmode

  • Sandzibar.5134Sandzibar.5134 Member ✭✭✭

    @Taygus.4571 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    ^
    hope they implement it soon.

    As do most WvW players.

    Pretty sure its not coming soon. Rumour has it as being "sometime next year" now.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 1, 2018

    @Zefrost.3425 said:
    Seriously?

    I want my WvW back where mid/low tiers had the roamers and the players who actually played for fun and all the trihards were in the bandwagon servers (JQ/BG/etc.) Now I have absolutely no choice but to fight against megablobs. For what reason was there to do this linking garbage? The only reason that I can think of is some sort of data cost to save like $50 a month or something on your end.

    I have never participated in the GvG garbage where the leader yells at you all day (tried once or twice, never again) nor have I ever liked the full on blob battles. I just want to get on after a day of work and roam like I used to. Is this going to get even worse with the upcoming update? The last time that I even made any WvW videos was before the kitten Reaper specialization and all of the other first elite specs even existed. That's the era that I'm talking about. Why was it changed? I didn't see a kitten problem with it every day that I logged in to play.

    Once in a while I heard something about people complaining about gates and arrow carts or something? I don't even know. Who even cared or paid attention to this junk? Just log in and play the kitten game. That's what I did, and I enjoyed it.

    There was nothing wrong with WvW before. The vocal minority is ruining WvW. Scratch that, has already ruined WvW.

    Linking was voted in by the community during an official poll.

    A dev stated that population numbers had increased since linking and improved rewards were introduced.

    The devs are now currently working on Alliances and blowing up all servers.

    Good luck.

    Edit- And before anyone needs “dev quote proof”...

    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-21-May-World-Linking-Closed

    “The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote”, the final results are:
    82.7% – Yes
    17.3% – No
    This mean that World Linking is now officially a Guild Wars 2 Feature. Thank you to everyone who voted!”

    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/On-the-Validity-of-WvW-surveys

    “Hey guys, since I’m seeing this topic pop up a lot, I wanted to step in and clear up some misconceptions.
    1. Nearly every player that voted, plays WvW at least somewhat regularly.
    2. Whether they play 1 hour a week, or dozens of hours a week, the breakdown between people who voted ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ remains very constant around the 65/35 split.
    3. The in-game poll notification mail is only sent to players who are actively playing WvW. They must be at least rank 10, and have ranked up while the poll was running.”

    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Additional-World-Linking-Information

    “We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks, world linking, and the return of the Alpine borderlands. On top of that, we use a fairly long historical tail on WvW activity level for world population purposes.”

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring

  • Sylosi.6503Sylosi.6503 Member ✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    “We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks,...

    That was some time ago, that level of activity that existed for a while after they added reward tracks has considerably dropped off. (at least on EU)

  • MEGA SERVER!

    The one thing we were all dreading is finally coming to WvW!

  • DeWolfe.2174DeWolfe.2174 Member ✭✭✭

    @Sylosi.6503 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    “We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks,...

    That was some time ago, that level of activity that existed for a while after they added reward tracks has considerably dropped off. (at least on EU)

    Those are two year old posts. That population level increase lasted for all of a month or so. People were happy to get Alpine back and the reward tracks for certain. Didn't last long though.

  • Taygus.4571Taygus.4571 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sandzibar.5134 said:

    @Taygus.4571 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    ^
    hope they implement it soon.

    As do most WvW players.

    Pretty sure its not coming soon. Rumour has it as being "sometime next year" now.

    I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about how soon it would be coming.

    Hoping is a different matter.

  • Dralor.3701Dralor.3701 Member ✭✭✭

    I think linking has gotten a bad rap.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dralor.3701 said:
    I think linking has gotten a bad rap.

    Linking is not a viable long term solution, and as time past the fundamental flaws became obvious as the results started impacting servers and players. It is a fatally flawed system in several ways.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Dralor.3701Dralor.3701 Member ✭✭✭

    I agree it isn’t sustainable but I believe a lot of people have used it as a scapegoat for other issues.

    Hopefully the restructuring helps.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dralor.3701 said:
    I agree it isn’t sustainable but I believe a lot of people have used it as a scapegoat for other issues.

    Hopefully the restructuring helps.

    Well the impact is undeniable, but there have also been many other issues as well so its not just linking.

    And restructuring is another godawful mess that will just make it even worse.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Elva.6372Elva.6372 Member ✭✭✭

    @Adamarc.7463 said:
    ...because Heart of Thorns decimated the WvW population...

    How so, in what way? Was it the change of map designs? If so, I missed the old maps, too.

    Remembrance, fallen from heaven, and madness risen from hell...

  • Dralor.3701Dralor.3701 Member ✭✭✭

    Worse or different?

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dralor.3701 said:
    Worse or different?

    Both

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Justine.6351Justine.6351 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Before linking and even HoT, I could flip an entire map's camps and sentries before someone would show up to reclaim. Linking kind of needed to happen.

    Anet buff me :-(
    Make me good at game!

  • Dralor.3701Dralor.3701 Member ✭✭✭

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:
    Worse or different?

    Both

    I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Elva.6372 said:

    @Adamarc.7463 said:
    ...because Heart of Thorns decimated the WvW population...

    How so, in what way? Was it the change of map designs? If so, I missed the old maps, too.

    There were several factors. Desert bl was very badly designed and many of us hated it. All 3 alpine maps were replaced by dbl so the only way to escape it was to play on eb which meant waiting in queues. The tactics were poorly balanced and over the top. Anet basically stayed silent and did nothing about WvW for over 6 months. Upgrading guild halls was/is a nightmare, upgrades your guild already had unlocked pre-hot were taken away and locked behind massive gold/mat grinds and timegating.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Additional-World-Linking-Information

    “We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks, world linking, and the return of the Alpine borderlands. On top of that, we use a fairly long historical tail on WvW activity level for world population purposes.”

    That was 2 years ago. Population has declined by a lot since then apart from a brief upsurge with the WvW armour.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 1, 2018

    @Dralor.3701 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:
    Worse or different?

    Both

    I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

    Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

    Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 1, 2018

    @morrolan.9608 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Additional-World-Linking-Information

    “We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks, world linking, and the return of the Alpine borderlands. On top of that, we use a fairly long historical tail on WvW activity level for world population purposes.”

    That was 2 years ago. Population has declined by a lot since then apart from a brief upsurge with the WvW armour.

    I was answering the question “Why did servers even get linked to begin with?”, and rebutting the “vocal minority” comment.

    We also don’t know how the populations differ from then and now, and linking doesn’t matter anyway since it’s going to change to Alliances. Right?

  • Dralor.3701Dralor.3701 Member ✭✭✭

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:
    Worse or different?

    Both

    I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

    Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

    Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

    That is quite a bit of speculation, entirely possible but that sounds more like a worse case scenario.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dralor.3701 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:
    Worse or different?

    Both

    I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

    Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

    Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

    That is quite a bit of speculation, entirely possible but that sounds more like a worse case scenario.

    Believe me when I say I hope I am wrong, I really do. I would much rather have a lively and healthy WvW then being able to say I told you so.

    I have been a fan of the Guild Wars franchise for many years and I really like Anet, I may disagree with them at times but they are a solid company and their Devs can be incredibly innovative and creative when they really focus on something. I am continuously impressed with the stuff they come up with. So while I may not be a fan of this idea, I do have some faith that it might someday be successful.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Sarrs.4831Sarrs.4831 Member ✭✭✭

    I'd be curious about how much that description is different from the status quo. I'd also be curious how much you've moved in circles other than BG.

  • Sandzibar.5134Sandzibar.5134 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 2, 2018

    @Taygus.4571 said:

    @Sandzibar.5134 said:

    @Taygus.4571 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    ^
    hope they implement it soon.

    As do most WvW players.

    Pretty sure its not coming soon. Rumour has it as being "sometime next year" now.

    I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about how soon it would be coming.

    Hoping is a different matter.

    I'm pretty sure I was responding to all the people who are hoping its coming soon - and as such are completely misguided.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Btw, a side note, it isn't the vocal minority ruining WvW, it is the majority that is ruining WvW.
    The minority got ignored for years, their warnings and complains fall on deaf ears. It is only when WvW obviously become dead enough, their feedbacks suddenly become insightful.

    Bandwagoning and stacking alike are caused by the majority. Majority like big fights and easy wins. I must emphasis, easy wins.

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • Dralor.3701Dralor.3701 Member ✭✭✭

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    Btw, a side note, it isn't the vocal minority ruining WvW, it is the majority that is ruining WvW.
    The minority got ignored for years, their warnings and complains fall on deaf ears. It is only when WvW obviously become dead enough, their feedbacks suddenly become insightful.

    Bandwagoning and stacking alike are caused by the majority. Majority like big fights and easy wins. I must emphasis, easy wins.

    Many of us have always been more interested in fights as opposed to ktraining or steamrolling our opponents with superior numbers.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2, 2018

    @Dralor.3701 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    Btw, a side note, it isn't the vocal minority ruining WvW, it is the majority that is ruining WvW.
    The minority got ignored for years, their warnings and complains fall on deaf ears. It is only when WvW obviously become dead enough, their feedbacks suddenly become insightful.

    Bandwagoning and stacking alike are caused by the majority. Majority like big fights and easy wins. I must emphasis, easy wins.

    Many of us have always been more interested in fights as opposed to ktraining or steamrolling our opponents with superior numbers.

    Ironically, that what's happen when you stack servers, Stacked servers steam roll non-stacked servers or servers with lesser coverage. Furthermore, stacked servers have way more experienced players compare to other servers. By stacking server, one is accelerating the depopulation of the game.

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    =) dont forget the hacks

    There are no hacks its all skilled players with real life buffs!!

  • Dralor.3701Dralor.3701 Member ✭✭✭

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    Btw, a side note, it isn't the vocal minority ruining WvW, it is the majority that is ruining WvW.
    The minority got ignored for years, their warnings and complains fall on deaf ears. It is only when WvW obviously become dead enough, their feedbacks suddenly become insightful.

    Bandwagoning and stacking alike are caused by the majority. Majority like big fights and easy wins. I must emphasis, easy wins.

    Many of us have always been more interested in fights as opposed to ktraining or steamrolling our opponents with superior numbers.

    Ironically, that what's happen when you stack servers, Stacked servers steam roll non-stacked servers or servers with lesser coverage. Furthermore, stacked servers have way more experienced players compare to other servers. By stacking server, one is accelerating the depopulation of the game.

    I agree, what happened in T1 was pretty bad. Just saying a lot of people also transferred out of T1 and think have been enjoying the fights in T2-3.

  • Waffle.3748Waffle.3748 Member ✭✭

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:
    Worse or different?

    Both

    I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

    Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

    Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

    The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post).

    [KEK]

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Waffle.3748 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:
    Worse or different?

    Both

    I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

    Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

    Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

    The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post).

    This is from the original post on restructuring:
    "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon."

    The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Waffle.3748Waffle.3748 Member ✭✭

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Waffle.3748 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:
    Worse or different?

    Both

    I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

    Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

    Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

    The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post).

    This is from the original post on restructuring:
    "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon."

    The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap.

    Right, so you would still be limited by the number of players in the alliance and the alliance is not the whole world that will be created. I think the big guild thing is what many servers will be doing, nothing new there.

    [KEK]

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Waffle.3748 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:
    Worse or different?

    Both

    I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

    Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

    Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

    The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post).

    This is from the original post on restructuring:
    "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon."

    The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap.

    That is true to a point. But if an alliance number has a hard cap of let's say 500, and a 501st player tries to join, i would imagine (though I don't know) it will likely lead to a choice: the guild leaves the alliance, or that player would not be in the alliance OR guaranteed to run with their WvW guild until matchups change and people leave the guild/alliance.

    One thing is much more likely; alliance leaders will wield a large amount of 'power' and guild leaders may use repping as a larger indicator of who stays in the guild.

    If the 'alliance cap' isn't a hard cap, then they are wasting their time.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Waffle.3748 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Waffle.3748 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:
    Worse or different?

    Both

    I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

    Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

    Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

    The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post).

    This is from the original post on restructuring:
    "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon."

    The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap.

    Right, so you would still be limited by the number of players in the alliance and the alliance is not the whole world that will be created. I think the big guild thing is what many servers will be doing, nothing new there.

    Its more of an organizational issue. And the population caps might not be an issue at all, or it could we will see. Personally I don't see like the guild cap, I am fine with the population cap, but the issue with having to mark a guild as your wvw guild and have a small cap per alliance really bugs me.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2, 2018

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Waffle.3748 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dralor.3701 said:
    Worse or different?

    Both

    I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

    Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

    Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

    The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post).

    This is from the original post on restructuring:
    "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon."

    The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap.

    That is true to a point. But if an alliance number has a hard cap of let's say 500, and a 501st player tries to join, i would imagine (though I don't know) it will likely lead to a choice: the guild leaves the alliance, or that player would not be in the alliance OR guaranteed to run with their WvW guild until matchups change and people leave the guild/alliance.

    One thing is much more likely; alliance leaders will wield a large amount of 'power' and guild leaders may use repping as a larger indicator of who stays in the guild.

    If the 'alliance cap' isn't a hard cap, then they are wasting their time.

    Well thats another issue, people being able to exclude others from being able to play on an alliance/server. One thing I have always loved about WvW is the freedom of choice you have as a player, jump in jump out and do whatever you want, whenever you want.

    So we now we would have an alliance cap, smaller population cap, and guild cap per alliance. Honestly seems like overkill.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.