anybody else tired of the Server vs Server concept that held down by WvW population of servers?

I am ready for an experiment to try a Queue system instead of Server vs Server. Tired of joining in, with no commanders and no players to play with. Its not fun anymore. I wanted large scale fights, and now we dont even get that a lot unless on one of the few good WvW server matches.I like to try a WvW queue system sort of like SPvP queue system that sets teams up and keeps map populated down to as few servers as possible instead of all over the place.

Sounds nice in theory but would be a colossal mess in practice.

Like for instance do they still allow people to queue as guild groups?

Bit pointless if you don't care about the server then you don't care about defending in which case you're only there for fights then you might as well go PVP. And would never work with randoms unless anet started paying for a built-in voice comm service free to users (which will never happen).

Or you can just 'queue up' on EOTM.

ANet agrees that the current situation no longer works. That's why they have a huge revamp planned, in which they'll be able to rebalance the number & population of each team much more frequently. Currently people belong to the same world until they choose to leave; under the revamp, people will only belong to the same guild until they leave. The actual guilds that belong to each side will change depending on the active populations of each (with the definitions of "active" and "population" being more relevant to how we play).

Until that's in place (or ANet decides it's impractical), they aren't going to have time to consider alternatives.

tl;dr there's already a plan to overhaul matchups.

Honestly sounds almost like how EotM was before it died.

@Knighthonor.4061 said:anybody else tired of the Server vs Server concept that held down by WvW population of servers?

I am ready for an experiment to try a Queue system instead of Server vs Server. Tired of joining in, with no commanders and no players to play with. Its not fun anymore. I wanted large scale fights, and now we dont even get that a lot unless on one of the few good WvW server matches.I like to try a WvW queue system sort of like SPvP queue system that sets teams up and keeps map populated down to as few servers as possible instead of all over the place.

Switching to a queue system wouldn't really solve anything. You could get a queue full of unorganized people who don't want to tag up and then what? Or the likelihood exists of getting a queue full of too many commanders on map and everyone spread out doing their own thing and being generally ineffective against two other teams that have everyone on a single tag. The better solution is associating with an organized WvW guild.

TLDR: A queue system doesn't create an incentive to organize a team. Join/build a guild.

@Knighthonor.4061 said:anybody else tired of the Server vs Server concept that held down by WvW population of servers?

I am ready for an experiment to try a Queue system instead of Server vs Server. Tired of joining in, with no commanders and no players to play with. Its not fun anymore. I wanted large scale fights, and now we dont even get that a lot unless on one of the few good WvW server matches.I like to try a WvW queue system sort of like SPvP queue system that sets teams up and keeps map populated down to as few servers as possible instead of all over the place.

We are getting Alliances, so I'm not sure what purpose this thread really has.

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:anybody else tired of the Server vs Server concept that held down by WvW population of servers?

I am ready for an experiment to try a Queue system instead of Server vs Server. Tired of joining in, with no commanders and no players to play with. Its not fun anymore. I wanted large scale fights, and now we dont even get that a lot unless on one of the few good WvW server matches.I like to try a WvW queue system sort of like SPvP queue system that sets teams up and keeps map populated down to as few servers as possible instead of all over the place.

There.

D:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:anybody else tired of the Server vs Server concept that held down by WvW population of servers?

I am ready for an experiment to try a Queue system instead of Server vs Server. Tired of joining in, with no commanders and no players to play with. Its not fun anymore. I wanted large scale fights, and now we dont even get that a lot unless on one of the few good WvW server matches.I like to try a WvW queue system sort of like SPvP queue system that sets teams up and keeps map populated down to as few servers as possible instead of all over the place.

Wow, that's the same year you are running for President! :)

@Knighthonor.4061 said:anybody else tired of the Server vs Server concept that held down by WvW population of servers?

I am ready for an experiment to try a Queue system instead of Server vs Server. Tired of joining in, with no commanders and no players to play with. Its not fun anymore. I wanted large scale fights, and now we dont even get that a lot unless on one of the few good WvW server matches.I like to try a WvW queue system sort of like SPvP queue system that sets teams up and keeps map populated down to as few servers as possible instead of all over the place.

wow has this in place for years now. most fun i had at that game. not to mention open world pvp is now a click of the button.

@clone wars.9568 said:Bit pointless if you don't care about the server then you don't care about defending in which case you're only there for fights then you might as well go PVP.

Thing is, is that fights are in integral part of WvW, what do you think happens in battles...tickle fights? (that would be hilarious)

Fights also give points to their respective server, so its still helping. There are valid ways of justifying fights in WvW, same as dueling, despite people's personal views, assumptions or ignorance.

@Bigpapasmurf.5623 said:

@"clone wars.9568" said:Bit pointless if you don't care about the server then you don't care about defending in which case you're only there for fights then you might as well go PVP.

fights are integral part, but the overal scope of the mode is much greater than "just fights" and many of us enjoy looking at the bigger scope of the conflict

(I always find it amusing when my serverlink has superior position on the map (by objectives) and enemy zergs are breaking into outer bay just for the sake of having a fight inside with us instead of retaking it so we won't upgrade it.....)

Fights also give points to their respective server, so its still helping.

unless the group you are facing has outnumbered buff on them, then you won;t get any points from killing them, and I find it extra hilarious when enemy blob "just comes for a fight" when we still hold keeps on their hbl, and we have the outnumbered buff on us.

@Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

@Bigpapasmurf.5623 said:

@"clone wars.9568" said:Bit pointless if you don't care about the server then you don't care about defending in which case you're only there for fights then you might as well go PVP.

Fights also give points to their respective server, so its still helping.

The overall scope usually begins and ends with fights, making them a bigger piece of the pie than what you appear to give it. Its boring af taking a camp/tower/keep with 0 resistance. No challenge, no strategy, nothing. Add in defenders, BOOM....let the fun begin.

While I agree that there is more to WvW than fights (This coming from a solo/duo roamer, havoc comm), there's also no denying that fights are super important. Most people that come to WvW for fights (like myself) have no issue taking campt/towers and defending objectives (where there's a fight, you can bet I will be there). Don't discount everyone who is there for a fight as they are more useful than you think.

@Swagger.1459 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:We are getting Alliances

in 2020

, so I'm not sure what purpose this thread really has.

CHIA2020. I'll vote for that!

@"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:The overall scope usually begins and ends with fights, making them a bigger piece of the pie than what you appear to give it.The overal scope usually begins with friday reset, and ends just before next friday reset. During that time all 3 sides are allowed to use any trick from up their sleeves to win as many skirmishes as they can. Singular "fight" in this can be anything from devastating strategic move, to meaningless waste of time depending on the context of said fight. Which is slightly more of a depth to the mode than what you appear to give it.

Its boring af taking a camp/tower/keep with 0 resistance. No challenge, no strategy, nothing. Add in defenders, BOOM....let the fun begin.

if you narrow down the context to just taking that camp/tower/keep, then yes, you are right.But when you consider broader scope of event of capturing the camp it may again - vary greatly. For example - exploiting the fact that main force of enemy is preoccupied fighting over garrison, to rush reset t1 tower back into wood, is fun experience in it's own way. Especially if we speak of those nothern towers on alpine borderlands that are borderline impossible to "reset" when enemy force is not preoccupied with more important objectives.

While I agree that there is more to WvW than fights (This coming from a solo/duo roamer, havoc comm), there's also no denying that fights are super important. Most people that come to WvW for fights (like myself) have no issue taking campt/towers and defending objectives (where there's a fight, you can bet I will be there). Don't discount everyone who is there for a fight as they are more useful than you think.

I am not discounting those who joing WvW for "a fight", what I said is that I find it really funny when the concept of a "fight" is blinding enemies from actuall objective of the mode - with provided example of enemy group on their home border not bothering with opening inner keep and recapping it insted just moving around the outer looking for other groups to fight it, despite of not even owning most of that home border.

and another example was similar but with bonus point of stake of the potential "fight" yielding no potential gain to them in longer scope. (fighting group that has outnumbered buff) - in such cases I am more than happy to provide them the fight they are looking for since it means either my allies or third server members on the map can hurt them long term by flipping border behind their back - which is win scenario for me because A) I loose nothing even if we loose a "fight" B) I am tying up main enemy force from doing things that will actually benefit them in the scale of even skirmish alone)

Server vs server actually works but unfortunately, not in gw2. Many in gw2 just don't understand how it work.

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Server vs server actually works but unfortunately, not in gw2. Many in gw2 just don't understand how it work.

It dont work because there is no server pride anymore, and server population isnt balanced like a queue system can. Reducing the number of maps at once will help greatly.