Server Balance??? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Server Balance???

Balthazzarr.1349Balthazzarr.1349 Member ✭✭✭

Look at the scores in T4... This should be a clear indication (as if we didn't already know) that this linking simply doesn't work. Bandwagon still happens and so on.

ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

Comments

  • They just recently released a statement saying it still had a ways to go. I wouldn't expect to see it until at least summer 2019 tbh.

  • Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 8, 2018

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:
    ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

    Is quite new news, but not really good news.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61986/world-restructuring-update-2

  • That's more an example of a former t1 server that still has coverage over most hours somehow finding a way to drop down to t4 vs empty sor and a yb with coverage only about 4h a day. Massacre was expected.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 8, 2018

    @Dayra.7405 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:
    ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

    Is quite new news, but not really good news.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61986/world-restructuring-update-2

    There is no new news. Is just what already mentioned and compiled into a new thread. Basically just saying "we are still here".

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:
    Look at the scores in T4... This should be a clear indication (as if we didn't already know) that this linking simply doesn't work. Bandwagon still happens and so on.

    ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

    The only way to delay bandwagoning is to ramp up the cost for every transfer they made, it is the most logical deterrence since the more transfers, the more expensive it is, I doubt people will keep paying for inflated price. Just ask yourself if you willing to pay 5k gems to transfer.

    By delaying bandwagoning, servers will have breathing time to stablise itself and enjoy a good bit of WvW instead of having the bandwagoners actions making more people quit wvw or even the game itself.

    I personally don't think it requires major backend changes. I believe is simply just adding database count an date on transfers. Basically two additional tags on account.

    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

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 8, 2018

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:
    Look at the scores in T4... This should be a clear indication (as if we didn't already know) that this linking simply doesn't work. Bandwagon still happens and so on.

    ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

    They posted an update a couple of days ago.

    Not only did it say that the back-end was comming along in pieces but is yet to be pieced together (so still alpha level), but ...

    They also said that they are keeping cross-region transfer and between-link transfer for gems so the new system will be plagued by the same two major reasons as to why the current system is bad. Nightcappers and wagoneers will still be a P2W thing to ruin pop-balance :# .

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

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:
    Look at the scores in T4... This should be a clear indication (as if we didn't already know) that this linking simply doesn't work. Bandwagon still happens and so on.

    ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

    Linking and 1 up 1 down. It allows for a server to... pick it’s matchup with minimal coordination. So... a populated server can ask its main commanders to decrease how much they tag up and within two weeks, your server can be tier four for some confidence building server beatdowns.

    But maybe it’s all about the fights.

  • Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 8, 2018

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Dayra.7405 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:
    ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

    Is quite new news, but not really good news.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61986/world-restructuring-update-2

    There is no new news. Is just what already mentioned and compiled into a new thread. Basically just saying "we are still here".

    New in the sense of just 10 days ago.

    And not good:
    just one part time developer working on it, in nearly a year he may made around 25%, if that commitment of ANet to WvW doesn't increase, we get Alliances end of 2021.

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dayra.7405 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Dayra.7405 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:
    ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

    Is quite new news, but not really good news.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61986/world-restructuring-update-2

    There is no new news. Is just what already mentioned and compiled into a new thread. Basically just saying "we are still here".

    New in the sense of just 10 days ago.

    And not good:
    just one part time developer working on it, in nearly a year he may made around 25%, if that commitment of ANet to WvW doesn't increase, we get Alliances end of 2021.

    He's not working on it alone and he is not working on it part time. Poor reading comprehension if you picked that up from his post. He also refers to himself as "we" if that was the case.

    Logging out forever.

  • Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 8, 2018

    Hope your right, we will see sometimes in the future, or not as we long forgot gw2 when it finally happen

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Open all servers.
    Free transfers for a week, they can only move once in that time anyways.
    There are people that apparently like playing with less people and not in zergs, they can have the lower tier.
    Let people play wherever they want.
    At this point people complaining about bandwagons just don't want to move, but want to force people to stay on their server. The only way to truly stop this is to not have transfers, and that will never happen.
    Rank 1 tier 1 means nothing, populations have always been screwed since day one with coverage stacking, there's no tournaments, bragging about being number one in a game mode that has half the players from years past is empty and hallow.

    And please let's not get misty eyed about a name at this point because the servers are not what they use to be, they all will be destroyed with the new system eventually.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    RIP Maguuma cloud || Time to join the dark side.

  • @starhunter.6015 said:

    @mike.6387 said:
    Yeap Anet you ruined wvw think I am done with gw just for that reason alone.

    Good bye, and it wasn't Anet who ruined WvW it was the players.

    Players are ALWAYS going to try and game the system.

    Expecting them not to is foolish and a recipe for disaster.

    Anet sitting back and letting it happen when they had every opportunity to stop it is what caused the problem.

  • Bring back free transfers or pay us to transfer instead. We shouldn't have to pay to enjoy the game.

  • sostronk.8167sostronk.8167 Member ✭✭✭

    One part time developer will give you an update when he gets a chance.

    _We must secure the existence of our Quaggans and a future for Quaggan children. _

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Substance E.4852 said:

    @starhunter.6015 said:

    @mike.6387 said:
    Yeap Anet you ruined wvw think I am done with gw just for that reason alone.

    Good bye, and it wasn't Anet who ruined WvW it was the players.

    Players are ALWAYS going to try and game the system.

    Expecting them not to is foolish and a recipe for disaster.

    Anet sitting back and letting it happen when they had every opportunity to stop it is what caused the problem.

    Im just loving being linked with 2 servers, and still coming in last because the server im up against(also with two links) is stacked right now. It super fun having multiple stealth groups literally camping outside of the spawn locations on all but one map at all hours of the day, so i wont be doing WvW this week sadly. :(

    Ember Wandertooth(SB), Lucina Fallenflame(Weaver), Kianda Redpaw(Guardian), Kingslayer, Light in the Dark.
    Why Guild Wars is called Guild Wars

  • @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:
    They just recently released a statement saying it still had a ways to go. I wouldn't expect to see it until at least summer 2019 tbh.

    I suspect it's farther than that. I also suspect that numbers for the game mode will diminish in a snowball like fashion. Then when the alliance system hits, there will be an influx of numbers that come back, but will leave shortly after again due to bandwagoning and stacking.

    The same problem that exists now will still persist through alliances: Many guilds/players have no interest in fairness or even play. They stack themselves, then if they run into any competition they either log off or cower in their towers or keeps. Outside of that, they'll just blob people down with 2-3x the numbers. This is still going to happen with alliances because it's a player behavior problem. People keep saying it's an Anet created problem.. it isn't, it's exclusively a player behavior problem

    There is an extremely easy fix that would both have an immediate impact on balance, and have a positive long term effect, both in the current system and alliances. Cap the maps at a far lower player number. Right now, 20-25 should be sufficient, then if somehow a server manages to fill all the maps, increase the cap by another 5 until all maps are filled again. The only downside is reset, but I'm sorry, for 4 hours one night is no means to keep the map caps as high as they are currently.

    Keeping the map capped at 20-25 completely eliminates the stacking behavior. Why stack if there is no means outnumber your enemy? The fact that you are a bandwagoner and you can no longer participate in a group larger than 20 means that it is now imposed on you that you must fight evenly. Often, the servers that havn't been bandwagoned to, can rarely ever field more than 20 people at once anyway. The guilds that can occasionally throughout the week would simply have to split their numbers up between maps. The most positive effect on Anet's side is it drastically reduces the stress on their servers that quite frankly can't seem to handle anything large scale.

    The other thing they could do is simply disallow any links in T1. The second a server moves up to T1 causes their link to be recycled down to T4. The only arguments I've seen against this is, players or guildies want to play together but can't due to full servers, so the answer is move to the hosts link. This is not an argument, take your entire guild or group of friends and move to a link server where you all fit. Who knows, maybe you'll become a host. Quite frankly, if this causes the players who created this problem in the first place to get mad and leave the game, this is actually a positive thing, they created the mess to begin with.

  • @Dante.1763 said:

    @Substance E.4852 said:

    @starhunter.6015 said:

    @mike.6387 said:
    Yeap Anet you ruined wvw think I am done with gw just for that reason alone.

    Good bye, and it wasn't Anet who ruined WvW it was the players.

    Players are ALWAYS going to try and game the system.

    Expecting them not to is foolish and a recipe for disaster.

    Anet sitting back and letting it happen when they had every opportunity to stop it is what caused the problem.

    Im just loving being linked with 2 servers, and still coming in last because the server im up against(also with two links) is stacked right now. It super fun having multiple stealth groups literally camping outside of the spawn locations on all but one map at all hours of the day, so i wont be doing WvW this week sadly. :(

    Try being a on a server that has no real guilds left but is still "Full" because Anet says so.

  • Hitman.5829Hitman.5829 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I read somewhere that Anet balances WvW based on average hours played in a server. If that is true, then that is a terrible way to "balance" WvW because average hours played is not indicative of how many players play in a server. Anet needs to balance WvW on population not on average hours played.

    Charr Warrior Master Race!
    Black Gate Beast Roamer chicken chaser!

  • Caliburn.1845Caliburn.1845 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    Anet doesn't balance anything on "average" hours played. They base population on "total" hours played. All the hours played by anyone on a given server get added to one lump sum.

    What Anet doesn't balance around is "when" those hours occur. IE if all your players are NA, or if some play during other time zones. Nor does Anet check the effectiveness of those hours played, IE some players are hugely more organized and effective at either PPT or K/D, or both.

    Caliburn.1845, Monsters Inc(BOO) guildleader.
    DH>DB>BG>MAG>YB>SBI>YB>AR

  • gebrechen.5643gebrechen.5643 Member ✭✭✭

    I don't really know what you guys expect? Anet can't stop the behaviour of bandwagoning. That's the players job, not the developers. Sure, they could make transfers more expensive, but that wouldn't help wvw a bit.
    It's your mind set that destroys the game mode in the long term.
    Why do you think BG and JQ where on top of that list for so long? Because everybody bandwaggoned there? Why didn't it work out for bandwagon servers like Dragonbrand (remember 2014?) or SoR or SoS recently?
    You need a good mix of solid guild groups that show up on a regular basis and even more important you need a solid number of pugs that are willing to learn and get on teamspeak, discord or the voice chat your server uses. For those pugs you need commanders that don't hide in a guild discord and run closed group, but commanders that are willing to teach the pugs, to shape them into a useful part of the server. That takes time, that takes dedication and a lot of sweat and tears.
    Your server will die if you ignore the pugs and do your "guild stuff" and it will die when your pugs don't care and just block the ebg queue while farming pips by sitting somewhere.
    You can transfer as often as you want, but you won't end up on a server where someone takes your hand, hands you some gear, gives you a hug and carries you around until you are done with your kitten.
    That's how BG and JQ worked for a very long time and the reason it stopped working is the same (at least for JQ). Running closed groups, server drama, entitled pugs and more entitled guild leaders.

    Solution: Get a pin, learn to pugmand or find someone you can support. You may not end up in tier 1 with that, but you can get things done and have while trying.

    Disciples of the monkey god [Apes]

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    @Substance E.4852 said:

    @Dante.1763 said:

    @Substance E.4852 said:

    @starhunter.6015 said:

    @mike.6387 said:
    Yeap Anet you ruined wvw think I am done with gw just for that reason alone.

    Good bye, and it wasn't Anet who ruined WvW it was the players.

    Players are ALWAYS going to try and game the system.

    Expecting them not to is foolish and a recipe for disaster.

    Anet sitting back and letting it happen when they had every opportunity to stop it is what caused the problem.

    Im just loving being linked with 2 servers, and still coming in last because the server im up against(also with two links) is stacked right now. It super fun having multiple stealth groups literally camping outside of the spawn locations on all but one map at all hours of the day, so i wont be doing WvW this week sadly. :(

    Try being a on a server that has no real guilds left but is still "Full" because Anet says so.

    Thats just as bad!

    @gebrechen.5643 said:
    I don't really know what you guys expect? Anet can't stop the behaviour of bandwagoning. That's the players job, not the developers. Sure, they could make transfers more expensive, but that wouldn't help wvw a bit.

    They can they choose not to, theres alot of things that could be used to stop transfers bandwagoning.

    It's your mind set that destroys the game mode in the long term.

    this is true, but the ease of bandwagoning doesnt help.

    Why do you think BG and JQ where on top of that list for so long? Because everybody bandwaggoned there? Why didn't it work out for bandwagon servers like Dragonbrand (remember 2014?) or SoR or SoS recently?
    You need a good mix of solid guild groups that show up on a regular basis and even more important you need a solid number of pugs that are willing to learn and get on teamspeak, discord or the voice chat your server uses. For those pugs you need commanders that don't hide in a guild discord and run closed group, but commanders that are willing to teach the pugs, to shape them into a useful part of the server. That takes time, that takes dedication and a lot of sweat and tears.
    Your server will die if you ignore the pugs and do your "guild stuff" and it will die when your pugs don't care and just block the ebg queue while farming pips by sitting somewhere.

    This bit is 100% true and i agree with it.

    You can transfer as often as you want, but you won't end up on a server where someone takes your hand, hands you some gear, gives you a hug and carries you around until you are done with your kitten.
    That's how BG and JQ worked for a very long time and the reason it stopped working is the same (at least for JQ). Running closed groups, server drama, entitled pugs and more entitled guild leaders.

    Solution: Get a pin, learn to pugmand or find someone you can support. You may not end up in tier 1 with that, but you can get things done and have while trying.

    Sadly more and more servers at lower tiers are just becoming rover servers due to having to go up against servers that get swarmed by players, TC has been nearly completely empty, with the odd roamer for weeks now, and we keep going up against servers that we shouldnt be seeing.

    Ember Wandertooth(SB), Lucina Fallenflame(Weaver), Kianda Redpaw(Guardian), Kingslayer, Light in the Dark.
    Why Guild Wars is called Guild Wars

  • Ya, T4 is a mess with SoR being dead. Should've had emergency re links asap but instead people in T4 and SoR have to wait 2 months for a computer to do it for them. Anet needs to step in right away when tiers/servers get this dead. The player can only transfer or wait 2 months and i guess the first option is what most people choose for good reason.

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    VR

  • It's not just T4, look at T1, Kaineng has 2 T3 keeps in EBG

  • absolute garbage. but i guess i have a lot of reading i want to do anyways. this wouldn't be a problem if ANY of the following were to happen:
    1. servers were unlinked
    2. servers were merged permanently
    3. there were restrictions on server transfers
    4. alliance system was worked on and implemented
    But nope. shrugs

  • @Shagaliscious.6281 said:
    It's not just T4, look at T1, Kaineng has 2 T3 keeps in EBG

    Well, we all said 2 months for linking was too long and we were correct. Anet does nothing

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    VR

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Your never going to have full control over the player base the best thing is to ask for relative mobility for ppl to move but with a massive cd.

  • SpellOfIniquity.1780SpellOfIniquity.1780 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    To me SoS appears to have an unusually low population of capable fighters. They are extremely PPT-centric and often lose matches strictly because they cannot over power any objective that's being defended. They're easily stopped no matter how determined they are or how sneakily they try to snipe things. The irony of a good PPT server is that you need good fighters to do it however. If they're dying to every random roamer or AOE they're going to be very easy to counter pressure. Some servers just ignore SoS because they find them boring which lets them win matches they shouldn't. Other servers hard focus them because they're usually easy to wipe out and this kills off a lot of their active population due to players not wanting to bother for the current match up.

    All of this is only observational and not factual however.
    Maybe this, combined with low morale from losing too many fights made a lot of players/commanders avoid WvW for longer than usual which in turn reduced their potential to win matches. They sunk to the bottom, the PPT heroes returned and they're out in full force in T4.

    Although over time the "personality" of servers has diminished there's still visible differences between them. Players with similar interests congregate on the same servers and create core communities that you can see with frequent encounters. In the case of SoS, it's their focus on winning the match over winning fights. Websites like wvwstats.com or gw2stats.com also help to expand on that picture.

    Guilds could have left or joined or any number of things could have happened to lead to the current situation. Sometimes it's more black and white like what happened with SoR - they were heavily bandwagoned in to a singular time zone then had a massive exodus shortly after. Other times, it's a sequence of events as simple as too many losing matches causing players to lose interest in WvW for a while.

    ANet is responsible for balancing servers and many of us agree that their "algorithms" are less than reliable. Perfect balance can never be achieved however and more people need to realize that situations such as this one aren't always ANet's fault. Many of the reasons I listed above can be heavily attributed to lop-sided match ups - server drama being one of those influences.

    Bad matches suck but they're always going to happen and sometimes it's subjective. Regardless of which it is, you just have to take it with a grain of salt and either make an effort to change it within your server (eg. becoming a commander and doing what you can) or take some time off to do better things.

    [CAT] [Blep] [HUNT] | Necromancer, Ranger, Warrior, Engineer, Revenant | Kaineng | Diamond Legend
    I wanna dance all night with you ... ♫

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Frankly I don't think anet should be stepping in to do emergency relinks to fix the population problems when an idiotic guild or alliance decides things are not in their favor and move again. There needs to be consequences for the players action. Guilds bandwagoning, guilds getting paid to move, guilds stacking with other guilds, that's all the players fault, not anet. 6 years of complaints to learn a lesson and guilds still went and one time zone stacked SoR, how idiotic can you be? Naw naw man we were expecting to get linked with an off hours server to balance everything out, know what I'm saying, it was gonna be all good till anet screwed it up yo!

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    RIP Maguuma cloud || Time to join the dark side.

  • SnowPumpkin.1809SnowPumpkin.1809 Member ✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Dayra.7405 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:
    ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

    Is quite new news, but not really good news.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61986/world-restructuring-update-2

    There is no new news. Is just what already mentioned and compiled into a new thread. Basically just saying "we are still here".

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:
    Look at the scores in T4... This should be a clear indication (as if we didn't already know) that this linking simply doesn't work. Bandwagon still happens and so on.

    ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

    The only way to delay bandwagoning is to ramp up the cost for every transfer they made, it is the most logical deterrence since the more transfers, the more expensive it is, I doubt people will keep paying for inflated price. Just ask yourself if you willing to pay 5k gems to transfer.

    By delaying bandwagoning, servers will have breathing time to stablise itself and enjoy a good bit of WvW instead of having the bandwagoners actions making more people quit wvw or even the game itself.

    I personally don't think it requires major backend changes. I believe is simply just adding database count an date on transfers. Basically two additional tags on account.

    How is it fair to people on a link server that want to play with friends. Of course they want to transfer when they get unlinked. Until Anet removes links and opens servers that is very unfair to raise the cost.

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @hunkamania.7561 said:

    @Shagaliscious.6281 said:
    It's not just T4, look at T1, Kaineng has 2 T3 keeps in EBG

    Well, we all said 2 months for linking was too long and we were correct. Anet does nothing

    I didnt realize the time for relinks was two months, that makes me sad, really really sad :(

    Ember Wandertooth(SB), Lucina Fallenflame(Weaver), Kianda Redpaw(Guardian), Kingslayer, Light in the Dark.
    Why Guild Wars is called Guild Wars

  • @XenesisII.1540 said:
    There needs to be consequences for the players action.

    While I don't disagree with this, who is actually being "punished" at the moment: The ones who actually bandwagoned or the server "natives" who were there before and after the bandwagon?

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Dayra.7405 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:
    ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

    Is quite new news, but not really good news.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61986/world-restructuring-update-2

    There is no new news. Is just what already mentioned and compiled into a new thread. Basically just saying "we are still here".

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:
    Look at the scores in T4... This should be a clear indication (as if we didn't already know) that this linking simply doesn't work. Bandwagon still happens and so on.

    ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

    The only way to delay bandwagoning is to ramp up the cost for every transfer they made, it is the most logical deterrence since the more transfers, the more expensive it is, I doubt people will keep paying for inflated price. Just ask yourself if you willing to pay 5k gems to transfer.

    By delaying bandwagoning, servers will have breathing time to stablise itself and enjoy a good bit of WvW instead of having the bandwagoners actions making more people quit wvw or even the game itself.

    I personally don't think it requires major backend changes. I believe is simply just adding database count an date on transfers. Basically two additional tags on account.

    How is it fair to people on a link server that want to play with friends. Of course they want to transfer when they get unlinked. Until Anet removes links and opens servers that is very unfair to raise the cost.

    How is it fair to others for them to stack up a link which is pre-calculated to be "balanced"?

    For their supposedly friends, they are punishing hundreds or even thousands of others on the suffering end for the unbalance they contributed in.

    I personally think that anyone who used the word, "friends", are simply selfish for the very fact they could all very well transfer to a open server.

    No matter how they justify themselves, they are evidently harming others with their actions.

    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

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Shining One.1635 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    There needs to be consequences for the players action.

    While I don't disagree with this, who is actually being "punished" at the moment: The ones who actually bandwagoned or the server "natives" who were there before and after the bandwagon?

    The solution isn't to relink a week into a new relink just because some alliance decides to jump servers.
    That just encourages this behavior even more, it signals it's ok we can move whenever because hey anet will fix our mistake!
    Links are not even balanced in the first place anyways.

    Yes it sucks for those servers that get abandoned, but SoR was a dead server before the bandwagon, they're back to being a dead server, not that much difference there, they got one last shot at glory.

    Get mad at the players abandoning the server, not anet.

    Transfer cost should be more harsh, and also probably should be pushed to happen at certain times like increase cost to transfer to 3000 gems for 6 weeks into a link, but then 1000 on the 7th week and back to 3000 on the last week, (of course open all servers for this). This way you give the jumpers a time period to jump and give anet time to calculate proper populations for the next linking.

    But all this talk is not going to matter for the new system.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    RIP Maguuma cloud || Time to join the dark side.

  • Transfer cost was adjusted to scale accordingly to WvW before server links started, which makes perfect sense to incentivise moving down tiers. We are now reaching the end of linking system and it still hasn't been fixed... I'm not sure if this is just incompetence, terrible bureaucracy, money grabbing, or simply a lack of care.

    Power > Condition

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:
    Transfer cost was adjusted to scale accordingly to WvW before server links started, which makes perfect sense to incentivise moving down tiers. We are now reaching the end of linking system and it still hasn't been fixed... I'm not sure if this is just incompetence, terrible bureaucracy, money grabbing, or simply a lack of care.

    Its all of them, this game mode and pvp get the least attention in the entire game, unlike pvp though wvw had a chance to be a decent game mode.

    Ember Wandertooth(SB), Lucina Fallenflame(Weaver), Kianda Redpaw(Guardian), Kingslayer, Light in the Dark.
    Why Guild Wars is called Guild Wars

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:
    Transfer cost was adjusted to scale accordingly to WvW before server links started, which makes perfect sense to incentivise moving down tiers. We are now reaching the end of linking system and it still hasn't been fixed... I'm not sure if this is just incompetence, terrible bureaucracy, money grabbing, or simply a lack of care.

    It's likely a little bit of everything but none of them is the root issue. The root issue as with everything else is the underlying imbalances (rather than the superficial population imbalance that we all see) and the lack of content for organised player groups. If guild groups in their respective timezone can not affect score while dominating primetime they will to a higher degree just look to fight other guild groups. With guild groups leaving this becomes more difficult and without other convenient ways to meet other guild groups it becomes even more of an issue.

    The way all of these things combine to create content makes it very difficult to match up the way you are supposed to (with those who create similar content at similar hours). Server linking provided that option even if just in a crude form for guilds to hop on a link server and be flushed to higher tiers until the link-server becomes stacked enough to be unlinked. This worked for a while but as guilds are the lifeblood of almost all servers in the game you started to see the issues we now see appear where more and more servers just becomes husks of themselves when guilds either quit (to merge) or pay to take a climb to where the other guilds are (only to see wagoneers follow them whether those are individual players or player-groups who are incapable of creating content). As always, this is the culture in EU, I have no idea about the US.

    The only difference between now and two years ago is that there are fewer guilds creating content (ie., wagons) while there are more servers turning to husks, freefalling through the tiers and the wagons grow or are more impactful on the day-to-day gameplay. Guilds transfering or merging is nothing new, it happened well before linking. They just leave bigger holes now as there is little to no rebirth. Servers as high up in the tiers as T1/T2 can be reliant on as little as single guilds for the majority of their higher order content. If you pay attention it is really easy to see which servers sail up to dominate prime and why to track that. In the EU it's easy to see why WSR is WSR or why RoS attract players now (I'm sorry if I added to the wagons now, but I'm beyond caring deeper).

    The solutions are the same as we have been harping on about for years and years. Fix scoring and by extension population balance. Provide guilds with content and access to oneanother. This adresses the overarching issue by way of both underlying issues as the solutions are not mutually exclusive at all.

  • Shining One.1635Shining One.1635 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Yes it sucks for those servers that get abandoned, but SoR was a dead server before the bandwagon, they're back to being a dead server, not that much difference there, they got one last shot at glory.

    There's a difference between being a dead link attached to a stable host and being a dead host with no link. The only ones facing consequences are the server natives. None of the bandwagoners responsible are facing consequences.

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

    Steadily tiered transfer costs. Regardless of population status of the server you are moving to.

    First in 6 months: 1800 gems
    Second in 6 months: 3600 gems
    Third in 6 months: 5400 gems
    With an increase by 1800 gems for each additional transfer in a rolling 6 month period.

    Want to move pay for it.

  • Kilo.2539Kilo.2539 Member ✭✭✭

    Server transfer is how Anet makes money off WvW players... you think they’re going smash that golden egg?

  • Caliburn.1845Caliburn.1845 Member ✭✭✭

    Alliances will yes.

    Caliburn.1845, Monsters Inc(BOO) guildleader.
    DH>DB>BG>MAG>YB>SBI>YB>AR

  • Kilo.2539Kilo.2539 Member ✭✭✭

    @Caliburn.1845 said:
    Alliances will yes.

    Maybe that’s why world restructuring is a one man, part time project?

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

    @Kilo.2539 said:

    @Caliburn.1845 said:
    Alliances will yes.

    Maybe that’s why world restructuring is a one man, part time project?

    And the reason it's a slow-cooker project is; because besides ESO, they've got a captive audience and Mark Jacobs cancelled his beta xD
    What's to rush when whole servers are transferring around every relink?

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Habanero.4035Habanero.4035 Member ✭✭
    edited December 15, 2018

    @gebrechen.5643 said:
    I don't really know what you guys expect? Anet can't stop the behaviour of bandwagoning.

    Sure you can. It's called a high low pass filter. Amplitude is the number of players and frequency is the same.

    Either prevent migration with a low pass filter or link gem price to a high pass filter.

  • Neural.1824Neural.1824 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kilo.2539 said:
    Server transfer is how Anet makes money off WvW players... you think they’re going smash that golden egg?

    This^^^^ The money people at Anet love it when servers have mass transfers. Seems the same with the "current meta". Instead of balancing things, they just let things get really out of hand, then do a heavy hitting balance patch, and thousands of WvW players open their wallets to buy new gear.

    Soul-binding needs to be allowed to die gracefully. It has expired. It is long past it's time to become a footnote in the history of gaming.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Time to start deleting servers. Seems a fair bet to me at this point that alliances aren't going to be a thing and that even if they are they're so far away in terms of time as to be functionally irrelevant.

  • Djamonja.6453Djamonja.6453 Member ✭✭✭

    First of all, most people who server transfer just use gold to buy gems. Second of all, how much do you think it costs in $$ to transfer servers? Five dollars? Do you think a company like Anet is going to make a fortune making $500 for 100 people transferring to a new server? You guys need to rethink how much it costs to transfer and how it would influence Anet's decision making process.

  • @Habanero.4035 said:

    @gebrechen.5643 said:
    I don't really know what you guys expect? Anet can't stop the behaviour of bandwagoning.

    Sure you can. It's called a high low pass filter. Amplitude is the number of players and frequency is the same.

    Either prevent migration with a low pass filter or link gem price to a high pass filter.

    Sorry. Your elec analogy only makes it harder to understand.

    Power > Condition

  • Gemnaid.4219Gemnaid.4219 Member ✭✭✭

    Plaease. Just stop

  • Server balance, Muhahahahaha! Yes, yes we will fix this with... ALLIANCES yes, yes... tell them to form an alliance with other guilds and once you find them, everyone should transfer to a new server! Cha kitten! AWESOME, I'm on the super stacked server, my que is 45, I did get into a game yesterday after 45 min in que and when the squad was fighting the zerg, the server had so much skill lag, weapon skills would not even work even with a ping of 50. So I transfered back, (Anet Cha kitten! again) On the other side, got right into the game, YEAH outnumbered pips, I just ran around with 10 people for 3 hours, ran into 2 groups of 50 people 30 times and got tons of pips and died 30 times, o well guess I'll try EoTM, wait.... there's nobody here....

©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.