It's past time to limit transfers.

I can't imagine the pennies make that much difference to anet or there'd be more investment in the gamemode... right? Right??

So can we PLEASE stop allowing random bulk transfers between servers in the middle of links?

What about only allowing transfers in the final 2 weeks of a linkup? Times can be played with, links made shorter, perhaps a cap on xfers during the link of like, 20... many options to limit the damage that bulk transferring does to fun and what little community remains.

What other options would people like to see?

EDIT: To clarify: I am not on a dead server, and I am on the same server since beta. (EU, Gandara)

Are you also in Kaineng?

But no, never happen. The Locusts buy too many Gems. And we won't get Alliances until they figure out how to monetize that.

They'll take my 35 bucks the moment I feel like giving it to them, that won't change.Spend 35 bucks if your own to ditch that dead server.Free-to-play rocks

As one of the people who originally suggested putting a gem cost on transfers, I have to say I've been disappointed that it didn't do anything to reduce the numbers of transfers.

Time and tide wait for no man. If you've been left high and dry on a dead server, it's your own fault for not seeing the writing on the wall. The bandwagon won't stop, so it behooves you to either follow it to the latest overstacked server, or be in a stable guild that can make do wherever it is.

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:Are you also in Kaineng?

But no, never happen. The Locusts buy too many Gems. And we won't get Alliances until they figure out how to monetize that.

I don't think many buy gems at all. Guilds shell out gold for transfers, and many guild leaders are making gold hand over fist through over avenues in the game.

FLEE from the dead server or...Perish there. /cheese

D:

T1 EU Server, sorry, not dead :P

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:FLEE from the dead server or...Perish there. /cheese

D:

lol see wot you did thar :D

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:FLEE from the dead server or...Perish there. /cheese

D:

Pay to not die from boredom or....Just quit

The problem isn't transfers. It's people abusing it by transferring en masse with their 100+ player guilds. If you don't enjoy the server you're on because it's low activity or doesn't suit your style of play, there's nothing wrong with moving. And I'm not saying people who move large guilds are villains either. Sometimes they want a change of scenery and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just the people who deliberately try to create a super server that are problematic.

You can't demonize people for transferring just because you're patriotic about your server or because you've never been in a position where your guild wants to be among people who share their timezones or style of play.

Unfortunately this means you can't limit transfers because ANet can't investigate the motives behind every large scale transfer. So it is what it is.

@spectrito.8513 said:

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:FLEE from the dead server or...Perish there. /cheese

D:

The second is a LOT cheaper.

Gandara people on reddit: "We dont have blobs or commanders because we are a roaming server, not a bandwagon server."

Gandara on forums: "Anet please stop people from transfering to our server."

How does it feel to be a #1 pug attraction?

Don't listen to this guy, Gankdara can always use more players. The more the merrier! ;)

It's past time to limit transfers.So can we PLEASE stop allowing random bulk transfers between servers in the middle of links?What's difference this month from last year at this time or the year before? Doesn't everyone (including ANet) agree that bandwagoning is an issue? Haven't we already been back & forth on the idea that there are no good options, as each "solution" makes some things worse (and none entirely address the issue)? Isn't there widespread agreement that the Alliance system will (a) address some of the inherent issues outright and (b) provide a much more robust framework with which to deal with these issues?

Accordingly, why would the OP seek to distract ANet's efforts to "get it done" by looking at any other ideas that would require time from some/most of the same devs ?

fix aoe so smaller groups have a better chance, then population discrepancy ceases to be an issue.something something broken record.

Years ago when the first bandwagoning started I said it. Transfers should not have been allowed in the first place. Transfers should be stopped. Transfers fucked up wvw.

It's time to limit transfers, shorten time of server linking, make multiple accounts on wvw bannable offense and punish MU manipulations.

Yeah, basically. Very lots of things

This isn't a new issue. But recently transfers have been a hot topic among our WvW group. (we're on Darkhaven, currently paired with Kaineng) Guild transfers off of Kaineng apparently happened the first week of the new pairing at the end of March. (here-say, I don't know the whole story) This threw off every match since then, creating a negative experience for our group, and presumedly a good portion of the players left to face the following 7 weeks of severely unbalance matches. And, I presume it caused imbalance on the servers to which they transferred.

Should players have no responsibility in a team environment when a commitment has been made to transfer to a server? WvW IS supposed to be a team effort; from zergs, to havoc, to defenders, to roamers, to players in different time zones. Is there a valid reason to have restrictions on server transfers, once a server is chosen, or restrictions on when transfers can happen? From my perspective, I think there should be disincentives or restrictions on transfers, that would hopefully trigger some real thought about why guilds should transfer, or not. Wishful thinking on my part and I'm sure many would disagree because players should play however they want. Every game has rules, though.

I believe this will still be a valid concern even when Alliances are implemented. I know Anet is aware of the issue of population imbalance and have tried multiple times to alleviate this issue, but haven't been able to resolve the problem. I think the funny part is that players frequently complain about population imbalance and 'why can't Anet fix it!'. Ironically, Anet can't 'fix' player behavior. It's an issue that has been in existence since WvW began; many servers have died, revived, died, revived repeatedly.

I'm hoping Alliances and more frequent resetting of the Alliances can help the issue. I really do care about this game mode, and have enjoyed thousands of hours in WvW, and want to continue to do so. Gotta say, this past few weeks have been painful for me. ( No, I don't want to transfer and leave my wvw community on a server I've been on since beta)

@Ra Ra.9423 said:This isn't a new issue. But recently transfers have been a hot topic among our WvW group. (we're on Darkhaven, currently paired with Kaineng) Guild transfers off of Kaineng apparently happened the first week of the new pairing at the end of March. (here-say, I don't know the whole story) This threw off every match since then, creating a negative experience for our group, and presumedly a good portion of the players left to face the following 7 weeks of severely unbalance matches. And, I presume it caused imbalance on the servers to which they transferred.

Should players have no responsibility in a team environment when a commitment has been made to transfer to a server? WvW IS supposed to be a team effort; from zergs, to havoc, to defenders, to roamers, to players in different time zones. Is there a valid reason to have restrictions on server transfers, once a server is chosen, or restrictions on when transfers can happen? From my perspective, I think there should be disincentives or restrictions on transfers, that would hopefully trigger some real thought about why guilds should transfer, or not. Wishful thinking on my part and I'm sure many would disagree because players should play however they want. Every game has rules, though.

I believe this will still be a valid concern even when Alliances are implemented. I know Anet is aware of the issue of population imbalance and have tried multiple times to alleviate this issue, but haven't been able to resolve the problem. I think the funny part is that players frequently complain about population imbalance and 'why can't Anet fix it!'. Ironically, Anet can't 'fix' player behavior. It's an issue that has been in existence since WvW began; many servers have died, revived, died, revived repeatedly.

I'm hoping Alliances and more frequent resetting of the Alliances can help the issue. I really do care about this game mode, and have enjoyed thousands of hours in WvW, and want to continue to do so. Gotta say, this past few weeks have been painful for me. ( No, I don't want to transfer and leave my wvw community on a server I've been on since beta)

I think the biggest issue is there is Total freedome in transferring still, besides a server is 'full'. And the unbalance is the pairing of the server Will be fulll as well

In my experience servers been marked full easier then passed times, meaning people Will more likely go for the 'cheaper' T1 option.

There's no rules in transferring and after Six years you'd hope there would be a few restrictions' OR more rules for transferring (currently residential location, Activity etc.) After 6 years. I get you want an open sandbox game on which everyone is welcomeBut how things go now: it's as expensive to xfer to ET or SOR(fa pairing right?) As IT is to kaineng OR DH.

Maybe make 'host server population' a factor of transferring fees, like 10%less for medium paired with medium, same amount medium with high, 10% extra medium with very high

Etc.

There's no rules in transferring

• It costs 500-1800 gems per person to transfer.
• You cannot transfer more often than once every seven days.
• You will not earn pips in WvW for a minimum of 7, maximum of just under 14 days.
• You cannot transfer to a full world.
• Free accounts cannot transfer at all.

What other rules do you propose that would be fair to everyone in the current environment?

If transfers are limited to once in the last two weeks of the match up, then only those already on a coveted world get to choose to be on a coveted world; the rest are stuck with wherever they ended up. If (as has happened), a couple of key groups on your world decide to stop competing (for whatever reason), you'd be out of luck until the next transfer window.

The existing system isn't "good," it's just less worse than the alternatives, at least the ones we've seen posted on Reddit or the forums.mplement?

@Illconceived Was Na.9781As you mentioned in a post above, I also want Anet to stay focused on Alliances and not waste effort in trying to fix a system that will, hopefully soon, be replaced.So I don't think there's much that can be changed in our current environment. If it were easy for them, maybe change transfers to 14 day limit.

However, looking to the future and the comments by McKenna Berdrow in the Alliance Restructuring post a year or so ago, I would rather see monthly Alliance resets, and given the 'server pride' is pretty much gone at this point, more frequent resets may be acceptable to players. I'd envision transfers at least limited to every 14 days, not every 7 days. (though I believe I remember a dev comment that the workload involved in more frequent reformation would be prohibitive) I'd even like to see no transfers in the first week, leaving a two week window of opportunity if considering one-month resets. I'm not sure what you mean by your paragraph on the 'coveted' worlds. How would those on coveted worlds be the only ones able to transfer to coveted worlds? (Sorry, I'm missing something here) Since server/alliance transfers now only affect WvW, I just don't think it should be so easy, and I don't think a limitation of at least every 2 weeks is prohibitive, given the two-month matches current and proposed.

I'd also like to see some kind of incentive to the winning linked servers/Alliance. Right now it's nothing, other than moving up a tier. I am sad to see player comments in the forums that 'winning' the match doesn't matter, though I hope those players are the minority. I'm fine with our existing rewards, and have gotten a lot from the reward tracks, but that's really about participation and not necessarily going to the effort to win. Recently, when someone asked what do we get when our server wins? I had to say: nothing! The winners and losers all get the same. This in no way promotes the idea of a 'server community', something that has gone more and more by the wayside over the years and I think it contributes to making server transfers not feel important.

tl;drI totally get your point. And our discussions have asked the same questions without coming up with what I would consider a good solution for all. Though I wouldn't expect a solution to be good or pleasing for all, since that's nearly impossible. I don't think a fair solution can take into account reasons for transferring, but rather the benefit to the game mode itself, which in turn should benefit most of those who play it.

Questions I've considered:What is the benefit of allowing transfers as often as every 7 days?

• Keeping more players in the game and playing, perhaps.
• A bit of revenue for Anet.
• Mixing up the matches as servers go up or down in the leaderboards due to transfers; though for Alliances this probably wouldn't be an issue, since alliances reform differently?)What is not beneficial?
• Unbalanced matches due to the inability to re-shuffle the linkings (or alliances) frequently enough.
• Players tired of being overrun and leaving the game mode. (though this could still be the case even with 14-day transfers)
• Perhaps difficulty in getting new people into the mode if they happen to start out during an unbalanced match.
• Guilds/groups purposefully transferring to manipulate the leaderboards, which has been happening for years by bandwagoning servers

If a person considers wvw a 'team' sport, one could compare joining a basketball team. Would basketball players transfer to different teams every week? Or move in the middle of the season because their team was having a bad season? What are the incentives or disincentives that keep them on their team? (I know this comparison is a stretch) Currently, the only disincentive for transferring is no pips for up to a couple of weeks. A guildie of mine recently transfered back to our server and experienced that. He didn't like it, but accepted that penalty. I wouldn't change the penalty to be more harsh, and so leave it as currently stated.

Long post, I realize. This has been much on my mind for a long time.

They should just let us all on the same server so we can farm centaurs together in the corner

Would basketball players transfer to different teams every week? Or move in the middle of the season because their team was having a bad season?In fact, sports players move teams as often as their contracts allow them. It's been 50+ years since team loyalty mattered in professional sports... and that was primarily because the owners used their monopoly/oligarchy powers to restrict player movement.

In the US, LeBron moved recently for a ring. Mr Posh Spice bent it all the way to the United States for money (among other things), bent it back to Milan, and eventually to Paris.

In WvW, some people are loyal to the world, which is great. I find it more fun and kind of comforting to see the same people out there. Some people are loyal to their guild. Some people are loyal to a concept, which for some is PPT for some is "the fight." Still others are loyal to the same thing that sports pros invest in: coin, and they'll move to the pips.

It's all part of WvW, even if we personally don't agree with some of the choices people make. It would be a mistake to ignore any one of these constituencies when designing a "fair" system for restricting transfers.

That doesn't mean nothing can or should be done. It just means: I can see why ANet is waiting to throw the whole thing out and start from scratch.

Put an equal numbers of players on each server, cancel transfers, job done.

Can't see what's so difficult about that. In a pvp match of 5 you never have to play against 10.