Jump to content
  • Sign Up

December World Linking Update


Cal Cohen.2358

Recommended Posts

@Tarragon.4302 said:i dont really understand why you guys would wait an entire month instead of just doing it like a week earlier. waiting a month is just going to make more people not play the game because they're stuck in boring and bad matchups. NA prime in t1 right now is just people losing 1 fight then sitting in their keep and just using siege. its so unbelievably boring to play

This has to be false. According to the forums only the evil empire in NA does such...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Mini Crinny.6190 said:On stream it was mentioned that having it every 2 months from january would avoid the problem of doing it around Christmas, If alliances were coming out next year then this woudn't be a problem, so I guess that this sort of means no alliance update next year?

I feel like we won’t see alliances then either, however, there will be ‘relinking’ periods. It has been assumed (maybe incorrectly) that there would be periods of world creation which would group some alliances together along with non allied guilds and players every so often. I am not sure if they said 8ish weeks, but the timeline is in place from the linking periods so that COULD be a logical timeframe for ‘world creation’.

So, a similar process to now where servers are re linked may be on tap with ‘world creation’ or ‘linking’ alliances together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Booey Bubblehead.4890" said:So much complaining about "bad links". Based on the feedback EVERY link is bad so what's the difference.

Some, not all but some links are bad right after relinking since people just transfer off them the same weekend they get relinked :/ And this is quite the opposite of what relinking is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit related: I noticed that the servers are more and more often getting a status of "high", "very high" and "full". However, my subjective experience and the queues for reset tell me that the servers are rather losing members than gaining. My impression is that the status is manually set higher. My interpretation is that it is an introduction of the alliances through the backdoor. A "server" could serve as an alliance and the introduction of alliances would become obsolet. Is my impression correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"gloflop.3510" said:A bit related: I noticed that the servers are more and more often getting a status of "high", "very high" and "full". However, my subjective experience and the queues for reset tell me that the servers are rather losing members than gaining. My impression is that the status is manually set higher.

Server status are just thresholds defined by A-net, so yes they can modify the ppl amount hidden behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. Oh man. How difficult is it to not stack 1 or 2 servers with too many people? I mean, it's got to be some pretty basic math. Our current tier is ridiculous. I very rarely have to repair armor since we are usually outnumbered on more than one BL at a time, so I guess...upside? How hard is relinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"gloflop.3510" said:A bit related: I noticed that the servers are more and more often getting a status of "high", "very high" and "full". However, my subjective experience and the queues for reset tell me that the servers are rather losing members than gaining. My impression is that the status is manually set higher. My interpretation is that it is an introduction of the alliances through the backdoor. A "server" could serve as an alliance and the introduction of alliances would become obsolet. Is my impression correct?

The linking process is.

My thoughts on what you are noting: they have lowered the ‘full’ threshold for two purposes. One is to keep the server population from reflecting exactly how low it is. (They don’t want all the servers to show high or medium..) And two, it keeps the evil empire from actually opening or getting a link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Hannelore.8153 said:Try relinking every matchup instead of every few months so that people don't get stuck in bad links forever? Two months is already just a massive amount of time in the gaming world, most AAA games don't even last that long for their entire run, but you want people to stick around for a single game mode for a seven-year-old game in the hopes that next time, it'll be better (only to get worse again).

I'm the last person to complain about anything but please rethink your whole strategy for WvW.

ANet cannot rethink their strategy for WvW because they have none for now, and now as in the next six months to a year at least.

I still see many players here still clinging onto their tiny string of hope and asking ANet when Alliance is coming and even believing that there will be a 3rd expansion. Well, for the past one year plus, what is their response to our queries on progresses in restructured WvW? None. Not even a word to address our concerns and tons of queries. Is this not clear enough to indicate what is going to happen in the future? They have nothing for us players except for LWS, that lagged and crashed the game more and more often with each patch. As if these are not enough to drive more players away, they continue to come up with bigger and bigger NERF patches every few months, making our dps skills weak and support skills ineffective. And, of course we will still have their regular Gemstore item updates, but even that they can't do well anymore. Look at the recent new items... bleh.

Developers are being kicked out, many left on their on accord, and with the remaining team's total oblivious attitude towards players queries and concerns, do you guys really still expect more from this game? Well, Merry Xmas all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...