Jump to content
  • Sign Up

[POLL] WvW Server Relinking Ideas from community to ANET Dev's


pointaction.4639

Recommended Posts

"Eliminate Server Relinks and go back to original tier system server against server with better balancing methods."

So hypothetically we've gone back to the original tier system and now need some way to better balance it.

... I know, let's delete some tiers and use some sort of server combination to keep the populations up, which is changed in regular intervals to avoid it being to stale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely adverse to the linking system seeing as some of the smaller pop servers really struggle to field numbers, even with links. Problem is that 8 weeks can be too demoralising when you're stuck with a dead link. 2 weeks or every reset isn't enough time imo to really get acclimatised to the server you're working with or try to improve your server's link situation, so a relink every month seems fairer to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people can help ANET with ideas on fixing it without starting arguments with each others comments posts. I think that will be helpful.

Maybe ANET needs to make forum thread or something to allow ideas to go directly to the development teams for WvW so no one else can see each persons comments and responses so this there is no chance toxic communications flood these things.

This way the development teams for WvW can go through comments and responses from submissions for good possible fixes of problems in the game.

This also get the involvement the Guild Wars 2 member base to help out the developers for a better game to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@pointaction.4639 said:I know this may not help but maybe ANET Dev's get ideas from this poll and comments in this thread.So keep please your comment clean and give ideas not arguments with each other.There is no way to make thing fully 100% balanced but give ideas based on the poll your ideas to improve things.

population imbalance is a player induced problem, not anet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@shiri.4257 said:

@shiri.4257 said:population imbalance is a player induced problem, not anet.

player do it, right, but ANet doesn't hinder them,

do you propose anet build a wall and make the bandwagon pay for it?

There are probably many better ways than walls/fences, even if they have some popularity.In the context of this thread: make the linking period so short, that bandwaggoning doesn't pay of. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@shiri.4257 said:the bandwagoning would still continue. it would just be every few weeks as it's coordinated. stacking a server is a symptom of the player base and their personalities.

WIth one think you are right, the population count actualisation of worlds is so slow that it is easy tricked by the coordinated over-stacking.This could of course be changed, but ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dayra.7405 said:

@shiri.4257 said:the bandwagoning would still continue. it would just be every few weeks as it's coordinated. stacking a server is a symptom of the player base and their personalities.

WIth one think you are right, the population count actualisation of worlds is so slow that it is easy tricked by the coordinated over-stacking.This could of course be changed, but ...

how is the population count of the worlds so slow when the guilds and players transfer the week before or after relinks? it is fairly accurate, then the players make their move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@shiri.4257 said:

@shiri.4257 said:the bandwagoning would still continue. it would just be every few weeks as it's coordinated. stacking a server is a symptom of the player base and their personalities.

WIth one think you are right, the population count actualisation of worlds is so slow that it is easy tricked by the coordinated over-stacking.This could of course be changed, but ...

how is the population count of the worlds so slow when the guilds and players transfer the week before or after relinks? it is fairly accurate, then the players make their move.

If all player in GW2 coordinate to transfer to a specific server within one day, they succeed to go there as the world-pop will be adjusted only on monday evening ...That's quite slow :)

Last example in EU where a lot more player transfer to a server far beyond full was Dzagonur. It was so overstacked within one weekend that it is still full despite several went away or stopped playing in the meantime. Even easier: all move to Baruch, that stays not-full till ANet notice and intervenes manually ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dayra.7405 said:

@shiri.4257 said:the bandwagoning would still continue. it would just be every few weeks as it's coordinated. stacking a server is a symptom of the player base and their personalities.

WIth one think you are right, the population count actualisation of worlds is so slow that it is easy tricked by the coordinated over-stacking.This could of course be changed, but ...

how is the population count of the worlds so slow when the guilds and players transfer the week before or after relinks? it is fairly accurate, then the players make their move.

If all player in GW2 coordinate to transfer to a specific server within one day, they succeed to go there as the world-pop will be adjusted only on monday evening ...That's quite slow :)

Last example in EU where a lot more player transfer to a server far beyond full was Dzagonur. It was so overstacked within one weekend that it is still full despite several went away or stopped playing in the meantime. Even easier: all move to Baruch, that stays not-full till ANet notice and intervenes manually ....

The underlying problem in this scenario is still the player mentality. thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you are trying to be positive and helpful, and that you believe or hope ANET will pay attention to your poll and any positive comments that come from it. However the truth is that Server linking has already been discussed for several years with many, many players giving feedback, and quite a few suggesting alternative ideas or refinements. I would say the ball is already firmly in ANET's court and has been for a long time.

The ugly truth is that linking was ANETs way to try to keep the population of WvW maps high enough to have massed battles - and to achieve this they sacrificed the (smaller) communities in the smaller servers to prop up the (larger) communities in the bigger servers. This did not fix the bandwagon mentality and has been a strain for the mobile linked servers.

Alliances is supposed to be the answer to this problem because it will remove server identity entirely and will allow ANET to link and relink guilds instead.We've been waiting for Alliances for years too.

It's up to you whether you believe ANET will listen to, or even act on, any of this. My own opinion is based on years of experience, but I wish you luck anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't balance worlds. Balance the maps. Eliminate static match-ups. If a server does well on all maps at the end of a skirmish, find other worlds that are doing well and dynamically create an additional maps for them to spread their players on. Reduce maps when a server isn't particularly doing well on all maps. Reward war score for each map. (Possibly adding a slight modifier to score per map as a world earns the right to participate in more maps).

In general, add more maps during peak times to keep queues and server lag down.

At the end of a contest period, all worlds are ranked among everyone else by War Score as a leader board/ladder. And the rank is used as a starting value for the number of maps to cover in the next match-up.

There will certainly be a bandwagon world, but the maps can be balanced by ensuring that that world has to face 2X other worlds in X different maps. X being however many they need to properly spread a world's population at any time. And if the other worlds feel particularly aggrieved by the bandwagoning, they can certainly agree to double team the bandwagon server on all of the maps they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends how far back you go. Just before linking, the lower tiers were often empty most of the time. But back before that there were plenty of groups.I understand the population has gotten smaller, but although linking seemed to help at first, it slowly destroyed the identity of many of the smaller communities, and it is still putting players off even after several years.I've seen good links - they're fun - and bad links - where players just shut down for the duration. WvW should be fun and this shouldn't depend on a "Anet randomised" linking.We need new players, but the current situation doesn't encourage this. Alliances has the possibility of injecting new life into WvW but it's now 2 years and counting... It's obvious players care enough to try to come up with solutions to help, but it's up to Anet to fix things and that doesn't seem to be very high on the list. As usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see WvW Rebooted with a comprehensive & concrete Road Map & Vision moving forward.

REBOOT WvW - Remove World Linking & Implement Changes to WvWhttps://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1064947/#Comment_1064947

Incredible eSport opportunity...neglected & wasted due to poor decisions & no foresight.

Yours truly,Diku

Credibility requires critical insight & time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...