Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


pointaction.4639

Recommended Posts

@pointaction.4639 said: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.

Just look how well the feedback threads went for the unpaid beta testers on Heart of Thorns. Did that tester specific feedback change the process? No

They fed back pretty much everything that we are still complaining about to this day. Banners, map design, elite specializations, ttk balancing, tactivators.

It gets bandaged a little half a year later and nowhere near enough to keep the guilds going. It was special guild selection testing then they all quit after it launched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Diku.2546" said: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.

Very well put I think from what I read from the link in this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not particularily fussed about the options, I just picked one. I'm more interested in the larger discussion.

What are you hoping to achieve with this poll?

All of these options require putting time and effort into the existing system and all of the options are inferior to the proposed alliance system.

None of these options will bring about much change. None of these options will stem the transfer tide. The system has always involved gems and less populated servers have always involved less gems. That is all there is to it. The trends of guilds transfering to match up and friends of those guilds transfering to play with their friends existed before the server pairing. The only difference now is that there are fewer guilds doing this while there are more other players drawn into it, who transfer for secondary or tertiary reasons. It has become less about matchups (playing against "friends") and more about access to content (playing with friends -> playing with those commanders who have alot of friends).

What you are seeing but so few are understanding is the result of guilds leaving the game. The server linking system was never meant to exist for this long, it was a quick-fix to saturate the stacking a bit, give dead servers something else than the necessity to transfer off them and make sure the stacking got interrupted a bit by the shuffling of pairs. All it did was slow down the process. It didn't change it. It has also long since played out its role. It was introduced in 2016 and meant to keep things from falling apart until 2018 or w/e, not until 2020 or 2021. People like to pretend that linking ruined server communities but guilds would have quit or transfered anyway since the guild-content is buggy/unsupported and the mode is inherently imbalanced. It has always been that and has never been sufficiently addressed. My first WvW guild left in 2014 because it got tired of waiting for population balance. The WvW tournaments/leagues in 2013 and 2014 had different leagues because of the population imbalances. Servers tanked to compete in a league where they fit into the population balance (or could game the system).

 

  • The Megaserver restructuring 2012-2014 resulted in EotM for WvW. As you know, EotM has another pairing system. The choices made up to it and the conclusions drawn from it is an interesting topic of speculation.

  • The guild initiative 2014-2016 was unfocused and resulted in an sPvP map, the GH arena and the Stronghold mode (later the EotM arena, recently the 10v10 spvp talk). It is GvG, it always was GvG, only, they are very reluctant to give us GvG for some prideful nonsense so they are giving us halfbaked variations and calling them something else.

  • The temp solution in 2016 was pairing/linking as they worked on "WvW 2.0" which Doc Steve (then WvW director, recently communicating on WvW server lag on Reddit) is on record about in the march 04, 2016 AMA.

  • The culmination of whatever they experimented with 2016-2018 was the announcement of Alliances. It is by far the superior system proposed (albeit limited and possibly a bit overcomplicated since the stuff that the system does not fully address are arguably the more important pieces of population balance). Scoring (server) and matching (guild) are arguably the more important components in population balance, more so than the underlying transfer systems, because they are the root cause of the transfers.

  • It is now 2020 and the only thing we hear about Alliances is that they have not forgotten about the need to talk about it, while they keep postponing even just talking about it. The last time they assured us that it was the most important thing for WvW and that they had not forgotten about it was august 30th last year. I guess it is still technically "the comming months".

All of this stuff is virtually the same since 2014, it's some guild-competition options and population balance; they have just been alternating between beating around the bush, underprioritizing mode/resources and reinventing the wheel. I don't get how this is so hard for people to understand. This is not oppinion, it is fact. There are records of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@pointaction.4639 said:The current relinks and match ups are so bad this week has become not very fun to play much any more. Even though I still play because I have nothing else to do.

I like to see everything go back to 8 Tiers and Eliminate Server Relinks with better ideas to make WvW more fun and challenging again?

How was glicko more fun and challenging? just transfer and tier lock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it links, call it "alliances", whatever you want to call it...People will game it and stack.

Really that is one of the largest problems of WvW.

Megaservers basically eliminated the transition from PvE to WvW, really Lions Arch (the primary hub to WvW besides the WvW panel and armistice bastion) should have been kept server based I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people have blocked out the period between oct2015 - apr2016 in their minds, when HoT launched with 3 desert bl's and a lot of people left wvw during that time. Deep traumatic experiences tend to do that to a person. So they still come in here thinking 8 NA tiers is still a viable thing 8 years from launch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I see server linking does not work that great so I say eliminate the linking and go back to 8 Tiers with a better way of doing things because some people I have heard have quit playing WvW because of current links and past links have been messed up so bad that it is not as fun anymore.

http://gw2stats.com/na/matchups/ - Look at the Current score

Northern Shiverpeaks +Borlis Pass is dominating Tier 1Fort Aspenwood +Stormbluff Isle is dominating Tier 2Blackgate +Devona's Rest is dominating Tier 3 not as bad as tier 1 and 2Dragonbrand +Gate of Madness is dominating Tier 4 not as bad as tier 1 and 2 even though Yak's Bend is getting cremated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@XenesisII.1540 said:

@pointaction.4639 said:8 Tiers with a better way of doing things

Great.... so what's the better way of doing things?

there is no difference to having linkings.. than having no linkings with half the amount of servers. except.. there wouldn't be so much of a change of players each link etc...which imo would be a better way to do things.

why anyone likes the current system of links rather than the old system of single servers (but less of them obv) is beyond me, infact if someone could explain..thatd be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know how their server system works, it's more than just wvw players involved here. We can get rid of links, but bandwagons will still happen, players will continue to move up in tiers for action, communities will not suddenly grow to what it was before links because even before that server communities were breaking down and players operate differently with more loyalty to guilds than servers these days.

But hey if you want single servers so bad maybe they can just do permanent links of host and 3 links and just name the whole thing to the host to keep some of you happy, then half a year later we get to complain about the bottom servers being empty.

In the meantime they're already working on an alliance system that will come out in 2055 and is also going to solve some other problems other than multiple server names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to get honest, good WvW matchups is to do away with the server dependencies all together; it's an artificial way to 'balance' out. That's too radical a change for sure.

The next best thing is to blur the lines in how maps get populated. Maps fill based on server to a point where the variations in server populations in the map become too large. At that point, people just get placed into sides at random until the variations reach the acceptable limit again. Keeps things more even.

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...