World Transfers

[Strider Pj.2193]

@blambidy.3216 said:

@Rasimir.6239 said:

@blambidy.3216 said:The fact that arenanet makes the expansions 30$ altogether justify’s the worth of how much gem store items should be. 25$ to switch to a server is too high. You shouldn’t pay that much for a swap to a different server. It’s just an automatic click and popping an account into a diff server.The technical cost to switching servers is negligible and not the main reason for putting a price tag on it. The main reason is really to keep people from switching easily, while still allowing those who are desperate the opportunity to switch (at a considerable cost).

WvW, the only thing in game that really depends on your home world/server, lives and dies by the number of players playing, much more than by the skill of said players. Despite the transfer costs guilds and even larger groups have time and again skewed the balance between wvw servers by overstacking a single server and steamrolling any oposition by coverage. Without transfer costs keeping people from switching and stacking on a whim, the gamemode would've died log ago (as in really died, like a hundred times as dead as it appears today).

As for alliances being shelved, does anybody have any link to that? Last I heard (a couple of months ago) they said alliances will be using the same tech that was developed for pvp swiss tournament at that time, thus alliances won't be finalized before swiss is released (which it was in the latest patch I think?) and they had time to evaluate if that tech works as expected. Personally I don't expect any news on alliances until several weeks after the pvp changes have been released and proven to be working and stable.

For build templates to take 2 years. Swiss tournaments to take from 2017 to actually be out yesterday,

arenanet should give an alternate way for all guild players to play with each other besides forking over 25$ to switch to a server.

There is: delete all of your toons, and get a free transfer.

[Lexi.1398]

i dont know if we can have extra free transfers with any restriction that helps alleviate "i want to play with my friends".

when i joined game i joined my freinds (who never wvw) sever, used free transfer to join different friends who actually did wvw. friends stopped playing, i continued, but now im stuck in a server that sucks to be on and i have to pay to get out. i'm not invested enough into the mode to bother with the cost, even if it would be nice to have my casual guild all on one server.

so...i could use that free transfer - most of those casual friends could too - but then what if the friends discover they dont like wvw at all actually and stop (which is honestly most likely the case)? i'd be in same position again. much as i'd like a free transfer, i don't see any way to justify it beyond "people like paying nothing for services", and any less restriction opens it up the large guilds which already constantly toss the balance.

that said, i wonder if lowering the cost for very high servers or raising the cost for low servers would help anything? for NA at least, largely it's transfers to small servers that are the biggest issue.

[blambidy.3216]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@blambidy.3216 said:

@Rasimir.6239 said:

@blambidy.3216 said:The fact that arenanet makes the expansions 30$ altogether justify’s the worth of how much gem store items should be. 25$ to switch to a server is too high. You shouldn’t pay that much for a swap to a different server. It’s just an automatic click and popping an account into a diff server.The technical cost to switching servers is negligible and not the main reason for putting a price tag on it. The main reason is really to keep people from switching easily, while still allowing those who are desperate the opportunity to switch (at a considerable cost).

WvW, the only thing in game that really depends on your home world/server, lives and dies by the number of players playing, much more than by the skill of said players. Despite the transfer costs guilds and even larger groups have time and again skewed the balance between wvw servers by overstacking a single server and steamrolling any oposition by coverage. Without transfer costs keeping people from switching and stacking on a whim, the gamemode would've died log ago (as in really died, like a hundred times as dead as it appears today).

As for alliances being shelved, does anybody have any link to that? Last I heard (a couple of months ago) they said alliances will be using the same tech that was developed for pvp swiss tournament at that time, thus alliances won't be finalized before swiss is released (which it was in the latest patch I think?) and they had time to evaluate if that tech works as expected. Personally I don't expect any news on alliances until several weeks after the pvp changes have been released and proven to be working and stable.

For build templates to take 2 years. Swiss tournaments to take from 2017 to actually be out yesterday,

arenanet should give an alternate way for all guild players to play with each other besides forking over 25$ to switch to a server.

There is: delete all of your toons, and get a free transfer.

Yea tell a person who played gw2 for couple years to do that. Which won’t happen

[Shadowmoon.7986]

Id rather they take all the linked servers and delete them. Anyone on those servers would have to join a new server if they want to wvw again. Of course it would be free for people whos servers were nuked.The relinks were a good bandaid, but after over 2 years of waiting for alliances, it is not good enough anymore.

[SilverGen.2679]

@"Lexi.1398" said:i dont know if we can have extra free transfers with any restriction that helps alleviate "i want to play with my friends".

when i joined game i joined my freinds (who never wvw) sever, used free transfer to join different friends who actually did wvw. friends stopped playing, i continued, but now im stuck in a server that sucks to be on and i have to pay to get out. i'm not invested enough into the mode to bother with the cost, even if it would be nice to have my casual guild all on one server.

so...i could use that free transfer - most of those casual friends could too - but then what if the friends discover they dont like wvw at all actually and stop (which is honestly most likely the case)? i'd be in same position again. much as i'd like a free transfer, i don't see any way to justify it beyond "people like paying nothing for services", and any less restriction opens it up the large guilds which already constantly toss the balance.

that said, i wonder if lowering the cost for very high servers or raising the cost for low servers would help anything? for NA at least, largely it's transfers to small servers that are the biggest issue.

Obviously there would have to be some sort of balancing to it. Can only transfer x amount of times within x amount of time sorta thing. I think Death's whole point about this is, for the veterans who would like to play WvW with friends who aren't currently on the same server together, we'd like an alternative route vs A) Deleting all toons/resetting our accounts or B ) Spending an outrageous amount of gold/gems to move.

[DeathIsVirtue.4105]

Yeah, I'm not advocating for free transfers all the time without restrictions. My ideas are as follows:

• ONE free transfer every 1 to 2 years - Any transfers between those free ones would be paid as with the current system.

Or

• Keep current cost model, but have sales like with all other gem paid items/services

I realize that world stacking is a problem, but guys, it's going to happen regardless. There needs to be a better solution for those that want to play together than what is currently available, at least until alliances are out.

[kharmin.7683]

I'm not sure that there "needs to be a better solution". You can "want a better solution" and suggesting options is fine, but to say that there is a need for one.... I'm not sure that Anet would agree.

[SilverGen.2679]

@"kharmin.7683" said:I'm not sure that there "needs to be a better solution". You can "want a better solution" and suggesting options is fine, but to say that there is a need for one.... I'm not sure that Anet would agree.

WvW would likely see more players participating in the game mode if the current transfer "situation" weren't the way it is. So... yes, in a sense, it IS a "need" vs a "want" if you look at the bigger picture.

[DeathIsVirtue.4105]

@"kharmin.7683" said:I'm not sure that there "needs to be a better solution". You can "want a better solution" and suggesting options is fine, but to say that there is a need for one.... I'm not sure that Anet would agree.

Anet rarely agrees with anything that would be good for the game or they take a great idea and kitten it up so you're probably right in a way, lol. It is merely my opinion a better way is needed.