Jump to content
  • Sign Up

What do you think if ANET reduce WvW relink from 8 weeks at 4 weeks ?


Recommended Posts

I dunno about that. It takes a tier 4 server 4 weeks to even get to tier 1, and by then you want to reset again when a server finally settles on it's appropriate place.Some people don't like playing in tier 4 or tier 1 or with certain servers or against certain servers.Doesn't really solve the problem of bandwagoning if the option and reasoning for it is still there.You might also accelerate community burnout with this.

Having said that, I'm currently on a server I don't want to be linked with, fighting servers that are not fun, but have to wait another 3 weeks for relinks, /shrug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shorter link times make bandwagoning less attractive but generate also more need for bandwagoning.

Only anet knows the sweetspot (they have the statistics).

It takes a tier 4 server 4 weeks to even get to tier 1This is no issue when the bandwagoning is at a minimum value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we even have links? Why not just offer free transfers to specific servers from the existing link servers, and then shut them down. You'll still have some variance in population between the 'host' servers that are left. but nothing as drastic as we have now with links, and it stops the bandwagon.

'course that means ANET would see less gem sales if nobody is server transferring every 8 weeks...which is why they don't make these types of changes, Alliances is a meme, and nothing is being done to address server population imbalances...because it's more profitable for ANET no to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a good idea. In 4 weeks a server can achieve almost nothing by just loosing one matchup. Remember that each weekly loss means one more week spent on trying to win again, then one more week to actually move anywhere other than where you started.

All it would accomplish is undeserving servers jumping over tiers faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing would change. I suppose it would be more expensive to bandwagon but cost isn't exactly a factor for people that hop around anyways.

What we need is a game mode that people want to actually play. Anyone that comes into the game mode only to find out there's only 2 large groups in a staring contest waiting for the other side to push into arrow carts and dragon banners would think the game mode is a huge joke.... and they'd be right.

Work on combat balance and reduce the viability of siege bunkering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The linking system is a big mess especially in the EU, it's kills servers apart from those who can actually fight and compete in the Tiers they end up in.

So would 4 weeks be better than 8 weeks, with more stacking or bandwagoning? Perhaps, but people would be still moving alot within the first week constantly anyway, instead of gradually over 8 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

links overall are not working at the moment. either give all no link and merge smallest ones, or crazily raise cost for moving to anything than low population servers. and make the server population counts more precise, hell. we're constantly outnumbered on 3/4 maps, wipe blobs with 30 ppl groups but are unlinked and "full" since several weeks now. solid job Anet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wvw community had an official poll on this a few years back. The community voted for 1 month (majority vote), but Anet had a few other reasons to reconsider, and decided 8 weeks would be a better mechanic to make it actually work out ok.[You can prolly find the actual data & info in the archieves]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@hugeboss.5432 said:The wvw community had an official poll on this a few years back. The community voted for 1 month (majority vote), but Anet had a few other reasons to reconsider, and decided 8 weeks would be a better mechanic to make it actually work out ok.[You can prolly find the actual data & info in the archieves]

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.

After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!

TL;DR 62% of the community voted for 2 months or longer relinks. Anet picked a compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@hugeboss.5432 said:The wvw community had an official poll on this a few years back. The community voted for 1 month (majority vote), but Anet had a few other reasons to reconsider, and decided 8 weeks would be a better mechanic to make it actually work out ok.
[You can prolly find the actual data & info in the archieves]

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.

After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!

TL;DR 62% of the community voted for 2 months or longer relinks. Anet picked a compromise.

Yeah thats the poll. As you can see, what Anet tries to explain as 62%, is actually only option #3 (15,9% every other month). Good wording from Anet though (I smirked but didnt say anything about it, no need for drama).

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...