World Linking 7/31/2020

[Naxos.2503]

Considering how crushed our current linking is, and how difficult it is to even get a Single squad going on 1 single map (and that means losing the other 3), I'm inclined to agree. Something is Seriously wrong with the linking.

Our server (Vabbi) is dysmally small. Any server that gets linked with us need to be able to carry on alone, or suffers terribly. Last link Seafarer did alright, because they've got a fairly balanced population that makes up for us lacking numbers. Piken is not in this position right now, and essentially suffers from a dead link, as an already diminished server. Changing links randomly isn't good. It is going to cause lopsided fights where one server get literally ganked on by the other two without them trying, while they're mounting increasingly desperate defenses. It isn't fun for them. Piken is used to defending well with few, but even I can tell they're overwhelmed, and that is -uncommon-.

[Chaba.5410]

It's really simple. If you got a handful of no life people who play 12 hours a day, they're filling up your server.

[Riba.3271]

@Chaba.5410 said:It's really simple. If you got a handful of no life people who play 12 hours a day, they're filling up your server.

Pip and daily farmers count too as WvW is easiest way to complete dailies and Legendary gear, major PvE servers hit full super easy. Some of them can be full and unlinked while having half the death+kill activity of other servers.

[RisingDaewn.8703]

Congrats to the current state of WvW, for almost killing an WvW community which we had, even with this Relinking nonsense.

I wonder if that means, Deso will still be classified as full, even after losing 6 guilds? That additional month, so that the relinks wouldn't clash with the Holidays was frustrating enough (we had years to adjust that), but then Deso got linked with Underworld, which got bandwagoned too, even though that link already had decent coverage and population.

Hopefully Alliances are coming soon in 202x, or at some point in the future. some kind of change to balancing out the current wvw player populations and/or how relinks are done, with this amount of server stacking and transfers going on after every relink.

[Diku.2546]

EU seems to be going through what our NA server communities have already gone through & these discussions sound quite familiar for NA players...imho

 

Topics like this were brought up over 2 & 4 years ago by NA players.

 

Strangely....here we are discussing these same topics again, but now it's by EU players.

 

EU is headed for some serious systematic damage to their long-term communities.

 

EU didn't have these issues until Language Linking (aka Server Linking) was deployed as a permanent feature to their region.

EU previously had a "stable" ecosystem that managed to survive despite no new content & would have continued to do so in harmony...imho

 

History Reference Links:

2019.06.14

Language Linking - aka - Server Linking

Start of EU Language Linking

 

2018.01.31

Guild Linking - aka - Planned Alliances

Launch Date To Be Announced

 

2016.06.11

Feature Linking - aka Server Linking

Prediction of Long-Term Impact damage to NA ecosystem

Start of NA Feature Linking

---

Team Creation solutions are bad for WvW because they're used to create an illuision of Healthy Comptetitive Match-Ups that's easily undermined by a player's fundamental desire to be on the Winning Team (behavior also known as stacking to win).

 

Highlights taken from NA Discussion

 

2016.06.11

Ok...Pandora’s Gennie in a Box has been opened

Told you so

 

2017.04.27

Don’t balance population. Let players stack

Told you so

 

2017.05.09

World Linking is systematically destroying the lower levels of an ecosystem that took years to evolve

Told you so

 

2018.05.20

King of the Hill design should be used to counter Player Population stacking

Told you so

 

2018.12.30

We've thrown away the one thing that made this game mode endearing & unique

Told you so

 

2019.03.26

Suppressing the Long-Term population growth

Told you so

 

2019.07.30

Slowly & methodically killing their "Goose that lays their Golden eggs"

Told you so

---

After 2 years of this nonsense...EU will be where NA is...with serious systemic long-term damage to their EU ecosystem...imho

 

I really wish ANet would stop wasting Dev Time & money after a failed solution & change course to make WvW profitable by changing the Match-Up model instead of tinkering with Team Creation.

 

Alliances if it ever launches...will fail for the same reasons Server Linking & Language Linking failed...Team Creation Solutions are bad for WvW.

 

Once again...for the future person reading this - (2022.08.16 - on or after).

 

2016.06.11 - Told you so NA...

2017.04.27 - Told you so NA...2017.05.09 - Told you so NA...

2018.05.20 - Told you so NA...2018.12.30 - Told you so NA...

2019.03.26 - Told you so NA...2019.07.30 - Told you so NA...

2020.08.16 - Where Knowing is half the battle - And Now - Told you So EU...

 

Credibility requires critical insight & time.

 

Quick Kick - "Anything worth doing is worth planning" - A G.I. Joe PSA

Edited August 2, 2021 by Diku.2546

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

by the way, alliances when?

[CharonXeno.4869]

As an EU-region player I'd like to point to the Week 32 results for two unlinked servers vs a team of two linked servers: Whiteside Ridge vs Dzagonur vs (Augury Rock + Ruins of Surmia). The two unlinked servers were essentíally unplayable in WvW - (Augury Rock + Ruins of Surmia) scored more than TWICE than both unlinked servers scored combined - most of the time all four maps were one colour... This week (and the coming 6 weeks) things look to be the same. For Whiteside Ridge and Dzagonur it basically means "Don't bother going into WvW: Roamers will be spawn-camped, or ganked 3+ vs 1, and if you managed to get a Squad running - expect to run into an hostile squad several times your size the second you try to take even a tower"

This might very well KILL the WvW community on those two servers - those that really enjoy WvW probably transfer instead of sitting two months out, and the casual players... well, imagine your first WvW experiences are getting ganked and spawn-camped...

[Metzie.3451]

Imagine you could have some fun on a Saturday afternoon, on the weekend, "immediately" after the weekly reset in WvW [EU]. Imagine there were more than a handful of players on your own server on a Saturday afternoon. See the picture below. The last week or match didn't look any different, and the following probably won't either - any hour of the day or night.

Imagine if this company would truly or finally be willing to change something that would have a positive effect or impact on the balance of the matches (and more). And not this, still continuing, relinking and transfer or bandwagon bullshit - every two months.

According to this: Thanks ANet for about 5 minutes (of which at least 2 minutes afk) of FUN in GW2-WvW. You can't stand any longer, after our server was issued the death certificate. Thanks for the effort to (apparently) balance the matches or servers every two months, from which in the end, under the current system, only you benefit (at the expense of many other players/servers).

---

SPvP related (5v5): Imagine for a moment that you had to play or "stuck" with 3 of 5 players from your own team (because 2 afk/dc'd/are not available - just an example) against a 5-man group for 2 months. Imagine that! The comparison limps a bit, or is not thought through to the end ... no matter (who cares).

---

Already played matches 3/8 (third game just started) until the next relink. Thanks for the fact that there are only about 6 weeks left until the servers are rebalanced, so that you could possibly have fun in WvW again - for possibly or at least the next two months. Please, what? Did he just say "rebalanced"?

Hahaaaaaa, I'm so funny, no? Come on!!!

You want to have fun in WvW, then invest money and transfer, quite simple. ANet, how about ... ... no?

---

 Other Attachements:

• Same kitten, other day

[Svarty.8019]

What an abysmal system!

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

North American servers were already devestated by these things years ago. We can only imagine what its like to even have enough players for five tiers, I doubt we can even fill three tiers now and four is still way too much.

One queue on 1-2 maps (mostly EBG) at reset time each week, that's it. I'm on a link server and get passed around a lot, and its always the same, the server we get linked with starts doing poorly and drops a tier every time. Not because our host is bad or our server is bad, but because the devs want our server to shoulder the burden of the other links, and we can't. We can't compete with it.

The server we were linked with before sometimes becomes our new enemy, and does very well. They become really strong "without us". So sometimes all I see is our host chat talk about how trash their link is, how worthless all the players are.

We get blamed for a bad system, and not bandwagoning to other servers like many players do.

I don't know what method is being used to determine the links (the devs said they do it all manually) but its obviously not very good. Either change the link system to automated and bi-weekly or do away with it entirely.

[RisingDaewn.8703]

Now at least the Tiers are normalizing in the EU, so being glicko'd back to T1, has at least seen an server open not stay closed, despite the link having a mass exodus.

By the way if you think Deso has a big night crew, which keeps us full or very high, it's only against servers with a lack of numbers at night.

[Naxos.2503]

@"Metzie.3451" said:Imagine you could have some fun on a Saturday afternoon, on the weekend, "immediately" after the weekly reset in WvW [EU]. Imagine there were more than a handful of players on your own server on a Saturday afternoon. See the picture below. The last week or match didn't look any different, and the following probably won't either - any hour of the day or night.

Imagine if this company would truly or finally be willing to change something that would have a positive effect or impact on the balance of the matches (and more). And not this, still continuing, relinking and transfer or bandwagon kitten - every two months.

According to this: Thanks ANet for about 5 minutes (of which at least 2 minutes afk) of FUN in GW2-WvW. You can't stand any longer, after our server was issued the death certificate. Thanks for the effort to (apparently) balance the matches or servers every two months, from which in the end, under the current system, only you benefit (at the expense of many other players/servers).

---

SPvP related (5v5): Imagine for a moment that you had to play or "stuck" with 3 of 5 players from your own team (because 2 afk/dc'd/are not available - just an example) against a 5-man group for 2 months. Imagine that! The comparison limps a bit, or is not thought through to the end ... no matter (who cares).

---

Already played matches 3/8 (third game just started) until the next relink. Thanks for the fact that there are only about 6 weeks left until the servers are rebalanced, so that you could possibly have fun in WvW again - for possibly or at least the next two months. Please, what? Did he just say "rebalanced"?

Hahaaaaaa, I'm so funny, no? Come on!!!

You want to have fun in WvW, then invest money and transfer, quite simple. ANet, how about ... ... no?

---

 Other Attachements:

• Same kitten, other day

Yeah, that looks pretty much like this for us. It's grating. You can win as many engagement when it come to equal numbers or slightly below, but when you're faced with 50 to 1 odds on all maps, it's just... heh.

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

about WSR... what did u expect? u might have noticed your big baller guilds immediately left the server after unlinking, and guilds are the backbone of every server. the pugs and bearranger/thief pepes may deny it, but they cannot do much without having 3-4 somewhat solid guilds within their ranks that carry resets and prime and keep people motivated.

THIS is kinda the biggest issue of WvW's design... this absurd pairing of people that take the format serious and people who only want pve-like ppt trains 24/7 and keep the score like a holy number, missing completely how few u really gain from score compared to kills/bags/plain participation (which is only acchieveable by group movement/fights with at least a bit organization/tech/builds/gear/knowledge.

@CrimsonNeonite.1048 said:Now at least the Tiers are normalizing in the EU, so being glicko'd back to T1, has at least seen an server open not stay closed, despite the link having a mass exodus.

By the way if you think Deso has a big night crew, which keeps us full or very high, it's only against servers with a lack of numbers at night.

yeah, it shows in the current matchup - elona+link have a similar sized nightcrew and far bigger early evening crew, BaruchB has a huge late evening+night crew

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

@"CharonXeno.4869"said "uwu 2 unlinked servers you [KILL]d overstacked WSR much poor very sadgasm;

and then u look at the stats of Baruch Bay and become like monkaHmm. not even full (at least someone said that lately), unlinked but blobbing more often than not the hell out of the maps for hours with 60+ people on at least two maps and a rather secured hbl as well as ebg for big time.

Desolation had also a bad time when unlinked, but many ppl also paused there bc they disliked the decision. with a really small and inactive link however, there is not a big load of difference to unlinked i gotta say. if your link cannot even provide two moderate size guilds, you can forget ppt. not that it matters for me personally... ppt is for people who don't understand how WvW works. bags are the real deal 8D

[Len.1879]

@kamikharzeeh.8016 said:and then u look at the stats of Baruch Bay and become like monkaHmm. not even full (at least someone said that lately), unlinked but blobbing more often than not

Baruch Bay is the only Spanish server and is therefore artificially held open by the devs. I believe they have stated so, but I can not find it right now, maybe someone else can provide a source. Their population state therefore does't really reflect their actual population, making BB a bad example.

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

i hear that the first time, that'd be at the same time hilarious but also a tiny but nuts. sounds a bit like whisper from jormag tho to be honest. while yeah, we all ask us sometimes if the "full" caps for maps & servers are really equally set, or if there are unseen parameters that change with activity (so bigger nightcrew from NA migration can overall lower your day capacity otpion etc) ... but that is far from confirmed and maybe a bit crybabyism, while really just the players aren't going serious on sets/classes.

[CharonXeno.4869]

@kamikharzeeh.8016 said:@"CharonXeno.4869"said "uwu 2 unlinked servers you [KILL]d overstacked WSR much poor very sadgasm;

kamikharzeeh.8016 you alright? Even if life gets you down you can pull yourself back up, no matter how bad it feels right now.I know many of us are in a pretty crabby place, especially with the pandemic and all, but don't let it get to you.So if you need to mock people on the internet to make you feel better: go ahead, its alright, I don't mind as long as it helps you dig yourself out of that hole.

[nthmetal.9652]

@kamikharzeeh.8016 said:THIS is kinda the biggest issue of WvW's design... this absurd pairing of people that take the format serious and people who only want pve-like ppt trains 24/7 and keep the score like a holy number, missing completely how few u really gain from score compared to kills/bags/plain participation (which is only acchieveable by group movement/fights with at least a bit organization/tech/builds/gear/knowledge.

Wow. Toxic. Calling people, who want PPT not serious! Of course keeping the score up is a serious business. Just don't do it, go to T5 and then tell me again, that score doesn't matter.

That aside though, maybe devs should look more at server performance instead of server population and come up with mechanics and decisions regarding that, to enable better fights and pairings. Servers that struggle in T4, but utterly dominate in T5. Mmhm. I am sure that's how you motivate people to play. On both sides.

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

the ideal would be several 40 ppl zergs across the maps that just keep the ppt up - but those would need to be battle-ready, which just plainly most of the current playerbase isn't anymore. few stacked high roller servers which are fine, rest is pepehands tier.

those who camp objective in groups of 3-4 ppl are the problem. like "your side" on each map has like 5-7 objectives (hbl and EBG at least) and if on each camp 4 people, your zerg capacity is severly hit, since at least 10-20 newbies and some roamerguilds might float around as well, who are 6-9 ppl each as well.

and then they all panic and cry if keeps get lost, while not even knowing how to place siege correctly, or even forget to man it once the attacks begin. rather stand on edge of wall and 1111 till getting downed and killed by pull+bomb.

[aspirine.6852]

@Len.1879 said:

@kamikharzeeh.8016 said:and then u look at the stats of Baruch Bay and become like monkaHmm. not even full (at least someone said that lately), unlinked but blobbing more often than not

Baruch Bay is the only Spanish server and is therefore artificially held open by the devs. I believe they have stated so, but I can not find it right now, maybe someone else can provide a source. Their population state therefore does't really reflect their actual population, making BB a bad example.

It's true, and it is also complete BS that anet does this. Instead of having those people move to other servers they create a server that has too many players...

[Riba.3271]

@aspirine.6852 said:

@Len.1879 said:

@kamikharzeeh.8016 said:and then u look at the stats of Baruch Bay and become like monkaHmm. not even full (at least someone said that lately), unlinked but blobbing more often than not

Baruch Bay is the only Spanish server and is therefore artificially held open by the devs. I believe they have stated so, but I can not find it right now, maybe someone else can provide a source. Their population state therefore does't really reflect their actual population, making BB a bad example.

It's true, and it is also complete BS that anet does this. Instead of having those people move to other servers they create a server that has too many players...

Most of them don't speak English. It was a problem in the past having ton of spanish speaking people on English speaking servers in the past when BB was full. It isn't exactly enjoyable experience for spanish people, imagine playing on Spanish speaking server without speaking Spanish yourself.

Issue is the fact that no English server can have numbers to match them due to them keeping each tier in relatively same population artificially every relinking. While BB could be outnumbered by old T1 servers (as they're old T1-T2 server), there is no such anymore as every linking has about same pop as a T3 server in more perfect system where population would be more diverse. Actually middle ground of old system with linking system that would maybe adjust populations very rarely and population statuses would be based on combined amount of people on the link would be more better.

It is very Anet like thing to slap a imperfect good idea into the game: Shield gens, scoring, upgrade speed, gliding speed, siege damage vs siege, claim buff etc. without ever coming back to adjust it to reasonable numbers. They literally do 99% of the work by designing and coding it but can't bother with last 1% to finetune the numbers.

[RisingDaewn.8703]

Now that we have 5 link servers; who are very high pop in the EU, the next relink will be interesting.

[Winter.5071]

Well there are 4 hosts that are high or lower. So it ends up being 2 VH links (since there's also a full link). But yeah, NA has a similar conundrum with 4 would be VH links.

[Deniara Devious.3948]

@CrimsonNeonite.1048 said:Now that we have 5 link servers; who are very high pop in the EU, the next relink will be interesting.

In addition that we have Aurora Glade (host) + Fort Ranik (link), both being full. Full + full obviously dominates tier 1. And that full+full has already existed many weeks in a row, so it is not just a temporary anomaly. I previous link FSP + link were also full + full for a short while.

Bottom tier looks so sad that I really Arananet will merge some some servers and create just 4 tiers for EU. WSR is medium population and hopelessly outnumbered vs anything it faces. Dzagonur is also without a link and been stuck to bottom tier for many weeks.

Baruch Bay (BB) is the only server, which can be at top without a link, because Arenanet keeps it articially open. Their true population is full+, not very high.

[Luthan.5236]

Can someone explain this to me? I am currently playing at Underworld (linked with Drakkar Lake) and we are matched against 2 other servers that don't seem to have a link. But they have super low population.

Was this on purpose - to have weak servers at the bottom that are without link? (I'd rather try to link all the super weak servers though. Leaving only the strongest without a link.)

Or were they (WSR and Dzagonur I think) strong at the time the relinking took place - with players transfering after the re-linking? If the latter was the case ... then I'd suggest to stop transfers after the linking took place. And 1-2 weeks before re-linking making a phase without WvW (like in the PvP when we didn't have mini seasons) with transfers enabled. Then after that phase closing the transfers and re-linking again.

With that it might even be possible to somehow stabilize the population. Of course you can't stop people from playing altogether (or just doing other content than WvW) or using an alt account. But huge transfers of big builds with important accounts (known accounts/chars where they want to keep that char and account) might be made a bit harder.

Doesn't seem balanced when you have 2 almost empty servers without link and the 3rd party are 2 linked servers that get full maps at reset and during week day still a somewhat decent amount of players.

I can't believe the gaps have to be that huuuge. I know at the bottom somehow it might not be possible to get equal matchups. If only 2 servers are left that are equally strong and the 3rd one is a lot stronger. But with the linking here ... totally an obvious problem if the 2 other servers should have been linked in that case - which could have made it a bit more balanced.

I wonder how this seems to new players. With Steam and new expansion ... of course the focus is on PvE. And PvP also is somewhat playable. (Only the elite at the top cry about queues. For casual players like me in mid tier it is a decent experience.) But WvW ... where you'd have to wait until a relink or until a better matchup (or having to change servers) ... that is bad. And I don't complain if my server(s) are outmanned - I like to fight back if there is something to fight against.

(Good old underworld back then 2013 was weak and I had fun playing there.) And I don't complain about about a bit unbalanced population - you can't balance it totally. Especially at reset or during off time ... it normal and okay and acceptable.

But current matchup Underworld/Drakkar Lake vs. the 2 others ... feels like PvP playing a 5 vs. 1. (Try playing that for a week without any option to get something else. Try do advertise the new game to players that might look for such game modes instead of PvE.)