Frequent relinkings ruin matchmaking

[Dawdler.8521]

@Threather.9354 said:

@"Hannelore.8153" said:Two months isn't frequent. If anything relinks should happen every matchup. If you've ever been stuck in a stale or unbalanced linkup you'd realise just how terrible it is to wait two whole months just for it to get "fixed".

1. First 3 weeks are scrapshoot when everyone transfers around and servers settle to their tiers
2. Then you need to find timezone that your server/tier has desirable activity in
3. Start over after 2-3 weeks of settled WvW

Overall I really dislike "Hey, this linking might be terrible but man at least it only lasts 2 months and we might get lucky after 2 months" mentality... Please guys, you deserve better system than that. Why have terrible 2 months just followed by lot of enemy server people having terrible 2 months? Do you have no empathy, especially for newer players that have absolutely no clue why your timezones had a do over?

Reducing tiers was already enough to fix the activity on lower tiers. Now you just need to give them also transfer cost advantage. With 1-up-1-down it only takes 2 weeks for server to arise from depths anyways, there will be plenty of guilds and server communities doing their mini projects to climb from lower tiers even if we go back to old system with only 4 or 5 tiers. Yes it will be bandvagoning but at least they'll have to PPT and wont outnumber enemies with 2 full servers combined.But you dont want links and you want heavy penalties on transfers.

Who exactly would fight their way from the depths on the servers that has no population and will never get new population?

[Riba.3271]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Threather.9354 said:

@"Hannelore.8153" said:Two months isn't frequent. If anything relinks should happen every matchup. If you've ever been stuck in a stale or unbalanced linkup you'd realise just how terrible it is to wait two whole months just for it to get "fixed".

1. First 3 weeks are scrapshoot when everyone transfers around and servers settle to their tiers
2. Then you need to find timezone that your server/tier has desirable activity in
3. Start over after 2-3 weeks of settled WvW

Overall I really dislike "Hey, this linking might be terrible but man at least it only lasts 2 months and we might get lucky after 2 months" mentality... Please guys, you deserve better system than that. Why have terrible 2 months just followed by lot of enemy server people having terrible 2 months? Do you have no empathy, especially for newer players that have absolutely no clue why your timezones had a do over?

Reducing tiers was already enough to fix the activity on lower tiers. Now you just need to give them also transfer cost advantage. With 1-up-1-down it only takes 2 weeks for server to arise from depths anyways, there will be plenty of guilds and server communities doing their mini projects to climb from lower tiers even if we go back to old system with only 4 or 5 tiers. Yes it will be bandvagoning but at least they'll have to PPT and wont outnumber enemies with 2 full servers combined.But you dont want links and you want heavy penalties on transfers.

Who exactly would fight their way from the depths on the servers that has no population and will never get new population?

The transfer communities and guilds will. It only requires 1 or 2 active commanders to win the lower tier matchups. And as bottom 2 tiers will be only place to transfer with 500 gems, they will do so.

So aim would be to fix 5 problems:

• Higher tier servers can't be transferred to with 500 or 1000 gems
• Timezones are very inconsistant due to 2 monthly relinkings: So fixing the 2 monthly mess and making it more infrequent
• Population extremes: super empty servers (medium+medium/medium) and super full servers (full+full)
• Too many full main servers
• Community building and player training not mattering due to relinkings resetting everything and punishing doing well by setting you full (and usually unlinked)

And yes, lower tiers servers will have less players but if you think every guild and player prefers higher tiers, no they do not. There will still be decent amount of activity as long as there are only 4 or 5 tiers. Unlike some people think it won't be only 5 people on lowest servers like pre-linkings.

Undoubtely people would still transfer but at least the servers would have more stability so players could settle somewhere instead of optimal solution being transferring every 2 months.

And I never wanted penalties on transfers. Just for the system to be logical where transferring to higher populated servers is more expensive instead of there being links to circumvent that. And less full (main) servers. And much less relinkings.

[Aspen Tie.5084]

Isn't possible for players and guilds to create alliances right now?

[Moira Shalaar.5620]

@aiinseinn.5914 said:

@"anduriell.6280" said:The only way to fix that is to move on to alliances.

thats more trouble inc .. sry make it like "you only can switch server once every 6 month"The answer to this proposed 6 month solution really is this:@"Hannelore.8153" said:Two months isn't frequent. If anything relinks should happen every matchup. If you've ever been stuck in a stale or unbalanced linkup you'd realise just how terrible it is to wait two whole months just for it to get "fixed".

I love my server, we have some great guilds and a really good collective community that works well together. But some of the servers we get stuck with . . . well, I will just say that we don't mesh well. It ends up being a long and somewhat miserable couple months. There are 2 servers in particular that if we got stuck with either of them for 6 months straight it would have a truly serious negative impact on our server community. I would love to see the Alliances feature actually implemented, but the pessimist in me has come to view it as just vaporware. I really hope I am wrong but I have long since given up on the possibility of actually seeing this feature. Now I am just trying to hold out hope that the legendary armory won't go the way of alliances. . . . but that is a topic for a different thread.

[Bristingr.5034]

@Junkpile.7439 said:Anet could add pips in eotm. That would solve many problems.

Do something that actually makes sense? You're putting too much faith into Anet.

[Deganation.9604]

GW2 WvW is Pay to Win, as long as you keep transferring to the paired server for the matchup (example: BG's paired server Eredon Terrace currently). You can still be part of said main server and therefor break the server limit of Full.

What I would like to see but doubt, is a graph of active players in WvW for each server/maps, days and time.

I would like to hear how this isn't a Pay to Win feature...

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

@"Deganation.9604" u cannot break the limits of fullness, since the servers have, probably, all the same/similar capacity for players (ok, the existance of BB says else). but yeah, as well link and host server can become full with the current system. hosts can also become links if they loose too many players and vice versa.

it's rather a pay to play "feature", i mean the freaking ppt score only has value as you can manipulate matchups with it. "winning" the ppt wars, "rising" in tier... that's all meaningless, since u get across all tiers the same rewards. most people who transfer actually seek for a better fighting environment, be it transfering guilds or pugs or roamergroups.

t5 is simply dead bc only the very low populated servers stay there. t1 and t2 are also really bad, and this EU matchup also t3 was really bad quality (last week). only very few people will really transfer due to the reason of "winning ppt matchup"... that'd be super weird to use as reason for a transfer actually.

[Deganation.9604]

@kamikharzeeh.8016 What I mean by breaking the limits of a server is when you have a full server lets say, how many people on that server actually play WvW? and those who don't still count towards the server being full. With that in mind, your limited to how many players who do actually play WvW on a server.

I got at least 3 friends who joined the JQ server and never play, tried it once or twice and are never on anymore. What im trying to say is that if you got a group of people who are dedicated players and want to be in the top tiers like T1 and/or T2, then they would move to a main server that can accomplish that, and if there is no room, then they will just continue to switch servers to pair up with the best server. and when that happens, you can almost always join a Zerg or bigger group of people to farm others and gain lots of bags that way.

I would assume that the purpose of WvW is to be in the T1 as the winning server, other than that, what would be the purpose of defending or taking over towers/keeps/camps/smc.

What is the purpose of WvW if not for bag farming.

[Riba.3271]

@Deganation.9604 said:@kamikharzeeh.8016 What I mean by breaking the limits of a server is when you have a full server lets say, how many people on that server actually play WvW? and those who don't still count towards the server being full. With that in mind, your limited to how many players who do actually play WvW on a server.

I got at least 3 friends who joined the JQ server and never play, tried it once or twice and are never on anymore. What im trying to say is that if you got a group of people who are dedicated players and want to be in the top tiers like T1 and/or T2, then they would move to a main server that can accomplish that, and if there is no room, then they will just continue to switch servers to pair up with the best server. and when that happens, you can almost always join a Zerg or bigger group of people to farm others and gain lots of bags that way.

Indeed, it is too cheap to transfer to higher tier servers with the linking system. And even if they had population to be full, their link won't

I would assume that the purpose of WvW is to be in the T1 as the winning server, other than that, what would be the purpose of defending or taking over towers/keeps/camps/smc.

Yes, Tier 1 should be the goal. But defending isn't that enjoyable fightwise anymore since they added claimbuff. Or siegewise since they added shield gens. You manage to defend with 800 stats? You can never go on offense else you get onepushed. Only 2 things can occur: either have overly easy fight or be stuck defending. In the past defending was done for nice fights (body), or to fend of bigger groups with siege (Brain). Both usage of body and brain were removed and only numbers were left. The fact that shield gens are still doing exactly the same than what they tried to remove is proof of that.

What is the purpose of WvW if not for bag farming.As the balance is, nothing. Objectives are not fun places to hang around anymore. The thrills are dead. People just log in for social interaction or because they think they are too old to learn a new game.

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

@"Deganation.9604"

"I would assume that the purpose of WvW is to be in the T1 as the winning server, other than that, what would be the purpose of defending or taking over towers/keeps/camps/smc."

and here we have the issue. tier one is worthless, it seems as the "goal" but in the end ur just stuck in a matchup with barely changes (since #1 + #2 stay t1)

next, you get no better rewards in t1 than in t4 (because t3-4 are still alive enough to get similar amounts of content plus less queues)

further, taking keeps is easy, since defending bonus is marginal. only very casual servers will continue to go the the same keeps to get ganked over and over again, for hours (which is the best and easiest farm for defenders, just not extremly commonly happening)

farming bags surely is a nice thing, but in the end you need good fighters for this, which u only find rarely in t1 (bc they like to pick their matches, with a too strong ppt you have rookie players + too much queues to be mobile). killing other groups also is the fastest way of leveling, another thing probably most people miss out. and your participation barely ever drops below the rubicon of 4.(which is a "problem" at pugging + afk pipfarming)