WvW Poll - World Server Links — Guild Wars 2 Forums

WvW Poll - World Server Links

XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited October 24, 2017 in WvW

Since links are an issue that's constantly talked about since it's inception, and it's been close to a year and a half since we voted on keeping it, May 21st, 2016. I thought we should give the poll feature of the new forums some use :)

Maybe Anet will re-evaluate this issue if we get enough votes and the results are unfavorable for links. So vote, and get your friends, your guild, your server to vote if you feel Anet really needs to look into this issue seriously again. There is no in game mail for this, so it's up to you to spread the word to get votes either way.

Here's a link to the old results for reference.
https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-21-May-World-Linking-Closed/page/3#post6175461

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL ANET POLL

HERE'S THE QUESTION:

SHOULD WE KEEP WORLD LINKS?

Further explanation of answers, which I've done to gauge the different levels to yes/no:
1. No, Remove all links and return servers to be on their own. --- Straight forward No, you want the old single server system.
2. Yes, Links work so keep it. --- Straight forward Yes, you want to keep links as is.
3. No, But they should try another system such as the "Alliance" or "EOTM" proposals. --- You don't want links but willing to try other population balance proposals such as Alliance, Eotm, Battlegroups, Mercenary, Merges, Reducing servers, ETC.
4. Yes, But some tweaks are needed. --- You want to keep links with some tweaks to the system such as link schedule, or how they calculate populations, or the makeup of new links according to tiers.
5. I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or balance is more important. --- You don't mind tomatoes on your cake.

Another derailing post. ^^
EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
|| Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

WvW Poll - World Server Links 175 votes

No, Remove all links and return servers to be on their own.
28%
Ekhetrima.9651Loosmaster.8263Panicbutton.9426iwasoncecool.9734hornswroggle.8023tadeuhunter.2473SkyFurY.6057Banzie.5248cobbah.3102Zaraki.5784Leaa.2943Reaper Alim.4176TheDivineMissC.7413Dinas Dragonbane.2978Elementalist Owner.7802MasterYoda.8563Balthazzarr.1349Adamarc.7463hotcatz.6834Rumba.3174 50 votes
Yes, Links work so keep using it.
9%
Owyn.1382Pretty Pixie.8603Turk.5460Rym.1469Cave Rock.4869SailorSpira.9371Eluwave.9506TheQuickFox.3826Alehin.3746huki.8251Foghladha.2506Nuzt.7894Giddy.7930Titan.3472Reslinal.2359Kiwi.6532 16 votes
No, But they should try another system such as the "Alliance" or "EOTM" proposals.
20%
Diabolo.4876Curunen.8729joneirikb.7506Elegie.3620Aquamarine.3698Pensadora.9478Varylnard.4328Arimas.3492Fatherbliss.4701nicknamenick.2437K THEN.5162Hyper Cutter.9376Sovereign.1093Arkedi.5934Crossaber.8934tony.9425JoEWas.1409Ziooo.8932PariahX.6970weiu.1370 36 votes
Yes, But some tweaks are needed.
27%
MaxwellM.2075Kam.4092omica.6548TakeCare.3182Chaba.5410Dragotico.5397Neekhi.3712Malfrador.3615soistheman.7208Nighteyess.2149Babytater.6803PhantomKnight.2183primatos.5413Lionwait.4815Aframuz The First.7503dbreien.2543Wizkid.5982ich.7086Burt Macklin.7045Grahf.1056 48 votes
I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.
14%
OriOri.8724illenos.5134Brat.4315XenesisII.1540Spurnshadow.3678Mini Crinny.6190Olli.9028Malerian.8435Princess.7584CedarDog.9723EremiteAngel.9765Reverence.6915Mikezaner.1524TheNextGabrielle.6384freecarl.1320mist.9807GDchiaScrub.3241Przemyslaw.5891MagisterEpic.2340Napo.1230 25 votes

Comments

  • Yes, But some tweaks are needed.

    It's obvious certain servers will never be able to stand on their own and be very competitive so I think links are good. I would rather see either permanent links or yearly or bi yearly links.
    Seems difficult to create some sort of community with linked servers when that community is just gonna be broken apart 2 months later

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    The only problem with leaving links together too long, was the possibility of bandwagons happening and unbalancing server links within a tier. The links were suppose to help re-balance tiers every 2 months.

    But that was a problem under the glicko system.

    I don't think there's been any major population movements in a while now, not since like TC descending to t4, plus 12 servers were closed for a period of time. Also with 1u1d now in place if a server link gets bandwagoned or emptied, it would quickly move through the ranks to it's rightful place, and players wouldn't be stuck fighting monster servers for months on end.

    So yes, re-evaluation of the re-link schedule should probably be looked at as well.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Nidome.1365Nidome.1365 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes, But some tweaks are needed.

    They should have removed all links with the update that introduced pips. they should have then waited 6 months for the populations to re-settle before revisiting the linking idea. They have now left it too late to do this.
    I would like to see some way of population balancing that retains a connection to the server system. An Alliance system or megaserver system would likely be the final nail for WvW.
    The biggest damage to WvW comes from server hopping being too easy but Anet get an income from server hopping through gem sales so easy server hopping is unlikely to end.

  • Malerian.8435Malerian.8435 Member ✭✭✭
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    I voted for 5. I do not like some links and I am sure that will always be the case. But TBH I just want to have some fun and if they can balance it in the meantime that would be great!

    Being underestimated is one of the biggest competitive advantages you have!

  • No, But they should try another system such as the "Alliance" or "EOTM" proposals.

    Wvw will continue to shrink in player base as it continues on. The surge from PoF is trickling out now and the game mode remains rather stagnant. The rewards were a nice boost but there is still a lot left desired in the long run. Hopefully, they just look ahead before it becomes a crisis and mitigate.

    I Play On Fort Aspenwood [WHY]
    http://i.imgur.com/uQQTn.jpg

  • I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    I just want to roam with my friends and have fun. I hear nothing buy gripes about the server linkings from friends on other servers, then again I'm on CD so it doesn't really concern/apply to me as we'll most likely never have the numbers to keep up with the big dog servers. Making them permanent however would be the answer toward building a solid community IMO. That is severely lacking right now and is the foundation of a wvw based on my experience the past years, just continues to decline.

    ANet just needs to pull the trigger, merge servers, and quit worrying about offending someone because they've been on x server since launch. Give them a gift, special skin, title, whatever if you have to. Quit staying in neutral and move forward. Isn't merging servers a common thing in MMOs as they age and lose subs?

  • CrimsonNeonite.1048CrimsonNeonite.1048 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 20, 2017
    No, Remove all links and return servers to be on their own.

    Remove links and merge servers, stop using a bandaid solution for the drop in populations, especially when WVW population for each server, is not even being calculated right.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    I didn't put merge as an option because I don't think it really is an option with servers also involving pve players on them. The other games that have merges also don't rely on entire servers as a player pool for pvp, but separation between races and have battlegroups setup that pulls players from multiple servers, so it's easier on a secondary level to do server merges without really affecting anyone on the server. But more recently even games like WoW have been doing server links instead of merges to bring population levels back up, this doesnt affect their pvp side since they already run everything like eotm player pools with two sides.

    We also don't know actual pve player numbers or actual capacity numbers for gw2 servers. I just don't think merging is that simple.

    Merges also falls under other population balance options such as the alliance and eotm systems, so I would suggest anyone wanting that to happen to vote for that option.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    So far..
    No to links - 5
    Yes to links - 8
    Don't care - 4

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    Day 1 results.
    No to links - 14 - 39%
    Yes to links - 14 - 39%
    Don't care - 7 - 20%

    I was kinda expecting more votes for No from EU players.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Vova.2640Vova.2640 Member ✭✭✭

    I didn't vote for either. I think removing links and deleting servers to keep only 5 tiers (15 servers, for NA) would be best.
    But then again, Im not on one of those small server, I wouldn't know how I would feel about having my home server removed.

    Also population status should be checked much more frequently than once every 2 weeks... It should be like hourly or something. If a server is seeing high volume of bandwagoning then it should get the full status as soon as it reaches the full threshold, and not have it be open for another 10 days or something.

  • Hyper Cutter.9376Hyper Cutter.9376 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 22, 2017
    No, But they should try another system such as the "Alliance" or "EOTM" proposals.

    Implement WvW megaservers or blow up the servers and reshuffle everyone as evenly as possible. These have their own downsides, but they'd fix the population balance issues.

    Short of a major shakeup like that, linking's the best they're able to do.

  • Inoki.6048Inoki.6048 Member ✭✭✭
    No, But they should try another system such as the "Alliance" or "EOTM" proposals.

    De-linking servers, particularly those with lower population, isn't a good idea. Merging smaller servers would be a good start. Then there would be no need for linking.

  • Titan.3472Titan.3472 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 22, 2017
    Yes, Links work so keep using it.

    Megasevers would face same inbalance at some point in time. The advantage of server linking is dynamic balance of populations over time even when overall activity fall at some point.

  • Loosmaster.8263Loosmaster.8263 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No, Remove all links and return servers to be on their own.

    I look at it for the time being as a free transfer every 2 months. But at the same time it can be horrific depending on who I get linked with.

    One option linked servers can have is get one time free transfer to the server of your choice regardless of their population status.

    I would not agree to any merger without option to have a say in the choice.

    Currently playing my Asura because my Norn on the Warclaw looks like it's sitting on a Chihauhau!!!
    Tactical Killers
    Server(DR)

  • Norbe.7630Norbe.7630 Member ✭✭✭

    any other options better than the ones listed?
    all of the choices are timebombs for GW2's WvW

    Why So Serious?

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    @Norbe.7630 said:
    any other options better than the ones listed?
    all of the choices are timebombs for GW2's WvW

    Like what?
    I listed you don't want links.
    You want links.
    You don't want links but would like something else like the alliance and eotm solutions, which everything else would fall into including merges.
    What else is there? Delete wvw?

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    Day 2 results.
    No - 38 - 53%
    Yes - 24 - 33%
    Don't care - 10 - 14%

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • ThunderPanda.1872ThunderPanda.1872 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 23, 2017

    Why not just permanent link, and only relink when balance is out of whack? Do we really need a schedule for it? Why are we constantly tearing down server communities and why are we not creating an incentive for people to fight for their world (who cares about your world when it's going to change in a few months after a relink)? Why not let servers make long term investment to progress their rankings and tiers instead of knowing everything will break down in a few months, and probably end up with a bad link?

    Imagine you're a newb in WvW, and you finally found a group of friendly people willing to patiently show you the ropes. After a few months, you find out you're in one of the linked child servers. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$transfer$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ or go back being lonely

    Power > Condition

  • Zaraki.5784Zaraki.5784 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 23, 2017
    No, Remove all links and return servers to be on their own.

    No, remove all links, if there are small servers who can't stand on their own, well...too bad for them!

    "Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never be able to injure you!"
    The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy

  • atheria.2837atheria.2837 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 23, 2017
    No, Remove all links and return servers to be on their own.

    No, Remove all links and return servers to be on their own.

    @CrimsonNeonite.1048 said:
    Remove links and merge servers, stop using a bandaid solution for the drop in populations, especially when WVW population for each server, is not even being calculated right.

    +1

    The links have made WvW a "Stranger In A Strange Land" for all those who play in it now.

    Two months isn't enough time to get to know, let alone trust, anyone.

    The servers had their own personalities.

    Let them have them back.

    _If one server can do it without a link and be top 3 most of the time, so be it. _

    Give us our servers back. Give us our identities back.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 23, 2017
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    Day 3 results.
    No - 52 - 51%
    Yes - 32 - 32%
    Don't care - 17 - 17%

    @atheria.2837 said:
    _If one server can do it without a link and be top 3 most of the time, so be it. _

    Right, who cares about the 3 other servers that will have to face them on a regular basis.
    This has shown how super stacked on coverage they were in the first place, despite having no links since the first time, fully locked for 99% of the time, having less activity than a good chunk of servers, and still manages to hold points to first place.

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:
    Why not just permanent link, and only relink when balance is out of whack? Do we really need a schedule for it? Why are we constantly tearing down server communities and why are we not creating an incentive for people to fight for their world (who cares about your world when it's going to change in a few months after a relink)? Why not let servers make long term investment to progress their rankings and tiers instead of knowing everything will break down in a few months, and probably end up with a bad link?

    Right now the schedule poll has the majority of votes for monthly relinks, at 72%. So not sure how many really are interested in making long term investments in communities these days, if they did they probably would have moved to that particular server when it's available.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/11498/wvw-poll-server-link-schedule#latest

    The question is, why fight in the name of your world these days? There's no glory to be had, there's no rewards to be had, there is no meaning to ranks or shooting for the best. Any movement in ranks relies on having a bandwagon to achieve, bandwagons that tend to break up after a few months, kinda like links.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Day 3 results.
    No - 52 - 51%
    Yes - 32 - 32%
    Don't care - 17 - 17%

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:
    Why not just permanent link, and only relink when balance is out of whack? Do we really need a schedule for it? Why are we constantly tearing down server communities and why are we not creating an incentive for people to fight for their world (who cares about your world when it's going to change in a few months after a relink)? Why not let servers make long term investment to progress their rankings and tiers instead of knowing everything will break down in a few months, and probably end up with a bad link?

    Right now the schedule poll has the majority of votes for monthly relinks, at 72%. So not sure how many really are interested in making long term investments in communities these days, if they did they probably would have moved to that particular server when it's available.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/11498/wvw-poll-server-link-schedule#latest

    The question is, why fight in the name of your world these days? There's no glory to be had, there's no rewards to be had, there is no meaning to ranks or shooting for the best. Any movement in ranks relies on having a bandwagon to achieve, bandwagons that tend to break up after a few months, kinda like links.

    I didn't vote in this thread because I dont agree with every option you listed. Not to mention that relink schedule poll don't even have the option on no links or no relinks, of course you're going to get a lot votes from people who want links in the first place.

    And the answer to why fight in the name of your world these days is exactly... why? Servers get shuffled around, you hear complaints on how they lost their server identity. Players on the linked server have hard time to find a group they want to dedicate time to play with because they're all on a server different to them, and will likely be unlinked with very soon - people who wants to make a long term investment with a guild, and subsequently to a server need to fork out $$$$$$$$ to be on the master server, and as for new players who picked their world without giving much thoughts to its WvW status, it can be an extremely infuriating experience that could drive them away from the game mode.

    Bandwagon is not an inherently bad thing, servers who provides a healthy environment attracts people, and rankings will adjust accordingly. No one loves to permanently karma train the other servers and no one loves to permanently being karma trained, people leave when they get bored - and it'll adjust. This is why you rarely see bandwagons going to bottom feeder tiers, unless some rich kitten pays for all their transfers - looking at you DR. There are also times when a transferee meets new group and likes the environment and makes their new world their new home.

    You don't always need a lot of tangible(well tangible in a sense you don't know real world) rewards to promote server commitments. BG can hold their community for so long not because you get rewarded for being on BG, but because they take pride in calling themselves #Beastgate, #Hibergate, they take pride in being the first server to kill the new teq(PVE alert), they take pride in being an unlinked server taking on a horde of linked servers, being on a strong stable server and outlasting their rivals, and etc - of course everyone digs different things, but none of them deviates from their pride of being part of the community. Not all servers can foster a great environment, but these days on a linked server, how do you even begin to create such server identity and pride, when a lot of people who see are just temporary casuals that's temporary playing with you?

    Power > Condition

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:
    I didn't vote in this thread because I dont agree with every option you listed. Not to mention that relink schedule poll don't even have the option on no links or no relinks, of course you're going to get a lot votes from people who want links in the first place.

    The relink poll was strictly about scheduling and for people who were interested in links, I mentioned that in the first couple lines of the poll, any other concerns like having links or no links were to be done in this poll.

    And the answer to why fight in the name of your world these days is exactly... why? Servers get shuffled around, you hear complaints on how they lost their server identity. Players on the linked server have hard time to find a group they want to dedicate time to play with because they're all on a server different to them, and will likely be unlinked with very soon - people who wants to make a long term investment with a guild, and subsequently to a server need to fork out $$$$$$$$ to be on the master server, and as for new players who picked their world without giving much thoughts to its WvW status, it can be an extremely infuriating experience that could drive them away from the game mode.

    Players complain about links but the community was breaking down way before that, since HoT changed many aspects that relied on the community such as scouting, defensive siege, structure upgrades, all became obsolete as well as desert borderlands making many not interested in playing wvw at all. Links didn't even happen till 6 months after HoT release. Many players took breaks from wvw during that time, and more players relied on their guild for their community rather than their server. Players seem to forget this low period of wvw for some reason.

    Bandwagon is not an inherently bad thing, servers who provides a healthy environment attracts people, and rankings will adjust accordingly. No one loves to permanently karma train the other servers and no one loves to permanently being karma trained, people leave when they get bored - and it'll adjust. This is why you rarely see bandwagons going to bottom feeder tiers, unless some rich kitten pays for all their transfers - looking at you DR. There are also times when a transferee meets new group and likes the environment and makes their new world their new home.

    Bandwagon means you're pulling entire guilds away from other server(s). There have been all sorts of bandwagons including those that have happened just to spite servers with guilds jumping to another server to try and replace them. Servers like Dragonbrand have been bandwagoned on in NA like 3 times, how do you think that has affected their community? You didn't see bandwagons drop to bottom feeders because of the time it would have taken to get a server back up to the higher tiers, about the only guild that did this was War Machine going to Kaineng, everyone else picks mid tier servers, fight guilds tend to move around the most and most tend to like sticking around t2.

    You don't always need a lot of tangible(well tangible in a sense you don't know real world) rewards to promote server commitments. BG can hold their community for so long not because you get rewarded for being on BG, but because they take pride in calling themselves #Beastgate, #Hibergate, they take pride in being the first server to kill the new teq(PVE alert), they take pride in being an unlinked server taking on a horde of linked servers, being on a strong stable server and outlasting their rivals, and etc - of course everyone digs different things, but none of them deviates from their pride of being part of the community. Not all servers can foster a great environment, but these days on a linked server, how do you even begin to create such server identity and pride, when a lot of people who see are just temporary casuals that's temporary playing with you?

    BG didn't start in t1, they too got bandwagoned on as they moved up the ranks, when they got the teq kill a ton of pve players moved to BG, pve players which have no reason at all to ever move from that server because of 1. megaserver, 2. their server maintains a high rating in wvw and could have if they wanted at any time obliterate opposing servers with numbers and coverage, meaning it is always a good time for them when they entered wvw. They were notorious for buying guilds and players while bypassing the full server locks before they actually did lock down the lock. There's no doubt they created a great sense of pride in their server from the teq kills to the first tournament win. End of the day, people like to win, BG is the longest running #1 server, winning makes it a lot easier to have pride in a server.

    Don't know why people think links need to be some kind of marriage. Make friends keep in touch, you don't have to be on the same server for the rest of your gw2 life.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • HazyDaisy.4107HazyDaisy.4107 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Just a comment about Xens post above without quoting and breaking it down.

    Yes, linkings happened 6 months after Hot and there was a dry spell in wvw. But, elites were only obtainable in pve and we were faced with 3 DBLs in that 6 month period.

    Some of the communities might have had a chance to recover slightly if certain changes that came along with linkings had come while we were still seperate servers (ie only 1 DBL, No barriers in the 1 DBL, Elites obtainable through Notory scrolls in wvw, REWARD TRACKS etc). Not saying all 24 NA servers would've survived, but some might have.

    [HaHa] Hazardous Hallucination - Sorrows Furnace

  • Spurnshadow.3678Spurnshadow.3678 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 24, 2017
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    I already voted in the pole, but I wish there was an option for unlink and remove the bottom half of the servers. Also, I've noticed that the polls on the forums have very few votes, so it's not a great sample size, unfortunately.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    @HazyDaisy.4107 said:
    Just a comment about Xens post above without quoting and breaking it down.

    Yes, linkings happened 6 months after Hot and there was a dry spell in wvw. But, elites were only obtainable in pve and we were faced with 3 DBLs in that 6 month period.

    Some of the communities might have had a chance to recover slightly if certain changes that came along with linkings had come while we were still seperate servers (ie only 1 DBL, No barriers in the 1 DBL, Elites obtainable through Notory scrolls in wvw, REWARD TRACKS etc). Not saying all 24 NA servers would've survived, but some might have.

    Maybe the mid tiers. I still highly doubt any server would have gotten close to their population status before HoT, especially the low tier servers.

    Elites weren't that hard to get. I got them done on all classes within the first 2-3 weeks, once I went through the maps the first time and figure out the routes to just train the hero points, I don't see a reason why that kept players out of wvw long term. Players were also out for a time because they had to pve grind out the time gated guildhall upgrades, to regain wvw bonuses. Notary scrolls and rewards tracks are personal rewards, while I'm sure they brought people back, it would have done no good on empty desert borderlands, alpines I feel did the most work in bringing back players.

    A good part of a community is usually involved with defense and upkeep of their home borderland, you have the scouts, the mothers, the roamers, the guilds and commanders you can call on for defense, they are all part of that community. Desert borderland is the major reason why players stayed away, it was a complete mess that screwed with community defenses. Sentries and watch tower took away the need for multiple scouts, keeps were now complicated with multiple breach points and walls (old keeps have 2 walls, outer and inner both much easier to siege and refresh, desert bl keeps are mini mazes), auto upgrades that no longer required mothers input, players unwilling to go defend a borderland they hated and all sat in queue for ebg.

    One bad thing the links did bring was a mini exodus from T4 when the glicko walls were forming, and some didn't want to get caught being stuck in T4 for however long, which eventually got hit with the lopsided monster 4 link.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    Day 4 results.
    No - 65 - 53%
    Yes - 37 - 30%
    Don't care - 20 - 17%

    @Spurnshadow.3678 said:
    I already voted in the pole, but I wish there was an option for unlink and remove the bottom half of the servers. Also, I've noticed that the polls on the forums have very few votes, so it's not a great sample size, unfortunately.

    That would go under No remove links, but would like to try something else, what you mentioned is basically a merge which is try something else. I'll update the original post about this, I can't update poll options but I hope people are reading the explanations before voting.

    I wasn't expecting big numbers since there is no notification to players in game like the official ones, which is why I mentioned to notify players in game if you wish to get more involved with voting. A lot less players are active in the wvw forum subsection than general, even more so it seems since the forum update.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • CedarDog.9723CedarDog.9723 Member ✭✭✭
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    It'd be nice if we can negotiate with other servers to form alliances, since some of the server links we've had were less than desirable. :P Additionally, I want those PvE server bonuses back from WvW...I miss that additional magic find when outside of WvW.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2017
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    Day 5 results.
    No - 70 - 51%
    Yes - 43 - 31%
    Don't care - 24 - 18%

    Letting this run for a week.
    Be sure to vote on the link schedule if you voted yes here.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/11498/wvw-poll-server-link-schedule

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • No, Remove all links and return servers to be on their own.

    Stop with the links.
    In all fairness i dont think EU even needed the linking in first place. I know NA's matchups were all over the place but prior to linking i think at least in the top 10 servers (apart from #1 spot) EU was finding its own feet. I think any official polls should be done per region and not as a whole, if the game mode has been split in 2 region then so should any future fixes.

    Personally I think that if linking was removed, now that we have a 1 up 1 down ladder everything will fall in place nicely and we wont have as much of an issue as it was prior to linking. But Anet needs more control over transfers to avoid it getting out of hand again, perhaps a different way to calculate WvW population etc.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    I don't care either way, I just want wvw to be fun, or combat balance is more important.

    Forgot to do Day 6, but last day for counting...

    Day 7 results.
    No - 74 - 50%
    Yes - 49 - 33%
    Don't care - 25 - 17%

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.