Should the Transfer System be fixed?

[Sovereign.1093]

because we should be allowed to find a place where we can as a group enjoy the game. :P that's just how it goes.

[Dayra.7405]

@Sovereign.1093 said:because we should be allowed to find a place where we can as a group enjoy the game. :P that's just how it goes.

A pity, that for the majority of transfers in the history of WvW this seem to mean: (Over-) Stack together to steamroll the others :(

But otherwise neither a shorter linking period, nor restrictions on transfer-time, nor modified costs based on link-overstacking prevent you from finding your optimal place.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Dayra.7405 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@enkidu.5937 said:Fight fire with fire. Anet makes money out of transfers, so they will stay. We need more (sic) ^^ transfers, but in the opposite direction, to compensate the current bandwaggoning flux and immediately give back population to abandoned links.

Give an incentive to make ppl transfer to a low populated server in an overall low-populated link:

• give a reward buff for 4 weeks after transfering to a low populated link and server (e. g. +100% pips, reward track progress, bags, Gold, EXP, Karma)
• pips can still be earned directly after transfer to a low populated server

The suggestions in the TO would be easy to start with, as well.

I appreciate your intent but I think this would be abused. I could see bandwagoners all just going to the lowest population server to flood it causing it to raise up to the top just to crash again once people repeated the steps next time to gain the boons and fight back up thru the ranks.

{snip}

See, this is one of the problems with a public poll. The OP clearly has made the poll in such a way to ensure that his position comes out as sounding positive.

Then the OP votes, and comments early, thus showing everyone the position they took.

It’s one of the reasons why forum polls are mostly pointless.

[Dayra.7405]

The greatest problem of polls is for sure: just 25 votes from hundreds of players :(

Still, they give a quantitative indication how good the arguments are for the different options.

And I think "It's not a problem" is a quite neutral formulation. How would you have formulated the options?

[shiri.4257]

@Djamonja.6453 said:When you really dig down, transfers are not the core problem, they are how a portion of the WvW player-base responds to the problem. The core problem is that there are not enough players across most timezones to balance out the matchups in every tier. I think the best solution on the NA servers is probably to reduce the tiers from 4 to 3 (there are rarely queues outside of reset nowdays). But I don't know if Anet sees that as a positive move.

DJ FOR WVW PRESIDENT 2020!

[Percy.2954]

@"Dayra.7405" said:On Thu 4. July people transfered from Kodash to Dzagonur, people in german forum discussed it was 3-4 guilds plus followers. But this was only the Germans on Kodash, also a lot of international players transferred, all in all a few hundered. Naturally (due to the pip-system) they transfer within 24hours (Thursday evening till before reset), while the current transfer system needs 5 days (till Tuesday evening) to "notice" this change. More than enough time for a coordinated jump, plus even a weekend for late followers.

The 'small time window' is actually several days long. Players transfer shortly before a new server pairing takes place based on the impressions they got from the previous 2 months or based on what they expect it to be the future? Surely they cannot reasonably predict which servers Glicko/ANet is going to pair up next. So the day after the transfer they find themselves in a new pairing environment which may be totally different from what they anticipated and start to save up for the next transfer? By transferring they outmanoeuvred both the new Glicko scheme and their own transfer decision. Nice work.

What is the current upper limit for a server population? Is it 10.000 players per server or more or maybe even less?The upper-limit for a server

population is not the number of players

, but

the number of hours player spend in WvW

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Yaks-Bend/first#post6513382

The link doesn't work. 'page not found'. Your claim what constitutes a 'full server' and thus enables or prevents a transfer needs a bit more explanation. When a player wants to transfer from server A to B 'hours spend in WvW' is a criteria? Would that mean a player who never enters WvW can transfer to server B while another who relishes in WvW cannot because server B's WvW population is strong and very active? That sounds too far fetched and doesn't square with what we have seen over the last 7 years. When a server is marked 'full' it is full for everyone regardless where you spend your time in GW2.

On the other hand it means if a server is not full, a few dozen dedicated WvW players migrating can swing the whole picture around even if the total server population just increased by 1-5% or so.

If server pairing happens every 2 weeks than maybe players will get tired of server hopping very soon.Yeah shortening the link period to 2 weeks would be a solution as well.

I rest my case. Dry their pockets and the whole problem is gone.^^

[Dayra.7405]

@"Percy.2954" said:.... Players transfer shortly before a new server pairing takes place...

You seem to mix up the dates, it was 6 days after the last relink.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Yaks-Bend/first#post6513382

The link doesn't work. 'page not found'.

The link is fine (copy it to the browser manually) just the forums external link forwarding seems to be currently broken.

The 'small time window' is actually several days long.

Yeah, the world-population computations seem to need 5 days to react to mass transfers, and this poll proposes to fix that.

When a player wants to transfer from server A to B 'hours spend in WvW' is a criteria?Not for his possibilities or costs to transfer, but it should be used to adapt old and new worlds population limits faster than in 5 days as the old server losses his play-hours by the transfer and the new server gains them.

[Peksi.8703]

Complete rework on the servers to get everything balanced. Links have always been awful, server can rise from t4 to t1 in 3 weeks simply because they got a good link and once new link comes they go back to t4. Alliances is most likely never coming.I'm down for big changes to get balanced matchups with balanced server sizes. Remove half of the servers if needed.After everything is set, change the pricing on transfers. First transfer 2000 gems, after that everytime the price is doubled, 2k-4k-8k etc.

[Dayra.7405]

@"Peksi.8703" said:Complete rework on the servers to get everything balanced.

That's in development at ANet under the name "Alliance System" since nearly 2 years, and will likely be released in sometimes. ;)

This poll is more about some quick fixes before (and a reminder to not leave the same holes in the alliance-system).

[Sovereign.1093]

mmm only problem is we have a lot of tiers. links arent bad per se. and transfering around isnt bad too.