Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Riba.3271

Members
  • Content Count

    1,117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Some servers have been full for years mostly because linkings changed population algorithm. There was exodus of several hundreds of people from each high populated servers to links leading to full status being reached with lower and lower population. The servers that didn't lose as many people are essentially the baseline for full status. So by removing link servers, you can fit more players and guilds in your server and there will be more incoming traffic. Yes, there was SFR on EU and Blackgate on NA. But Jade quarry could give Blackgate run for their money. Exactly same is happening
  2. New players choosing a server isn't the issue, issue is older players staying guildless Players or group of them can abuse this system for following: It gives population advantage since alliance linkings are decided at start with equal populations It allows you to choose most "stacked" alliance after observing a while It allows you to go beyond the 500 man guild cap It allows known trolls to follow alliance that left them out intentionally to get rid of. I am sure there are couple of other reasons why it is a bad idea to give people a choice for alliance linkin
  3. Well ye, that is alliances. But at least pug and total populations won't be unbalanced like with linkings. People will most likely start to make common discords once alliances are actually out. Of course pre-linking system with 1-up-1-down matchmaking system and 12 servers would be ideal for WvW since it would guarantee you would learn what timezones, not just primetime, to log in for fights and regular commanders. These days tons of people only play early primetime couple of times a week for maximum 2 hours since enemy timezones and commanders swap very often. It truly
  4. It is simple, you can select players by being on same server. And you can train players to be as you want by staying on that server. But linking systems have the issue of players constantly changing and ones that do not like you learning to avoid your group. Well large part of the problems was that lowest cost servers were very dead and there were too many tiers to climb for servers. Playerbase was and is too small for 29 servers but can maintain 12. If you start in tier 4, it only takes 3 matchups to climb to tier 1 (Glicko system should stay gone!! yay!). Populations weren't n
  5. Well main issue with these Alliance/Linking systems is that first 3 weeks of matchups you either win almost all skirmishes or can't do anything to stop enemy outscoring you. Of course once you set in your right tier, matchups will be more fair., but that is still unacceptably high percentage of matchups. Another obvious flaw is that you have no idea which timezone your server is active at as the links change every 2 months and commanders/guilds transfer around more. Both effects are obviously terrible for WvW. People who only play nighttime or noontime, usually have reasons why they do so.
  6. Hopefully theyll actively update the server populations throughout first weeks of release instead of only on mondays. Else we will see some monster queue servers be born and some get none at all.
  7. Heard it from multiple people. We definitely won't be seeing whole servers in one overpopulated linking. Wasn't whole point of alliances to get people to group up in guilds and play together, rather than incentivise them to have none at all? 🤭 Anet
  8. You are right. Alliances are bad. But linking system is even worse since it actually incentivises people to transfer and stack servers for pop advantage while leaving lot of servers full+unlinked or underpopulated. The pre-linking system with less servers where transferring to higher pop servers cost more and each tier had their regular enemies was much better. PPT also mattered more and if fighters wanted to build their own place while playing against populated servers, they needed to PPT. Unfortunately I made many posts and comments about how link system fails and anet
  9. Much more fun than "super servers" rolling over everything and holding T3 SM all day. Players always go through the phase sacrificing their fun for wins. Smart ones will realise it isn't worth it, dumb ones will blame enemies and quit the game. I am on the particular red side this beta, we have lowest kdr out of all 3 sides and 0 fight alliances. Plenty of people willing to tag up open and cap things though. No one has ran tryhard discord only or invisible squad yet. It has been a blast despite us not being able to dent [Ares], [Pupa], [Ng] fight alliances. Main reaso
  10. Queues aren't bad thing tho as it means each side has same numbers. They shouldn't be that large either because the problem is shared by multiple servers
  11. It is true large organised groups are very strong but linking system was even worse than this. Since guilds and bandvagoners left big servers to smaller servers, the big servers couldn't fit any guilds, only pugs. So some servers (no pve pop) had only experienced players and no pugs whereas others (large pve pop) had only pugs and no space for guilds. Now allianceless pugs are somewhat equally split. +1, linkless servers is the way to go. Yes some servers will be less populated but at least they would face similarly populated servers and it wouldn't be transfer fiesta every 2 mo
  12. Honestly, looking at their late track record, they rarely change things after release. Supply costs, upgrade times, siege vs siege damage, claim buff, most tactics, dolyak escort buff haven't been touched since release. They wasted all their time fixing desert map (that is only 1 map out of 4 and most unpopular) and dragon banner. Shield gens still do same as before. Even linking system is mess with same problems since release. Once alliances are out, I expect them to pull whole WvW team (1 guy?) off it. They're just too lazy to touch anything else than skill balance or rewards.
  13. Good change, one class had no business having so many AoE stunbreaks. Traiting F3 stunbreak should be enough. Superspeed melee stack blob was boring anyways: now they need to wait for some cooldowns and can die if enemy outplays them. Also indirect buff to spellbreaker and tempest. Much needed. Most people die because they overextend trying to hit 10+ people when their skills only hit 5. It very viable to go melee as long as you don't go too deep or overstay.
  14. Honestly alliances are fun: lot of action and everyone gets kills since people can't stack empty servers and leave some servers underpopulated. Alliances also allow guilds splintered across servers to group up in WvW together without large investment. Somehow our beta linking doesn't have any other voice commanders though? Am I really forced to socialize and recruit some? 😱
  15. Claim buff was only 1/10th of my comment, funny that you are tunnelvisioning to that: I have plenty of other changes I am pushing through in my various comments on these forums. Unfortunately the game has lot of things that have been never adjusted since addition (almost all at release of HoT). It is better for me to put as many necessary in case lost dev reads it. Also these things are connected, you cant just nerf 1 aspect of WvW as it might make things more unbalanced. For example you can't remove 100% guaranteed way to get inside (shield gens with enough supply) in meta where defenders win
×
×
  • Create New...