Dayra.7405

I think, ANet has essentially two design-flaws in the transfer system, that lead to the current mass-transfers just after every relink, that destroys the idea of balancing by relinking:1) The price depends only on the individual servers and not on the total population of the link. One should also consider the link status, e.g. above average populated link then there's a surcharge (e.g. + 2000 gems) on the transfer price, average then it stays as it is, below average then there's a discount (e.g. costs only half as much) and maybe even rewards as proposed by enkidu.5937 below2) Transfers do not directly change the population status of servers & links (Today it takes several days till the population-status adapts to mass-transfers, more than enough time for massive coordinated overstacking). It would be better if every transfer directly influences the game hours, e.g. if a player transfers from A to B, and X is the average number of game hours per player on A, then directly at the transfer A-population := A-population -X and B-population := B-population + X (And similar for the whole link-status) Is that supposed to be fixed before the alliance system? I suppose it is too costly. But I also have no idea when the alliance system will be finished. Should it need more years, it would probably be worth it. (But for a real fix both problems need to be solved, fixing only one of them doesn't work, because the players coordinate themselves during the transfer to a small time window of a few hours.) As a short-term remedy, the time window for transfers could be limited: Transfers are only possible in week 6 with 8 weekly linkings (7 with 9 weekly linkings).Then The population is at least 5 (6) weeks long as balanced as possible by linkingAfter the transfers, the population status can still adapt to the changes for 2 weeks, so that the new linkings are correct again.Presumably this would solve the mass transfer problem completely (because it is no longer worth to transfer) at the expense of the somewhat limited "friendship reunion". But that might even be the problem that prevents such a solution: ANet wouldn't earn much less on transfers.

For the illusion to get faster out-of-fight ;)

I would reset skills in wvw to pre-HoT.

That's the whole purpose of relinking, milking monies from transfer Yeah, I want ANet earn more from the WTJ-Transfers: Re-Link every month!

Hm that was 6 years ago. Unfortunately WvW was more fun before it happend.

Just 2 tiers seems to much compression to me, don't forget its summer now, where people always played less, But ANet knows the numbers, make it such that every link in every tier has all maps full for at least 2h a day.

@Diku.2546 Hey my proposal was not a proposal to replace alliances with something completly different after another few years of development time, but a quick-fix to bridge the time till alliances. To late? you mean it only needs 1, 2 or 3 tears not 4 or 5 tiers?

Less players need less Tiers, currently they hardly fill their maps even in prime.Also currently you have only 12 minors for 15 majors to link, resulting in at least 3 server without link.With only 4 tiers this would be better 15 minors for 12 majors, everyone not totally overstacked can get a link.

Simply shutdown WvW and add Pips and the WvW-Maps to EotM,replace World-color bindings in EotM, join the Squad/Party/Player to the currently weakest team of the selected map-type

4 possibilities: :p all moved to Dzagonur, that went to Full nowDzagonur is so overstacked now, that compared to it, everything else now looks empty :)most reduced/stopped playing because it was to hot last weeksANet manually increased the limit to satisfy their complaining friends on Piken

Now this minor went up to Full and it's major down to medium, lol

All EU Server now open, except Dzago that went to Full ;)

Fact remains: This weak your are just overrun by a massive transfer.Friday it will be finished, next week in T4 will be much less single-sided.

Sure we do, but people will start leaving if this continues, during prime time. That really bad news is: your situation will not change, when no one leaves. (and ANet doesn't close T5) Currently Piken belong to the largest 3 server (in WvW-player-Hours) in EU (that's why you did not got a link - there are only 12 minor server for 15 major-server) and as long as you do not shrink more than the mean EU-WvW-population, you stay where you are: Full and unlinked and doomed to T4-T5. (as unlinked server have no chance against most linked ones.) That's why Kodash break up and that's the situation the German servers faced during the last years (and ANet did not changed anything, until recently when they dropped the language restriction on linking.). You can adapt to the situation, hope that ANet closes T5 soon or leave the server. But in any case the 3 largest EU server will stay doomed to be Full and without link till T5 is closed or ANet increases the pop-limit of unliked servers or the Alliance system replaces the current mess.

a player that is in wvw 4 times a week for 15 min adds 1h to the "world-size"a player that is in wvw 7 times 2h hours adds 14h to the "world-size" I don't know the limit and it changed over time, but I would guess a world is full if it has (something like). more than 4000 hours per match.(7 days all 4 maps full for 2h is: 7x2x400 = 5600hours, total capacity of a match is full maps all around the clock: 7x24x400 = 67’200 hours)

And 1.5 years later:https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Yaks-Bend/first#post6513382 "To clarify further this is the first week we are using this new algorithm. So some of the complaints that are being brought up were problems with the old algorithm.We use play hours to determine the size. Rank gains is tracked for comparison purposes since they usually follow a similar curve, but isn’t actually used to determine the world size.We have simulated other algorithms to measure world size and ultimately found that player hours gave us more accurate results because we are mostly comparing active WvW play. The past algorithms weighed more heavily on individual players, so we ended up with situations where JQ was ‘Full’ because they had a lot of players, just not necessarily ones that played as much as Blackgate."

It's already a bit older so it's hard to find, but someone in the german-forum just did:https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Yaks-Bend/first#post6513382

So you are in a single sided-match since 46hours. You are not the first to whom that happened and you will not be the last.The good news: this match will end in 122 hours.The bad news: You stay unlinked for at least another 7 weeks. (I guess your beloved server is Piken Square) Now you know why the 3 always unlinked & full German server stayed the last year in T4-T5 and were complaining occasionally. They experienced that for over a year, without ANet ever replying nor working on a solution. And yes, over the year all of them sometime break apart, some more and some less. In fact you are hit by this last break. Several guilds transferred from Kodash to Dzagonur, causing the single-sidedness you are currently experiencing. But hey, if you all love your server you would not start talking about leaving it after just 46 hours.

How should that work, i.e. how do you kill other classes in PvE to get their core?

The extreme ways to get your play-hours a day are:1) all maps are full for 2h and no one plays the other 22h of the day2) your players are equally distributed over the day.Server that tend to 1) have good K:D and loose most matches (as they win only 1 skirmish per day)Servers that tend to 2) have worst K:D (as they are either outnumbered or don't meet an enemy) but win every match (as the win 11 of the 12 skirmishes)Kodash was proud to be a type 1 server with a good K:D, that lost most matches, so they were at the bottom of the table. But that doesn't say that play-hours are a misleading way to measure server-activity.

Quite surprising to me that people that pay money to make sure they have superior manpower are called warriors.

Using what values for the calculation? Most likely the GW2-API:https://api.guildwars2.com/v2/worlds?lang=en&ids=all

short answer: yeslong answer: maybe we better focus on alliances