lock wvw servers for two weeks before the relink

[Nalla.6581]

lock wvw servers for two weeks before the relink and then increase the prices of transfers to all servers to about 1800 gems no matter its medium,high,very high or full server it all should costs about 1800 gems then after the relinks has finish announcements there be a week for people to transfer to a new server if not after the week ends all the server and the server links would be locked again until the next relinks

Edited May 6, 2022 by Nalla.6581

[Sahne.6950]

Alliance when?

[Junkpile.7439]

1800  gems for matchup victory is kind of bad deal.

[Iceman.4509]

No

[Zyreva.1078]

It would make more sense to be the other way arround - transfers before the relinking but not after, otherwise what's the point of relinkings if players shuffle arround anyway?

[Strider Pj.2193]

25 minutes ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

It would make more sense to be the other way arround - transfers before the relinking but not after, otherwise what's the point of relinkings if players shuffle arround anyway?

No…. If people really wanted this to happen, (and they secretly and not so secretly don’t) you would lock it 5 minutes before the relinks were POSTED.  

[Mabi black.1824]

3 hours ago, Nalla.6581 said:

lock wvw servers for two weeks before the relink and then increase the prices of transfers to all servers to about 1800 gems no matter its medium,high,very high or full server it all should costs about 1800 gems then after the relinks has finish announcements there be a week for people to transfer to a new server if not after the week ends all the server and the server links would be locked again until the next relinks

excellent initiative, indeed let's go further, block them, only 1 transfer per year.

it is now clear to everyone that they are not transfers of one or two players who reach their guild. they are transfers that abuse any logic used by the algorithm to connect teams.

in a nutshell arenanet, all your work that you are doing (alliances - WR) or that you do in the future to improve the balance, will be immediately abused by groups of organized players (who want an easy and non-competitive game) practically every time just 5 minutes after you have built / calculated your balanced matches.

moreover, these nice groups of migrant sheep ruin the gaming experience for everyone else too, even where anet had approached a balanced game, they deliberately choose to empty on one side to stack another part.

it would be a good time to show your players that you really care about this mode and that you demand a little respect for the work you are investing.

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Mabi black.1824

[Mabi black.1824]

3 hours ago, Sahne.6950 said:

Alliance when?

alliances later, as soon as they have solved bugs and various problems. transfers blocked immediately please.

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Junkpile.7439 said:

1800  gems for matchup victory is kind of bad deal.

if it were for me 1800 will not even be enough for you. you're stuck and that's it. build your community and your content for your team.

[Mabi black.1824]

52 minutes ago, Iceman.4509 said:

No

no?

wait maybe I understood. numerical inferiority never, players always stacked.

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

they'd make transfer gems 1800 in any case + need to lock the transfer simply 1 week before and 3 weeks past reset - would shut down a lot of pugs who just transfer to have easier gank times ngl

 

the problem is, this should all not be a debate, anet promised us once again alliances to be finally released.

[enkidu.5937]

19 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

excellent initiative, indeed let's go further, block them, only 1 transfer per year.

and only 5 twink accounts 😝

[Junkpile.7439]

Could transfer have some rng element? Like you would transfer random server. Anet would get more money when players would have to try transfer many times.

[Iceman.4509]

If anything we should be able to freely transfer whenever 

[Mabi black.1824]

4 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

and only 5 twink accounts 😝

Question, when you use your account are you associated with the unique IP address of your computer?

they could tie that IP address to that account for the next 30 days.

is this something that can be done? could it work?

[Svarty.8019]

On 5/6/2022 at 11:46 AM, Nalla.6581 said:

lock wvw servers for two weeks before the relink and then increase the prices of transfers to all servers to about 1800 gems no matter its medium,high,very high or full server it all should costs about 1800 gems then after the relinks has finish announcements there be a week for people to transfer to a new server if not after the week ends all the server and the server links would be locked again until the next relinks

They could have done this simple change a zillion years ago but they did NOTHING.

 

 

AGAIN.

[patton the great.7126]

How ever would anet soak our cornerstone part of the game for more monies if this did something in the best interest of the game mode. ITS THEIR MONEY THEY WANT IT NOW NOT IN 2 WEEKS. 

[MedievalThings.5417]

On 5/7/2022 at 6:26 AM, Junkpile.7439 said:

Could transfer have some rng element? Like you would transfer random server. Anet would get more money when players would have to try transfer many times.

Do transfers like the mounts.  You can transfer to a random medium world for 1800 gems, but to transfer to a specific world you really want, that will be 5000 gems.

[Sugar Min.5834]

On 5/6/2022 at 6:46 PM, Nalla.6581 said:

lock wvw servers for two weeks before the relink and then increase the prices of transfers to all servers to about 1800 gems no matter its medium,high,very high or full server it all should costs about 1800 gems then after the relinks has finish announcements there be a week for people to transfer to a new server if not after the week ends all the server and the server links would be locked again until the next relinks

Please stop beating the dead horse. Let it R. I. P.

[CrimsonRise.7650]

Potentially locking players or guilds by inflating transfer costs, to dead or overstacked hosts and/or links, especially early on after a Relink cycle, is a terrible idea.

They could dynamically adjust the populations more frequently and accurately, but with the current Population and linking system, it's most likely almost impossible to do. There's at least  the odd occasions, where they change the population thresholds, every other Monday or Tuesday.

It's something they should be working on with the Alliances, according to what they've said in their some forum posts and articles afaik.

Edited May 9, 2022 by CrimsonNeonite.1048

[exeggcuter.8394]

Alternately, we as the players, could do our part by simply boycotting transferring altogether. If we want this to change, we can't give ANet a reason to keep it as it is. If more people simply refused to transfer at all, they wouldn't get their precious $$ from this lame system.

 

Then they might have to change it to something else.

 

For example, I kind of like the idea of ANet making it blatantly pay to win, but to raise the price to an absolutely outrageous sum. The price of gems themselves are dynamically adjusted fairly fast, they could easily do the same with WvW transfers. You really want to be in the highest pop server? That'd be 80,000 gems please! It just has to also be that servers are never ever fully blocked. It would also do a decent job of showing how badly stacked the servers actually are.