Just some thoughts on WvW

[Mabi black.1824]

12 hours ago, Ninaxx.7248 said:

I think what he's trying to say is that WvW is now crap! I don't understand all the techy speak either, I don't need to, I play for the fun of it, or I did cos now it ain't noo fun any more. I was progressing through the ranks very nicely thank you, made it to a silver something but it looks like I won't be going any further with the way the game has changed for the worse. Well done Anet, you really messed this one up!!

perhaps it is good to remind players what this game mode is. player vs player 4 large maps that you can turn from top to bottom from right to left as you want.

in the maps you will find many structures, field, towers, castles, and fortresses the goal to win is to conquer those enemies and defend their own from the enemy.

in this mode you will find many players with different characteristics with different objectives. they run alone, run in a group of 5 or 10 or 20 players and you can also find huge enemy groups of 60/70 players.

you can have fun as you see fit. and I can tell you that there are many players who have been having fun every day even for a long time. to write here that this mode sucks is simply stupid, and above all it is not true.

[Riba.3271]

On 5/16/2022 at 6:11 PM, MarkBecks.6453 said:

So after the new skills for new professions, I notice that the game has moved from a combat game to push, pull, float and every kind of everything other than combat. I understand these builds help new players, but the fun factor of  having to use some brain capacity to who can float, push pull you into 20 circles of AOE has gone, never to return.

Yup, the whole game is revolving around low radius buffs these days. No more flanking & no more focus parties. Just zoom around in 1 stack and kill everything. It has become quite unskilled due to boon durations and AoE superspeed.

On 5/16/2022 at 6:11 PM, MarkBecks.6453 said:

Devs trying to sort out game dynamics in WvW as this used to be a strong community, but sadly, numbers dwindled due to nothing been done, and hence the linking to keep the game alive. My concern is that if the Alliances are not what everyone expects as a Rose is still a Rose by any other name, then their will be a lost opportunity to retain this valuable community of WvW players.

Linking system was based on what bad gacha games use as a bait: "you might get good things in a few months, stick around! Spend money to potentially get something good now!". WvW was succesful with old system but some servers naturally died out over time. But linking system introduced so many new problems... Dirt cheap transfers, seeing which map enemy is on, inconsistant timezones, language issues, playing a lot being punished... What they should have kept is the old system but with less servers.

Now my question is, will alliances go too far from original succesful system where people could invest their time in WvW and their server while seeing improvement in population? Yes. Server communities will die completely. Guilds will be alive... But only as long as there are enough enemy guilds to fight. Of course the dumber guild leaders are salivating for alliances because "people will be forced to apply" but they do not realise that the gamemode will be dead otherwise and they will have less to fight against or recruit from.

Honestly, current linking system is terrible compared to what we had, and alliances will manage to be even worse. I do not know why are they so stubborn to just not go back to old succesful system with less servers. The system wasn't faulty, the amount of servers was just too many.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Threather.9354

[Xenesis.6389]

24 minutes ago, Threather.9354 said:

Honestly, current linking system is terrible compared to what we had

LMAO

When they folded 12 dead servers into the other 12 half servers and still couldn't make 12 full servers like the first couple years of the game, should tell you something. If links wasn't a thing we'd have like 18 roaming servers, because everyone would continue to transfer up. Regardless of links people bandwagoned just as much before the links than after, in fact maybe more since we had super blob t1, overnight stack t2, fight t3, medium guilds t4, gank t5, dead t6-8. Links weren't a problem, anet neglect for the entire game mode, forcing players to get bored and leave or move to find content was/is/everwillbe the biggest problem.

[Riba.3271]

22 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

When they folded 12 dead servers into the other 12 half servers and still couldn't make 12 full servers like the first couple years of the game, should tell you something

What I typed was that the original system was much better but there were too many servers. You can't just quote one sentence and disregard the rest. Linking system was carebear solution "to not hurt anyones feelings by deleting their server".

Quote

in fact maybe more since we had super blob t1, overnight stack t2, fight t3, medium guilds t4, gank t5, dead t6-8

Yup, as long as they deleted the completely dead servers, it would have been fine. I have met plenty of people that enjoyed having choice of less/different activity in lower tiers. Current system forced each linking to have same population and no server can ever grow big or entertain larger portion of people.

Imagine this, before you had a choice of lamb meat, fish, beef and chicken. Now every server and tier have the same population. Chicken every day.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Threather.9354

[Xenesis.6389]

36 minutes ago, Threather.9354 said:

What I typed was that the original system was much better but there were too many servers. You can't just quote one sentence and disregard the rest. Linking system was carebear solution "to not hurt anyones feelings by deleting their server".

Yup, as long as they deleted the completely dead servers, it would have been fine. I have met plenty of people that enjoyed having choice of less/different activity in lower tiers. Current system forced each linking to have same population and no server can ever grow big or entertain larger portion of people.

Imagine this, before you had a choice of lamb meat, fish, beef and chicken. Now every server and tier have the same population. Chicken every day.

Maybe they couldn't just delete dead servers because you know servers are not just wvw players? Links was a simpler and faster solution for them. Plus that wouldn't have fixed anything, you would still have people bandwagon onto higher servers as the population dwindled.

[Mabi black.1824]

I always tend to be very positive in everything I do and everything around me. in practice my glass is always half full and never half empty. so I'll tell you what I think of alliances.

Alliances will work great to build the most balanced teams, and numerically equal. friends will still be able to play together, and with more granularity we will have teams made much better.

but it will only be the solution of a part of the mechanics. like when the new football season begins, you build the teams you buy and sell players everyone prepares with frenzy.

at that point they will have to define the number of teams the duration of the seasons, block transfers and create an automatic mechanism of counting players and consequently correct the pushes generated by the team etc etc then solve 24/7

if they are aware that launching alliances is not the goal but only a first step to exploit the potential you have on your hands then everything is fine.

if instead you believe that by launching alliances you have finished your work then, in spite of myself I believe that they will miss the target.

but the guys of arenanet are many things but they are not stupid, they know what they do and probably have already done all these considerations etc etc

[Riba.3271]

On 5/19/2022 at 4:52 AM, Xenesis.6389 said:

Maybe they couldn't just delete dead servers because you know servers are not just wvw players? Links was a simpler and faster solution for them. Plus that wouldn't have fixed anything, you would still have people bandwagon onto higher servers as the population dwindled.

Problems with linking system that should have been fixed:

•  Linked players seeing enemies and linked players being able to be seen by enemies on which maps they are at. Every zerg knows where enemy zerg is with 0 effort or communication.
•  Transfer costs of link and main server not being same leading to increased transfer frequency
•  Flattening of population statuses due to full status being based on highest pop server: everytime each main server lost a guild, they can fit 1 guild less before being full. This lead to pugs vs guilds split, both can't coexist on same server.
• All tiers having monotonous population thus difference between tiers is very small
• Timezones getting  reset every 2 months. Find a good timezone? Good luck spending a month finding new one.
• Underpopulated Full unlinked servers in EU WvW
•  Playing a lot being punished with less players after 2 months

None of these problems would have existed if they just kept old system but with less servers.

Yes, T4 servers would have had less players than T1 but they would have still would have had times when they climbed up 2 tiers or dropped to T5 due to transfers. But higher tier servers are a broadway show: high quality and entertaining while lower tier servers have potential to be so. Why do they both deserve same amount of players? What is the reasoning that server that puts effort in entertaining general populace has same population as server that does nothing? More players doesn't equal better: Lot of guilds and roamers liked lower tiers.

 Point of smaller lower tier servers is that is that if some group is planning to build a strong server for cheap, they will go to emptier server instead of starting with equal population. So we wouldn't see as much server stacking as before. So artificially setting server populations equal every 2 months actually leads to more unequal matchmaking.

Anyways, if your argument is that servers are more than the people in them, what are they now? 35-65% of people on your server are actually on your linked server. You can't build a big united server because you're set full once you hit that 65% population mark. You can't cover lot of timezones and fit guilds on your server at same time. Servers surely were more than people back then, but instead of linking system preserving that identity for most of the servers, it destroyed server management and goals for all.

Edited May 21, 2022 by Threather.9354

[Xenesis.6389]

28 minutes ago, Threather.9354 said:

Problems with linking system that should have been fixed:

Linking was never meant to be a permanent solution, alliances/world restructuring was.

Quote

- Linked players seeing enemies and linked players being able to be seen by enemies on which maps they are at

I'm guessing this is in regards to friends list? In which case all wvw locations should be turned off in the friends list.

Quote

- Transfer costs of link and main server not being same leading to increased transfer frequency

This was done because lower population servers had nothing else to offer players to transfer, is it fair that a bottom tier eredon terrace cost 1800 as the same as black gate? sure as heck not. It also promoted moving players from the top to bottom. And yes while that created problems such as BG's link always getting bandwagoned, anet should have probably changed the transfer fees to be more in line of host/link cost the same amount, so a bg/link would cost 1800 but a tier 4 kain/DR link would only cost 500 for either. But that's anet just simply leaving things so they could soak as much gems as possible with more frequent transfers.

Quote

- Flattening of population statuses due to full status being based on highest pop server: everytime each main server lost a guild, they can fit 1 guild less before being full. This lead to pugs vs guilds split, both can't coexist on same server.

That just meant the fattest server needed to slim down. BG was that fat server for a longest while, and really only this past year, like 6 years into links has finally reached the levels of every other server below them.

Quote

- All tiers having monotonous population thus difference between tiers is very small

Isn't that a player problem?

Quote

- Timezones getting  every 2 months. Find a good timezone? Good luck spending a month finding new one.

What?

Quote

- Underpopulated Full unlinked servers in EU Wv

EU has it's link problems due to language barriers. I've broken this done somewhere else.

Quote

- Playing a lot being punished with less players after 2 months

So do you think a server having 1000 players playing for 10,000 hours a week is comparably fair to a server two that has 1000 players but they only put in 5,000 hours a week? or against a server that has 800 players but they put in 10,000 hours a week?

Quote

None of these problems would have existed if they just kept old system.

Yeah we would have a bunch of dead servers with people crying for mergers every day. If you don't remember wvw was practically dying first six months of hot, and was already on a decline before hot. BTW all the problems of links existed before it, players bandwagoned, they left servers for dead, overnight time zones sucked up by a couple servers which forced the development of skirmish mode. The only problem with links was it was left in too long, world restructuring should have happened 3 years ago at most.

Quote

Yes, T4 servers would have had less players than T1 but they would have still would have had times when they climbed up 2 tiers or dropped to T5 due to transfers. But higher tier servers are a broadway show: high quality and entertaining while lower tier servers have potential to be so. Why do they both deserve same amount of players? What is the reasoning that server that puts effort in entertaining general populace has same population as server that does nothing? More players doesn't equal better: Lot of guilds and roamers liked lower tiers.

 Point of smaller lower tier servers is that is that if some group is planning to build a strong server for cheap, they will go to emptier server instead of starting with equal population. So we wouldn't see as much server stacking as before. So artificially setting server populations equal every 2 months actually leads to more unequal matchmaking.

LOL well then we might as well not even bother with the little drop of competitiveness left in the game if population doesn't matter to you. Let's just open it all up, lets have everyone bandwagon to BG again and then run a tournament, boy I'm sure that'll be fun for everyone! on BG! not! so! much! for! everyone! else! though! but who cares! not like servers will tank again to avoid them! nope!

I'll tell you why populations should be even out, because it's boring garbage facing boon blobs that you're forced to sit back and back cap stuff because you don't have players to face it. Then your blob logs on and it's boring garbage fighting under siege because the enemy logged off. The end.

Edited May 21, 2022 by Xenesis.6389

[Mabi black.1824]

On 5/22/2022 at 12:07 AM, Xenesis.6389 said:

So do you think a server having 1000 players playing for 10,000 hours a week is comparably fair to a server two that has 1000 players but they only put in 5,000 hours a week? or against a server that has 800 players but they put in 10,000 hours a week?

with this logic you will never solve the coverage speech, so you will never solve the competition speech between the teams xenesis.

I use your example to explain, 1000 vs 1000. in the first team there are 200 players who will play all night or all morning so that the hours played will be twice as many as the other.

at the next link accordingly to adjust the hours of play we will have 1000 (with 200 players in the morning) vs 2000. hours of gameplay arranged. too bad that for those 800 players they will have 2 months of constant numerical inferiority. the enemy will be almost three times as many as them in the ''standard' hours of play '' if you also have to work to live.

you have to change your perspective. we have seen how badly the algorithm works considering the hours of play. moreover as if it were a fault for the player who commits himself for the longest time.

the playing time is a variable ( this month I play 60 hours next month I can play 120 hours ) so let's treat it as a variable.

1000 vs 1000 must be the constant in the construction of teams, their number of players.

since whoever has more war points wins, how many of these 1000 players are online (compared to their opponents) determines the value of the war points that generate their structures.

1000 vs 1000 structures generate 1 point of war on both sides. 500 vs 500 structures continue to generate 1 point of war on both sides. 1000 vs 500 the first team will have structures that generate 0.5 war points while the second continues to earn 1 point for each structure it owns. and so on.

[Mabi black.1824]

On 5/22/2022 at 12:07 AM, Xenesis.6389 said:

Let's just open it all up, lets have everyone bandwagon to BG again and then run a tournament, boy I'm sure that'll be fun for everyone! on BG! not! so! much! for! everyone! else! though! but who cares! not like servers will tank again to avoid them! nope!

absolutely not, the teams must have a numerical limit and all must be built to reach that limit. do you need alliances to make teams? very well we use alliances. in Europe we have 5 three-way matches. you need 15 equal teams. it is necessary that the player feels part of that team. we want to climb a ranking. we want competition in a competitive mode.

[Mabi black.1824]

I was forgetting about transfers. guaranteed transfers for everyone. want to transfer your guild of 50 players? no problem for the competition. book your transfers and you can skip when another 50 players have booked to move to the team that your guild leaves.

[Littlekenny.4196]

Basing the matchups on player numbers is worse than on playtime. Just because there are more players it doesn't mean that those players will always be playing so you are more likely to have even numbers although without taking into account which hours people play you can never guarantee even numbers or even remotely close numbers.

 

The hours which people play is extremely important and I don't expect alliances to work well until it's taken into consideration, which they said it would be later on.

 

Take Gandara as an example. The server is full so it clearly has a lot of hours played on it, but it's stuck down in the bottom tiers. This is because of coverage / a questionable scoring systems. Gandara has a significant prime time presence but lacks the off hours presence to compete with the current scoring system.

[Mabi black.1824]

You're right littlekenny.

numerically equal teams are not enough, you need an automatic mechanic that counts players constantly every 60 minutes, and consequently regulates the war points. 1000 vs 1000 in prime time of gandara , all facilities generate 1 point of war for gandara and for its opponents. 1000 vs 100 in the second evening for gandara structures continue to generate 1 point for his opponents structures generate 0.1 point. and gandara will probably lose all its facilities. 

but competition remains guaranteed.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 minute ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

You're right littlekenny.

numerically equal teams are not enough, you need an automatic mechanic that counts players constantly every 60 minutes, and consequently regulates the war points. 1000 vs 1000 in prime time of gandara , all facilities generate 1 point of war for gandara and for its opponents. 1000 vs 100 in the second evening for gandara structures continue to generate 1 point for his opponents structures generate 0.1 point. and gandara will probably lose all its facilities. 

but competition remains guaranteed.

Thats not competition, thats handicapping and punishing the side that cant even help it.

The entire point of WvW as a game mode is to escalate the war. You join a map alone, meet 2 enemies. You call for backup. They call for backup. You get a guild in. They call a guild in. You get a zerg. They get a zerg. 

When this "fails" due to there simply not being a counter... you loose and drop a tier. Again, literally the entire point of WvW as a game mode and how its built to function.

It would be fine to a degree to try to balance it - although I would argue reducing the exponential point gains for T1-T3 a FAR better idea to reduce runaway point and making it easier to make a comeback skirmish to skirmish - but your idea might as well give everyone 1 point every 2h and make a big "You're Winner!" splashscreen after each matchup instead.

[Mabi black.1824]

sorry dawdler but I definitely missed your reasoning because I struggle with the abbreviated terms you use on the forum.

I can tell you that when I say count the players I mean on all 4 maps. it is clear that having numerically equal teams in the ''standard'' schedules (after work) you will probably find 3 complete teams clashing. the war point assumes value 1 for all three sides.

nothing changes about how you prefer or how you enjoy playing wvw. the mechanic that counts online players serves precisely when one side loses many players, either late in the evening, or in the morning. the points generated by the structures will work in reference to the online players compared to your opponent of course. 1000 vs 1000 . in the morning could be online even 100 vs 50 war points will have double value on one side compared to the other.

[Mike.3196]

What Mark was basically saying cause apparently people didn't figure out the skill required to play this game is gone downhill and Grps just spam boons and unless ur running equal size or half there sized comped up you can't do shiet about  which true. The game catered to casual no matter how much people wanna disagree  and unless arenet either change Target cap or make them game less spaming boons and peope have to actually use there brain to play the game the game will not change.

[Xenesis.6389]

How are they catering to casuals if they've made it near impossible for those same casuals to compete with the highly organized spam boon groups, who benefit the most from having the tools that could be used against them, being nerfed to the ground practically every balance patch? Tools which the smaller groups need.

If anet is thinking they're catering to casuals by making boon spam easier, they're actually making it harder for them because whatever you do for a casual it will be 10x better for a hardcore to take advantage of. If hardcores think this is something good for them, well it will at some point get to casuals not wanting to face them, hardcores also not wanting to face a bigger group and continue to run away because it's pointless as numbers in spam ball win.

I see it every night now, smaller group loses a fight to a fatter boon ball, they skip maps. Not even hey let's change to this tactic and maybe we can do better, nope it's straight up just leave there's no point in trying to even defend, (oh and let's blame the casuals who are supposedly getting catered for for those failures while we run!). Game isn't about skill anymore, it's bring more spam more and you'll get carried through, and again while that might look like it will help casuals, it's 10x better for organized groups, even a dev admitted that the difference in dps between a casual and skilled player is about 10x better.

A gvg'er gave me a confused emote, they confused about how wvw plays why wouldn't they be confused about this too!

Edited May 26, 2022 by Xenesis.6389

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 5/25/2022 at 3:49 PM, Mike.3196 said:

What Mark was basically saying cause apparently people didn't figure out the skill required to play this game is gone downhill and Grps just spam boons and unless ur running equal size or half there sized comped up you can't do shiet about  which true. The game catered to casual no matter how much people wanna disagree  and unless arenet either change Target cap or make them game less spaming boons and peope have to actually use there brain to play the game the game will not change.

 

Skills or tools? I think its less tools. I am not disagreeing fully. There is a large advantage based on tools available for a boonball versus counters to it. Now granted your mileage will vary even as we have other threads saying there is too much condi. So its a war of escalation between boons/condi(banes) which is further impacted by being able to stack. So I wouldn't say less skill, because it does take some to get people to move in a tight formation. The OP was complaining about CC and pulls and pushes, but that too is needed to get people out of a boonball so you can eliminate them. So when we complain about the CC it just lends more aid to the more organized or skilled enough group that can stay tight.

To one of the other OPs point, Alliances will probably make this worse because the more organized an Alliance the higher odds they will draw more people that work well together and we will see more boonballs. Its just hopeful that they will be pit against other Alliances like them. Which I think we will see more what people used to call stagnant tiers where the same peeps are fighting the same peeps, but will have to see.

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 5/25/2022 at 4:24 PM, Xenesis.6389 said:

I see it every night now, smaller group loses a fight to a fatter boon ball, they skip maps. Not even hey let's change to this tactic and maybe we can do better, nope it's straight up just leave there's no point in trying to even defend, (oh and let's blame the casuals who are supposedly getting catered for for those failures while we run!). Game isn't about skill anymore, it's bring more spam more and you'll get carried through, and again while that might look like it will help casuals, it's 10x better for organized groups, even a dev admitted that the difference in dps between a casual and skilled player is about 10x better.

A gvg'er gave me a confused emote, they confused about how wvw plays why wouldn't they be confused about this too!

 

And when we add in removal of defense options and discourage people from fighting while they are outnumbered and it's just a snowball downhill from there. Using an analogy from another stat someone used to tell me about crime, 10% will always fight, 10% will never fight and 80% will fight if they thinks its worth while to them. So the more that you make it that running in larger groups is the easiest and more efficient way the worse you make it.

Xen, putting this one in this thread but it's not directed at you since we agree in different ways on the same points.

To the OP, its complicated, and there is no one answer. Alliances are an attempt to answer the population issue. But doesn't cover the coverage issue. Balance between boons/banes(condi & CC) are a separate issue which further impacts group sizes that clash. Why to run in different sizes are another issue, should running in a boonball be an end state or is it better to have all size of fights going on. That's why we needed both PPT & PPK and we need to have an answer to efficiency. Its already easier to run in mass, its faster to take, its rewarding to more, its safer, but we don't have as many tools to address outside of just get your own boonball. Which at times just leads to karma-trains as these group just circle each other papering objectives. Which is another separate issue that comes after Alliances on why to care which is where efficiency may come into play to encourage people to do more with less and then some of these other issues are lessened, but not solved either. Have said before and will keep doing so, we should have all levels of play and reasons for them. But that's why its complicated.

Edited May 26, 2022 by TheGrimm.5624
forum double spacing bug

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 5/24/2022 at 3:37 PM, MarkBecks.6453 said:

maybe just support Biden then, he makes perfect sense 🙂 Its just my thoughts on the state of WvW, with AOE damage still going through walls, doors, pulled off siege over the walls and I just think the mechanics have been ramped up, but the polishing of very practical things have been ignored. Alliances are not a bad idea, but its pretty much the same thing by a different name, and different selection. 

 

Having ADHD does not lead to making good points. Live that life myself, you need to focus your thoughts and make distinct points. You are as others have said all over the board which weakens points you would like to see addressed. So please state what your points are versus use un-related points to try and say posters didn't follow you and assume it wasn't that you weren't clear on what you thought and when you didn't provide options to change what you thought those issues were. Said before and again, "It's Easy to outraged and hard to be inspired. ". If you want change, raise a point that's definable, and offer a solution to counter that, versus just trying to be outraged. We have enough of that in politics. 

[Garkus.2183]

On 5/17/2022 at 3:11 AM, MarkBecks.6453 said:

So after the new skills for new professions, I notice that the game has moved from a combat game to push, pull, float and every kind of everything other than combat. I understand these builds help new players, but the fun factor of  having to use some brain capacity to who can float, push pull you into 20 circles of AOE has gone, never to return. I try run daredevil and Elie, given up on some of the others builds already and when I look at combat log, I get hit with trail of knives over and over (doesn't seem to be much cooldown), coalescence of ruin, or hammer rev, 8k damage. Some of the damage has been toned down yet 3k 4k 8k, on my log report, and using my best damage skill, can only get a quarter of some of those reports. AOE goes through and beyond the wall with NO LINE OF SIGHT, and personally, after playing for 10 years, I think this is the absolute worst state I have played in. This is my observation only, so dont jump on me, but the play style makes it easy for a bronze player to solo roam, while diamond players cant kill them on a build that was supposed to, huh! It would be nice to see some Devs trying to sort out game dynamics in WvW as this used to be a strong community, but sadly, numbers dwindled due to nothing been done, and hence the linking to keep the game alive. My concern is that if the Alliances are not what everyone expects as a Rose is still a Rose by any other name, then their will be a lost opportunity to retain this valuable community of WvW players.

welcome to harbinger

[Riba.3271]

On 5/22/2022 at 1:07 AM, Xenesis.6389 said:

Quote

- All tiers having monotonous population thus difference between tiers is very small

Isn't that a player problem?

What I ment is that you do not have a choice of playing on underpopulated or overpopulated server since relinkings try to balance populations every 2 months. There were plenty of guilds, commanders and players that preferred to stay out of blobby servers.  Of course no server should be as dead as the most inactive servers in the past but tier 4 and tier 5 were completely playable back then and still offered communities chance of "server building". 500 gem transfer would be a good incentive to keep the T4-T5 alive.

On 5/22/2022 at 1:07 AM, Xenesis.6389 said:

Quote

- Timezones getting (reset) every 2 months. Find a good timezone? Good luck spending a month finding new one.

What?

For average player, guilds or commander, every 2 months there is high chance their preferred timezone is unplayable due to changes in friendly, or even enemy servers. There can be too many or no commanders/guilds/players. This often leads to them quitting the game. Dealing with timezone gradually dying out is much easier than sudden changes every 2 months.

 

On 5/22/2022 at 1:07 AM, Xenesis.6389 said:

Quote

- Playing a lot being punished with less players after 2 months

So do you think a server having 1000 players playing for 10,000 hours a week is comparably fair to a server two that has 1000 players but they only put in 5,000 hours a week? or against a server that has 800 players but they put in 10,000 hours a week?

Point is that with old system, with less servers, any server would have possibility to climb or drop tiers as their activity changed. If they provided good content and training, more players and commanders showed up. Now your servers playing hours just gets reset every 2 months thus lot of dedicated players and commanders try to minimize their playing hours to the best days and hours. Playing on any other timezone will drop their servers activity on their preferred one.

On 5/22/2022 at 1:07 AM, Xenesis.6389 said:

Quote

None of these problems would have existed if they just kept old system.

Yeah we would have a bunch of dead servers with people crying for mergers every day. If you don't remember wvw was practically dying first six months of hot, and was already on a decline before hot. BTW all the problems of links existed before it, players bandwagoned, they left servers for dead, overnight time zones sucked up by a couple servers which forced the development of skirmish mode. The only problem with links was it was left in too long, world restructuring should have happened 3 years ago at most.

Old system with less servers and tiers was the solution I was referring to. Not keeping all 9 tiers. There would still be plenty of these bandvagoner communities climbing from tier 4 and tier 5 revitalizing old servers (500 gems as incentive). If you try to break down night servers by splitting the players across 15 different servers, they just wouldn't play the game. You just can't get rid of certain timezones being centered around a few servers as there are only a few commanders willing to tag up almost every night of the week.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Threather.9354