A Suggestion for Server "rankings" at the beginning of each new re-linking

[Ronin.4501]

I think we can all agree that Alliances aren't coming anytime soon.

And in the meantime, it's always the same servers stuck down in Tier 4 (NA) or Tier 5 (EU), and then usually the same server stuck defending red borderland for 8-9 weeks straight (I love red borderland, but let's face it, of the 3 borderlands it's the worst to defend as a home borderland).  This typically results in players (or whole guilds) deciding to transfer off these bottom tier servers, only furthering their downfall.

So moving forward, my suggestion is to take the 3 servers in Tier 1 (and their links who inevitably had a majority of players transfer to them now likely making them host servers for the next re-link) and place them in the bottom tier for the next re-link.  Take the bottom tier servers and place them up in the top tier for the next re-link.  This would hopefully reduce the large number of players constantly transferring off the bottom tier servers and overflowing the top tier link servers, forever repeating a cycle of suck for the bottom servers.

I realize that it doesn't really matter which tier anyone is in, as there are no real rewards for "winning" or playing in the top, but given how many servers see mass transfers leaving the bottom servers and trying to join the top servers, that clearly hasn't sunk in for a LARGE portion of the WvW population. And while eventually the "top" servers who have been placed at the bottom would eventually work their way back to the top, it might end some of the misery experienced by a lot of the bottom tier servers who are forever mired there, sometimes for much longer than just one re-link cycle.

The same could be done with the Tier 2/3 servers (on NA) and the tier 2/4 servers (on EU).  I realize this would require some thought and manual re-linking by an Anet employee, but it HAS to be better than the kitten show we get each re-linking currently.

* * * * *

Another thought would be to rotate which the borderlands every week or every other week, so that the red server is not ALWAYS stuck defending desert borderland as a home borderland. But maybe that's an idea for another thread (and I think it's been brought up in the past? Sometimes trying to sort through all these posts is like trying to find a single needle in ALL the haystacks, or does the search feature actually work now?).

PS. And no, I'm not on Gandarra. I play on a NA server. 😁

Edited July 13, 2022 by Ronin.4501

[Xenesis.6389]

So all the lower population servers will have to suffer 4 weeks of forced misery until servers like bg mag and sos making their way back up the tiers to tier 1?

No thanks?

Rather they randomized the sides to the servers in the matchup like they use to do in the old days.

[Ronin.4501]

2 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

So all the lower population servers will have to suffer 4 weeks of forced misery until servers like bg mag and sos making their way back up the tiers to tier 1?

No thanks?

Rather they randomized the sides to the servers in the matchup like they use to do in the old days.

By the time BG, Mag, and SoS actually got up to T1 the low pop servers would already be on their way down. After all, it's a 1 up, 1 down system, so it's not like BG, Mag, and SoS would all be arriving in T1 at the same time.

And every time they allow things to be "randomly" determined in this game, it usually ends up a kitten show for everyone. Just look at the Host-Link "randomness" we get now.

But at the rate we're going, the only servers that will have any population are BG, Mag, and SoS. I think the rest of us are getting tired of being on dead servers, and the fact that we now have 5 High pop servers as host servers in NA is a pretty good indication that things are definitely trending in the wrong direction.

[Xenesis.6389]

40 minutes ago, Ronin.4501 said:

By the time BG, Mag, and SoS actually got up to T1 the low pop servers would already be on their way down. After all, it's a 1 up, 1 down system, so it's not like BG, Mag, and SoS would all be arriving in T1 at the same time.

And every time they allow things to be "randomly" determined in this game, it usually ends up a kitten show for everyone. Just look at the Host-Link "randomness" we get now.

But at the rate we're going, the only servers that will have any population are BG, Mag, and SoS. I think the rest of us are getting tired of being on dead servers, and the fact that we now have 5 High pop servers as host servers in NA is a pretty good indication that things are definitely trending in the wrong direction.

It will take around 4 weeks for those servers to fully adjust to their rightful tiers. In the meantime you will be subjecting those lower pop servers to be run over by coverage servers when they meet in the middle tiers. Those full ppt servers need to be in T1 as soon as possible, not delayed from being there any further.

Players move for various reason, not just to bandwagon to blackgate for the best coverage and ppt, in fact a lot of people would rather avoid t1 and bg or mag. Randomly placing servers all over the tiers isn't going to fix the bandwagon problem, because people also move due to communities they like/dislike, or guilds, or guild alliances. This random throwing servers around would work well after restructuring, not so much before it because of the huge difference between population of servers, even for hosts.

Also having 5 high servers as host could mean other things, rather than just everyone moving on up. We actually have only 3 full servers now when two weeks ago we had like 6 full servers. We actually have a population drain, happens a lot during summer months, or people out right leaving the game, and given the recent controversies I would imagine that might of had some impact on it. Or maybe anet moved the thresholds again, who knows.

If you simply want to fix the problem of the lowest server being stuck on redbl for 8 weeks then I would suggest the randomized side placement before a match starts. They've done this before, they can start do it again.

Lastly, I wish they never made desert a borderland map, what a clusterf of misery that has been.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Xenesis.6389

[Magnuzone.8395]

On 7/13/2022 at 9:10 PM, Ronin.4501 said:

my suggestion is to take the 3 servers in Tier 1 (and their links who inevitably had a majority of players transfer to them now likely making them host servers for the next re-link) and place them in the bottom tier for the next re-link. 

Great idea. I´m gonna pitch this to the NHL and all the European football leagues: Lets take the 2 final teams and kick them out of the league for the next season. That'll motivate them. 

[Riba.3271]

1. No need for desert borderland
2. No need for link servers, just keep 4 tiers Delete excess servers.
3. Transfer costs should be lower on lower tier servers and tier 1 servers should be full
4. It is fine to have more active and less active servers (Some servers will be regulars in T1-T2 and others in T3-T4) because some people prefer less competitive and queued environment

Edited July 17, 2022 by Riba.3271

[Ronin.4501]

Every time I see someone say "delete Desert borderland", in my head I just replace it with "delete SMC" (EBG itself is fine, just ditch the castle!) and all is right with the world. 😁🤣

[Riba.3271]

2 hours ago, Ronin.4501 said:

Every time I see someone say "delete Desert borderland", in my head I just replace it with "delete SMC" (EBG itself is fine, just ditch the castle!) and all is right with the world.

Nah, they should add another EB with different castle design. We have 2 alpine maps, why not 2 ebs? 🤩

[Ronin.4501]

3 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Nah, they should add another EB with different castle design. We have 2 alpine maps, why not 2 ebs? 🤩

OHHHH now I get it. Threather changed their account name!!

And if we had two EBGs, players wouldn't know which one to use to farm all the noobs.