ArenaNet's abusive prices on servers

[Iskras Femme.1693]

18 minutes ago, Infusion.7149 said:

"Alliances when?" memes.

In all seriousness I would not stress out about this. Most servers really don't care about "winning" anymore.

Well, some people who like PVP, care and ArenaNet privileges a specific server, curiously, it is known by all, whose two developers participate in WvW.

 

There are those who think this is fair with other players, I'm not one of them.

[Iskras Femme.1693]

...and yes, that's exactly why I left the Mag server a few hours ago, because I disagree with this 'privilege' given by ArenaNet to these players in WvW in demerit to an entire community - thousands of other players.

[Iskras Femme.1693]

Edited by me 🙂 wrong topic.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Iskras Femme.1693

[Zhaif.6421]

4 hours ago, Iskras Femme.1693 said:

Well, some people who like PVP, care and ArenaNet privileges a specific server, curiously, it is known by all, whose two developers participate in WvW.

 

There are those who think this is fair with other players, I'm not one of them.

which devs

[Yaisa.4961]

5 hours ago, Iskras Femme.1693 said:

Well, some people who like PVP, care and ArenaNet privileges a specific server, curiously, it is known by all, whose two developers participate in WvW.

 

There are those who think this is fair with other players, I'm not one of them.

do u have any recent screenshot or video about them playing in/with mag?

[Elricht Kaltwind.8796]

"Abusive" lmao grow up

[MedievalThings.5417]

12 hours ago, Iskras Femme.1693 said:

ArenaNet is really making an effort and striving to improve WvW - that, in my eyes, is unquestionable.

However, I only warn or draw attention to the current situation. Current prices (1800 gem) for server switching.

It should be much, much higher.  Maybe then people will stop bandwagoning to servers to overstack them for easier fights and wins.

[roederich.2716]

3 hours ago, Ubi.4136 said:

It should be much, much higher.  Maybe then people will stop bandwagoning to servers to overstack them for easier fights and wins.

this! and limit transfer to once per year and make transfer window from 1st January to 14th January only. No random transfers in the rest of the year. In most real life sports there is a fix transfer period where all player trades need to be done and thats it.

[Ashen.2907]

There is nothing abusive about selling server transfers nor about the current price. Dont want it? Dont buy it.

[Cuks.8241]

13 hours ago, Iskras Femme.1693 said:

The 'link' (server/color) but i found it by myself.

Colour changes every week depending on the score from the previous week. 

Relinking happens every few months. 

None of these information can help you with your long term server decision. 

[Chaba.5410]

Things you are not aware of: SoS has little NA compared to other servers because historically that server is the unofficial Oceanic server. It ends up in higher tiers that their NA population struggles to be competitive in because the scoring system favors their non-NA player activity. NA players then leave.

This is completely normal for that server for the past decade. It will never be any different. SoS will dominate all maps during OCX time and get dominated during EU and NA times.

The best thing you can do for yourself is find a guild that plays when you do and has the kind of wvw experience you are looking for then transfer to the server they are on.

 

Other server "features": JQ historically has a large SEA population. TC and Maguuma tend to have good EU->NA time coverage. Blackgate has the best all around coverage.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Uthrax.4975]

They could have easily fixed this years ago, but they won't now, nor never; It's a ten-year-old game, and WvW was only really popular for the first 5 years or so. They will not waste resources on revamping the entire system this late in the game.

 

But here are my ideas for fixing, just for discussion:

- Eliminate Server vs. Server Tier setup, but still keep things separate per time zones; NA, EU, etc.

- Create 3 Alliances (or more) that anyone can join. Add a new WvW Stat Panel for GUILDS.

- Use existing 4 WvW Maps; General, Desert, EOTM, EBG, but make the maps setup up like PvE cascading/overflow with option to join Public (Alliances) or Private (Guilds) similar to Raids/Strike Missions.

- Within the Public (Alliances) setting allow Commander Pins but NO GROUPS. All players show up on mini/main map as 'dots'. KDR, and all other match stats apply to the ALLIANCES WVW panel. Allow better rewards than current WvW setup.

- Within the Private (Guilds) setting allow all normal group functions. Players do not show up as 'dots' on mini/main map unless grouped. KDR, and all other match stats apply to the GUILD WVW panel. Allow even better rewards than Public (Alliances), and have Guild related specific rewards.

 

This setup would allow Guilds and Casuals to have a bit of separation. Instead of 'Server Pride' it would be more 'Guild Pride' as each Guild would have a WvW stat panel they can boast (or be embarrassed, lol) about. Meanwhile the newbs and Casuals can do their thing in the Alliances setting, honing their skills to move up to the more organized Guild battles.

 

None of this will happen though, and all we can really hope for is Guild Wars 3.

 

Happy New Year!

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, Uthrax.4975 said:

- Eliminate Server vs. Server Tier setup, but still keep things separate per time zones; NA, EU, etc.

- Create 3 Alliances (or more) that anyone can join. Add a new WvW Stat Panel for GUILDS.

- Use existing 4 WvW Maps; General, Desert, EOTM, EBG, but make the maps setup up like PvE cascading/overflow with option to join Public (Alliances) or Private (Guilds) similar to Raids/Strike Missions.

That's EOTM. 

Nobody likes EOTM.

[Xenesis.6389]

The only abusive thing here is the player bandwagons. Anet simply provides tools and options, it's the players that abuse it to unbalance everything.

At this point all transfer fees should go back to a flat 2000 gems for all servers, or even 3000 gems, the ants in the pants server hoppers should pay more for their crimes against the wvw population.

[ArchonWing.9480]

1 hour ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

The only abusive thing here is the player bandwagons. Anet simply provides tools and options, it's the players that abuse it to unbalance everything.

At this point all transfer fees should go back to a flat 2000 gems for all servers, or even 3000 gems, the ants in the pants server hoppers should pay more for their crimes against the wvw population.

I don't think price really deters bandwagoners. A lot of the big groups have many resources. But then again, it'd be an easy way to make money.

What might be interesting is to either throttle or disallow transfers after relinks are announced for a month, so that if you do want to bandwagon, you need to do it in advance.

Another thing is that transfer costs could scale based on how many times you've transfered in the past 6 months. Each time doubles the cost and resets if you haven't for 6 months. Don't think that would deter, but pretty sure some would pay anyways.

[Xenesis.6389]

3 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

I don't think price really deters bandwagoners. A lot of the big groups have many resources. But then again, it'd be an easy way to make money.

What might be interesting is to either throttle or disallow transfers after relinks are announced for a month, so that if you do want to bandwagon, you need to do it in advance.

Another thing is that transfer costs could scale based on how many times you've transfered in the past 6 months. Each time doubles the cost and resets if you haven't for 6 months. Don't think that would deter, but pretty sure some would pay anyways.

Either way they should be paying more for doing it so frequently, and baseline should start at 2k.

Having no transfer periods might be just as damaging, because after they move it'll unbalance that link again, this after it's already had four weeks to settle in it's appropriate tier, it could just make it rough on that link for the last month of the relink period as it drops back down, if it isn't already in t4. WR is suppose to take care of this anyways so it's whatever, meantime they should raise the fees, there's no reason for 500 gem fees when those players obviously don't care about repopulating servers and their communities.

[ArchonWing.9480]

5 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Either way they should be paying more for doing it so frequently, and baseline should start at 2k.

Having no transfer periods might be just as damaging, because after they move it'll unbalance that link again, this after it's already had four weeks to settle in it's appropriate tier, it could just make it rough on that link for the last month of the relink period as it drops back down, if it isn't already in t4. WR is suppose to take care of this anyways so it's whatever, meantime they should raise the fees, there's no reason for 500 gem fees when those players obviously don't care about repopulating servers and their communities.

Well that much is true, and yea WR is coming so it's hard for me to care. They could delete a tier I guess.

Gem price increase would be fine as well.

[Nidome.1365]

Server transfers are currently too cheap. It is this low cost that has mostly contributed to server imbalance.

What they need to do it multiply the cost by the number of times the account has previously transferred.

This would make the first transfer free for those who accidentally pick the wrong server when joining the game with friends and at the same time discourage serial transfers and large scale bandwaggons.

[Austin.2048]

This OP was on Mag or YB for a bit, complains about something, transfers to SoS, gets rekt & camped, then blame anet. There are plenty of other servers in the lower tiers if you really do not want to play with or against Mag, it's not an overly difficult decision to make but you moved to SoS for some reason 🤔.   If you really want to play with SoS, just logon to their dominant timezone.

[Iskras Femme.1693]

I have patiently read all the responses here and they are all unanimous about 'changes'.

 

As it is now, there is no staying or remaining. They could alleviate this by waiving prices for server swaps. Nothing bad would happen - this is mere speculation. In each week, they could - here yes, prevent new change (per campaign). Elder Scroll has been working for many years like this, it works well.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Iskras Femme.1693

[Nidome.1365]

On 1/3/2023 at 1:36 AM, Iskras Femme.1693 said:

I have patiently read all the responses here and they are all unanimous about 'changes'.

 

As it is now, there is no staying or remaining. They could alleviate this by waiving prices for server swaps. Nothing bad would happen - this is mere speculation. In each week, they could - here yes, prevent new change (per campaign). Elder Scroll has been working for many years like this, it works well.

 

You've read all the posts and the are unanimous? No.

Nothing bad would happen? History tells us otherwise. Servers balances weren't too bad at one time, then Anet had a free transfer week. Server balance went to kitten causing people to leave and guilds to collapse and WvW has never recovered from it. Biggest mistake Anet every made. The current low cost of server transfers encourages band-waggoning to low population servers that are paired with high pop servers.

You do not fix a problem by constantly repeating the mistakes that caused it.

[Xenesis.6389]

LOL, the game had free transfers for the first 6 months of the game, it ruined servers. Then they did it before tournaments, it ruined more servers as players stacked one or two to win with. You don't give control to the players, cause they can't help themselves, this is why we're in a repeat cycle of bandwagons that yoyo server populations every 2-4 months (you can blame links if you want but was happening before links). Not speculation, it's history.

[MedievalThings.5417]

On 1/1/2023 at 12:37 PM, ArchonWing.9480 said:

I don't think price really deters bandwagoners.

Yep.  That's why I think it should be like 5000 gems to transfer one time during a 12 month period.  If someone decides to transfer a second time within 12 months, make it like 10000.  Good way for Anet to make money off people who just want to always outnumber their opponents.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

On 12/30/2022 at 11:21 PM, Yaisa.4961 said:

do u have any recent screenshot or video about them playing in/with mag?

 

It's well-known fact they are on mag; I haven't played WvW actively in a month or two but I have scrreenshots of anet capturing an entire objective on mag (which marks all npcs with the logo too lol).

For topic at hand, yes, it's not a great practice to be charging high for server transfers they know are warranted because the linking system is so bad. 

They won't fully close off transfer because its revenue (and as mentioned can't as any new player has no idea what a server's history or activity is), and they won't full on open it at low or no price because again revenue.  It's price-gouging, but game is 10 y/o and they're assuming if you still play it's stockholm anyway.  

For perspective, I've been Darkhaven my entire time and never will transfer, but for those who do I still think the current methods available are a bit below deck.  

Edited January 4, 2023 by Gotejjeken.1267

[neven.3785]

Quite a few servers have developers who call them home, however they rarely are involved in any sort of wvw development, they are just players like the rest of us.   Turning the anet tag is enabling hard mode in wvw.  People will chase you, and you'll get pulled non stop.  The devs I knew who actually played on mag regularly long ago stopped playing in wvw and tend to be PVE map meta folks.   

 

However there is a group of devs who play regularly on a different server each week in wvw.  Some of them will respond if you message them politely.   Think it was atleast 4-5 weeks ago they were on mag.