[POLL] How long should links last for and discuss how should relinks be decided

[iKeelMellow.8315]

Every relink there are people unhappy over relinks. Suggest ways to change the relink system assuming there would still be pairings and there wouldn't be changes in the number of tiers.

[Sheff.4851]

Scrap the whole system -- just shuffle links and hosts every week to keep it fresh.

[MedievalThings.5417]

25 minutes ago, iKeelMellow.8315 said:

Every relink there are people unhappy over relinks. Suggest ways to change the relink system assuming there would still be pairings and there wouldn't be changes in the number of tiers.

The problem isn't relinks, it transfers.  The whole reason the system fails is because NO ONE wants a challenge.  Relinks announced, within 5 minutes entire guilds transfer to stack a server.  There is no way to make a system work that is constantly being gamed by half the playerbase.

Maybe not the best solution, but they need to prohibit transfers for a time period around relinks.  Make it so that 2 weeks before relinks and 2 weeks after relinks no transfers are allowed.  Matches are 8 weeks.  That would only give the fairweather crowd 4 weeks to manipulate matches in their favor.

 

If no one has noticed, the problem with the "solution" is that it takes away a revenue source from Anet, which is why WvW can never be fixed.  The matchmaking algorithm can't compete with players transferring/stacking for easier fights.

[iKeelMellow.8315]

1 minute ago, Ubi.4136 said:

If no one has noticed, the problem with the "solution" is that it takes away a revenue source from Anet, which is why WvW can never be fixed.  The matchmaking algorithm can't compete with players transferring/stacking for easier fights.

Anet has once addressed that server transfers are a very small percentage of profit.

[Dayra.7405]

 3-4h I.e. 1-2 skirmish, combined with alliances this allows you to choose with whom you want to play when, e.g. this morning with my roaming guild, this evening with my zerg guild even if both are in different alliances.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[TheIceman.1039]

Based on my own experience and observations, the relink should be a maximum of 1 month. In the vast majority, after 1 month, both parties are tired of each other. Perhaps it is natural for people to want change.

The system should definitely be changed so that the current relink enemies are not the next relink alliances.

[Xenesis.6389]

I wonder if any of those 11 that voted for 1 month or less are the ones that constantly go the relink thread to complain about them? cause y'all would just be voting to complain more often. 🤭

Also 1 month lol, ok so some server like BG gets dumped to T4, it will take them 3 weeks to get back to T1, and then you want to relink again with the chances they get dump in lower tiers again? 1 month is too short, as that is basically the time for servers to get into the tiers they belong in. Servers aren't equal were you can randomly shuffle them every week and expect great matchups, so it's best done this way. 1 month to settle in their proper tier, 1 month to actually play in it.

In any case this all pointless, they're already proceeding to WR, there's no point for them to change anything about the current system, which is done manually btw. Even if they do it every week people will still complain about not getting the perfect link and match, and will continue to do so into WR, some people just need to accept wvw for what it is. The link system will be obsolete in 50 years anyways, so just chill. 🤭🍿

P.S I'm of the just stop relinking and leave the current links together until WR is done group, people will bandwagon either way.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Xenesis.6389

[TheIceman.1039]

17 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

I wonder if any of those 11 that voted for 1 month or less are the ones that constantly go the relink thread to complain about them? cause y'all would just be voting to complain more often. 🤭

Also 1 month lol, ok so some server like BG gets dumped to T4, it will take them 3 weeks to get back to T1, and then you want to relink again with the chances they get dump in lower tiers again? 1 month is too short, as that is basically the time for servers get play into the tiers they belong in. Servers aren't equal were you can randomly shuffle them every week and expect great matchups, so it's best done this way. 1 month to settle in their proper tier, 1 month to actually play in it.

In any case this all pointless, they're already proceeding to WR, there's no point for them to change anything about the current system, which is done manually btw. Even if they do it every week people will still complain about not getting the perfect link and match, and will continue to do so into WR, some people just need to accept wvw for what it is. The link system will be obsolete in 50 years anyways, so just chill. 🤭🍿

Tiers, oh yeah.. there we should first decide whether we have to have tiers at all.. or just random groups. Because based on the current system, tiers mean nothing. There are no perks for being in the top tiers.

But if you now think that one server makes an effort to meet another when going up. Then it is already a special situation. I have a strange feeling that lesson vol 1 was not educational enough. So we won't be surprised if we also see vol 2 etc...p

[Xenesis.6389]

10 minutes ago, TheIceman.1039 said:

Tiers, oh yeah.. there we should first decide whether we have to have tiers at all.. or just random groups. Because based on the current system, tiers mean nothing. There are no perks for being in the top tiers.

But if you now think that one server makes an effort to meet another when going up. Then it is already a special situation. I have a strange feeling that lesson vol 1 was not educational enough. So we won't be surprised if we also see vol 2 etc...p

So instead of maybe one week of mismatches against servers that are way bigger or smaller than your own, you want it every week? because random matchups is how you get them every week. We've already been through this with the glicko system, which use to fling servers 2-3 tiers higher than they should be, it wasn't a pleasant experience for those servers. And then when they started messing with glicko and glicko walls started happening people complained about stale matchups. Can't win either way.

In a perfect system where everyone has closer populations and coverage we could do random matches all the time. Maybe WR will bring that in a little closer. Those T2 ties didn't happen in the first half of the last relinks, they happened in the back half when SOR finally arrived in T2.

Yeah tiers mean nothing, and that's the way it should be, being in T1 because you got stacked with bandwagons is not an achievement worth celebrating.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Xenesis.6389

[Ruthless.6521]

Relinks should be as short as possible, but on the condition that a gemstore item that allows you to "vote" for what server you get linked to be able to be purchased an infinite amount of times, with each vote counting for 1 towards the server you want to be linked to. Nothing could ever go wrong with this system, it is undeniably sound in theory.

Otherwise 2 months is fine, short enough time for people to be comfortable and if you get a "bad link", it's over in 2 months. Lots of people voting for less than 2 months have either been the victim of, or contribute to the friendly term "bandwagonning" where they either stack the server or a server is left desolate cuz people wanna "win WvW" lol

[Sheff.4851]

To add to Ruthless' suggestion, which is a good one, I think you should also have the option to convert supply directly to points. Servers will often fully tier large keeps, which means that any incoming dolyaks are wasted. Servers which are skilled at defending should have an extra means to increase their points, beyond what a fully tiered objective provides.

[zengara.8301]

2 hours ago, Ubi.4136 said:

The problem isn't relinks, it transfers.  The whole reason the system fails is because NO ONE wants a challenge.  Relinks announced, within 5 minutes entire guilds transfer to stack a server.  There is no way to make a system work that is constantly being gamed by half the playerbase.

Maybe not the best solution, but they need to prohibit transfers for a time period around relinks.  Make it so that 2 weeks before relinks and 2 weeks after relinks no transfers are allowed.  Matches are 8 weeks.  That would only give the fairweather crowd 4 weeks to manipulate matches in their favor.

 

If no one has noticed, the problem with the "solution" is that it takes away a revenue source from Anet, which is why WvW can never be fixed.  The matchmaking algorithm can't compete with players transferring/stacking for easier fights.

Its not about "the challenge", it is about people listening or not. How people "want to play the game", or can play the game. I want to fight hard enemies, but I also want the people on my side to actually do stuff, and not have 50 people where only 4 people out of 50 dealt dmg and the rest might aswell have been doing nothing.

And no offense, but Gw2 1v1 is not boring, but not the best, every "korean style" skill 1v1 game out there, beats it, or even Starcraft if I want direct 1v1. The social aspects of game is great, but it is not my core aim to log in. The only thing that I find unique in Gw2 is the guild vs guild or ZvZ/blob vs blob.

Idk, this has been going on for a while, but it is beyond clear that better fights=more people because "content". EOTM dies out, because why would ppl even wvw, if it is the same as map farming, which I avoid. Its just the whole "every game makes some weird version of WvW, all of them dies out because no content

Edited May 30, 2023 by zengara.8301

[murdermonkey.1245]

1 month or less, and randomize links or only link med/high pop servers.

[Xenesis.6389]

30 minutes ago, Ruthless.6521 said:

Relinks should be as short as possible, but on the condition that a gemstore item that allows you to "vote" for what server you get linked to be able to be purchased an infinite amount of times, with each vote counting for 1 towards the server you want to be linked to. Nothing could ever go wrong with this system, it is undeniably sound in theory.

What happens when multiple servers vote for the same server to be with?

[Ya Ya Yeah.7381]

Get rid of links, they no longer serve and purpose to helping balance the servers, which is what they were originally intended for. Put them in the garbage. 

[saturn.8190]

theres no alliances option in the poll 

Edited May 30, 2023 by saturn.8190

[Ruthless.6521]

1 hour ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

What happens when multiple servers vote for the same server to be with?

obviously the tiebreaker is who has more AP from the collective total of all voters

[Xenesis.6389]

Just now, Ruthless.6521 said:

obviously the tiebreaker is who has more AP from the collective total of all voters

And then what happens to the other servers that don't get the server they voted for?

[Ruthless.6521]

21 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

And then what happens to the other servers that don't get the server they voted for?

glicko shuffle, let's make WvW great again!

[Meva.8327]

Fortunately this relink will last only 2 weeks, with the Alliances beta coming on June 9th. I am happy with the server I am linked to, but I really needed something fresh.

Remember that the Lord Voldemort server (that you cannot name unless you want ANet's wrath falling upon you) have their main guilds in Moogooloo. Just saying, in case you want to join them... or avoid them by all means.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Meva.8327

[TheIceman.1039]

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

In a perfect system where everyone has closer populations and coverage we could do random matches all the time. Maybe WR will bring that in a little closer. Those T2 ties didn't happen in the first half of the last relinks, they happened in the back half when SOR finally arrived in T2.

Yeah tiers mean nothing, and that's the way it should be, being in T1 because you got stacked with bandwagons is not an achievement worth celebrating.

The main problem with the current system is that the wvw server formation itself is wrong. Most full or almost full servers don't really have many wvw players active all week. There are only two servers in NA that have significantly more players who are also active in wvw throughout the week. Others have many more players who at best do guild wvw once a week and other times there are individual enthusiasts. The only solution to this problem is the alliance system, which puts all active wvw players together in new temporary "top" group servers. And the less active, in turn, into a less active groups. 

[MedievalThings.5417]

7 hours ago, zengara.8301 said:

Its not about "the challenge", it is about people listening or not. How people "want to play the game", or can play the game. I want to fight hard enemies, but I also want the people on my side to actually do stuff, and not have 50 people where only 4 people out of 50 dealt dmg and the rest might aswell have been doing nothing.

And no offense, but Gw2 1v1 is not boring, but not the best, every "korean style" skill 1v1 game out there, beats it, or even Starcraft if I want direct 1v1. The social aspects of game is great, but it is not my core aim to log in. The only thing that I find unique in Gw2 is the guild vs guild or ZvZ/blob vs blob.

Idk, this has been going on for a while, but it is beyond clear that better fights=more people because "content". EOTM dies out, because why would ppl even wvw, if it is the same as map farming, which I avoid. Its just the whole "every game makes some weird version of WvW, all of them dies out because no content

Except, that people aren't transferring for bigger (more people) overall fights.  They transfer so that they always outnumber their opponents.  Rarely does a guild transfer to some poor outnumbered server cause they want "better fights=more people".  Players have proven over 10 years that they will choose the path of least resistance.  Which is why every time BG or mag opens, they get tons of players.  Why when relink is announced, their links get tons of people.  Not because people want a challenge.

[Dawdler.8521]

6 hours ago, Meva.8327 said:

Fortunately this relink will last only 2 weeks, with the Alliances beta coming on June 9th.

The links go after and then its one more month to relink.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[zengara.8301]

14 hours ago, Ubi.4136 said:

Except, that people aren't transferring for bigger (more people) overall fights.  They transfer so that they always outnumber their opponents.  Rarely does a guild transfer to some poor outnumbered server cause they want "better fights=more people".  Players have proven over 10 years that they will choose the path of least resistance.  Which is why every time BG or mag opens, they get tons of players.  Why when relink is announced, their links get tons of people.  Not because people want a challenge.

You are literally avoiding what I wrote and presenting what you want? I mean ok, just weird. I wrote that people want other people who play the game, and fight other people who also plays the game. both

[TheGrimm.5624]

22 hours ago, Gahagan.4302 said:

To add to Ruthless' suggestion, which is a good one, I think you should also have the option to convert supply directly to points. Servers will often fully tier large keeps, which means that any incoming dolyaks are wasted. Servers which are skilled at defending should have an extra means to increase their points, beyond what a fully tiered objective provides.

That doesn't just aid the side that defends, that aids anyone that can just nightcap since no one is one to stop it and then the auto-upgrades. No there is already value add in having your keep upgraded. All that extra supply can be used to build more defense, more offensive siege, you can send more people out to attack another map, you don't need as many people guarding your supply as well as other things. The idea of maxed tiers and then no more or supply caps is to allow for some catchup mechanics. No extra supply is already factored in, I wouldn't change that.