Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Thoughts on Linking


MarkBecks.6453

Recommended Posts

 Always imbalance when linking for MU's because people transfer to the linked server for easy 8 weeks run.

Please Anet if we going to wait for Alliances come up with some ideas in the meantime players numbers are getting thin lately.
Stop linking on all full and very high servers, that way, transfers will only happen on high and medium servers which are linked, and the imbalance can be managed lower down.
One Full server against 2 very high servers would be good MU, all unlinked.

Linking is one sided, mismatched, and unfortunately, people transfer straight away for easy fights.
Other option is to post the links 24 hours before, then freeze transfers before the MU. That way you will begin to work out your metrics and activity more accurately for next round.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least with Alliances they said, afaik that transfers would happen less often with shorter period window for players to transfer and they could track population alot better/faster. 

At the same time as bandwagoners transferring to links, you have alt accounts, whenever a matchup is dull, it's like smurfing really to leech content, in content starved matchups in the EU at least, instead of playing with their main community, but there's nothing they can really do about that the former in the current system. 

I do not know, what form WR we would get, if they decided to test it live.

Edited by CrimsonOneThree.5682
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MarkBecks.6453 said:

 Always imbalance when linking for MU's because people transfer to the linked server for easy 8 weeks run.

Please Anet if we going to wait for Alliances come up with some ideas in the meantime players numbers are getting thin lately.
Stop linking on all full and very high servers, that way, transfers will only happen on high and medium servers which are linked, and the imbalance can be managed lower down.
One Full server against 2 very high servers would be good MU, all unlinked.

Linking is one sided, mismatched, and unfortunately, people transfer straight away for easy fights.
Other option is to post the links 24 hours before, then freeze transfers before the MU. That way you will begin to work out your metrics and activity more accurately for next round.

Have you bothered to look at the current server status before coming up with this idea?

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World

NA has 15 full/very high servers, that's 5 tiers, it current runs on 4, plus the extra tiers for the high servers.

Then there's 9 high and 0 medium servers, which means there's 8 for links and 1 without a link at all, so what are you going to do with that solo high server? or are you now going to triple up on high servers so we can get 3 for a matchup? Which would put this to 6 tiers, how much complaints about empty time zones are we going to get after you think?

What I think they should do now since WR has been confirmed they are going forward with it (just alliances delayed until further notice), stop relinks, leave the current pairs on until WR happens, even out the transfer fees to 1800, people want to transfer to the "popular" servers and deal with queues, be my guest, eventually people will move to avoid queues.

Winning has 0 meaning at the moment, it really doesn't matter how balanced pairs are (they never ever were in the first place with or without links). For most players they just want to jump into whatever map and get action, get their rewards, not stuck in queues, a lot are oblivious to server ranks and tiers and coverage. So what does it matter if a T4 medium server can /cannot compete with a T1 full server.

Edited by XenesisII.1540
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 this idea

2 hours ago, Ubik.8315 said:

Scale server move cost. Moving to a full server link is now 15k gems.


Reply to op.
I don't think the current linking is bad. It is fun for me, we are low pop server, we link with many different servers each time the "behaviour" of our hosts are different, resulting in different ways we have to play our game. I am absolutely fine with what we have right now. 

Edited by SweetPotato.7456
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

We've had several WR betas for live tests and that's exactly what we would get. That's what WR without alliances mean.

So I guess the same infrastructure and systems from the June beta, which also tested one week of matchmaking, unless they actually work on it, from now and whenever they make it live.

Edited by CrimsonOneThree.5682
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take this with a grain of salt. If transfers are what impacted WvW prior to links, and then impacted links and balancing efforts. What if we made that transfers were only open during the week that was 3 weeks prior to relink. That would allow people to group but less allow groups to impact scores after the relinks were calculated and remove people from moving to a bandwagon. It would also give ANet info on people trying to stack and reconsider the link ideas that were considered. I don't think we can ever account for alt-accounts so that drops that issue from considerations of when the transfer window should open but might limit those with 1 account . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...