M o n o s e r v e r s

[Riba.3271]

Delete excess ones, thank you.

Let entertaining servers brim up to Full status, but not beyond that, and less entertaining servers be at the bottom. At least matchmaking will be somewhat fair.

World Destructuring will be thrash arena game system. Imagine sPvP but there is high chance you face against only bronze ranked teams with platinum team. You can't arrange proper matchmaking, so stop trying. Let us have our communities. At least then our guilds and server can aim for a tier with decent opposition.

I don't understand why first we moved to this terrible system (linkings) so you can farm maximum gems from transfers, and now you're minimizing transferring overall (World Restructuring).. Can't we just go back to the meaningful system with decent matchmaking where people were still transferring reasonable amount?

WvW stayed popular because existance of servers. Stop letting devs with bad memory, that serverhop constantly and only attend guild raids couple times a week, to ruin it. We all know most devs have been avoiding WvW very actively quite soon after linking was implemented. So it is really not that hard to see that monoservers are pillars you should build upon on. No pillars will just lead to ruins.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Vardy.3592]

Cornerstone game mode.

[Dawdler.8521]

Ok lets begin with your excess server, tell us what it is and we can propose deleting that first and assign you to another random server.

[Riba.3271]

33 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Ok lets begin with your excess server, tell us what it is and we can propose deleting that first and assign you to another random server.

Sure, I can always transfer to best suitable server after. And it will stay as such for a loooong time because there won't be relinkings or restructuring messing the environment up.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Zyreva.1078]

11 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Sure, I can always transfer to best suitable server after. And it will stay as such for a loooong time because there won't be relinkings or restructuring messing the environment up.

Spoken like a true bandwagoner - the type of player anet definitely should not cater to.

[Remus Darkblight.1673]

4 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

Spoken like a true bandwagoner - the type of player anet definitely should not cater to.

But they will because 💲

[Dawdler.8521]

11 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Sure, I can always transfer to best suitable server after. And it will stay as such for a loooong time because there won't be relinkings or restructuring messing the environment up.

I don’t consider your transfer request reasonable, because reasons, as specified in your OP on how to balance servers for matchups deemed meaningful.

Didn’t answer the question either, do you think Anet will actually get ideas?

[Zyreva.1078]

33 minutes ago, Remus Darkblight.1673 said:

But they will because 💲

Well, they aren't doing the bandwagoners a favour by melking them, right?

And that's why we have this thread i guess.

[Arianth Moonlight.6453]

we need the EotM system.

[Riba.3271]

7 hours ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

18 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Sure, I can always transfer to best suitable server after. And it will stay as such for a loooong time because there won't be relinkings or restructuring messing the environment up.

Spoken like a true bandwagoner - the type of player anet definitely should not cater to.

I have to choose a server anyways. Is everyone who installs GW2 and chooses a server bandvagoner? Even if they stay there for years?

That ain't bandvagoning, bro. I am not going to stick to German server because I don't speak German. I will choose a fun server, because it is a game, and contribute to building it while fighting the evildoers and trolls.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Zyreva.1078]

Everyone wants to have fun. But players have proven to be notoriously bad at making sure everyone gets to have some fun if left to their own devices. That's why anet needs to step in.

And if someone wants to build a staple and "fun" community - the tools to do so are already there. But hopping all over the place in hope to find greener pastures elsewhere doesn't aid such endeavour. In the end it's still up to the players what sort of "fun" they choose.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Zyreva.1078

[XenesisII.1540]

So you want to go back to the system that led us to the link situation in the first place.... 😏

Decent matchmaking lmao, sounds like you never experienced the glicko system. 😏

Don't worry they will be deleting servers soon anyways. 😏

WR reshuffling every 4 weeks means you get free transfer anyways. 😏

[Riba.3271]

1 hour ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

So you want to go back to the system that led us to the link situation in the first place.... 😏

Not exactly, the server amount was originally designed for people who play the game on release. Obviously years after release months, playerbase will be halved or more focused on PvE. So the issue with the system wasn't the system, but the fact that there were too many servers

1 hour ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Decent matchmaking lmao, sounds like you never experienced the glicko system. 😏

I experienced it and its flaws as well. Glicko system won't be a problem, because 1-up-1-down is implemented now.

1 hour ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Don't worry they will be deleting servers soon anyways. 😏

And that is exactly the problem. What will keep you playing when your team is doing badly? You cannot influence groups outside your initial group permanently, because nothing connects you.

1 hour ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

 

And if someone wants to build a staple and "fun" community - the tools to do so are already there

Except they aren't:

1. Average of half of your team will be from your link. Meaning they won't be permanent and will cause guilds, timezones, queues, commanders and player strength to vary a lot. Same applies to opponents which obviously means great fun timezone this month won't be great fun timezone next month
2. Servers are always open through link and people move to fight with those servers. Even though they should be marked full already. Linking losing 20% of its population facing one that gained 20% more population, will be 80% vs 120%, so facing 50% more players or guilds.
3. Matchmaking is a mess. Tier 1 server will take 4 weeks to climb to tier 1 from tier 5. For example this linking, there was an EU server that won over 90% of skirmishes and won't even reach tier 1 before next relinking occurs

Since you lack experience, let me give you rather normal experience about how building great fun environment works out these days.

Step1: Start by building a great timezone with decent fights and opponents. Train your people. Lot of effort, but what are the rewards?

Step 2: Then relinking happens and suddenly 200 people transfer cheaply (500 gems) to leech that timezone causing massive queues even though your server already had enough players. Your new link has a chat commander that likes to tag up 30 minutes before that timezone and occupy the map with good fights. You get matched against servers that are 2+ tiers above or below your population. Your enemy servers with suitable opposition get thrown into complete opposite tier and experience massive issues with relinking as well.

From this example even you can deduce, that having monoservers is much more suitable for keeping your preferred timezone competitive. You can just stay in tier you belong in without bouncing around facing servers that you don't stand a chance facing against, or vice versa. Even for guildplay monoservers would be great, they could avoid most queued servers and settle in staple tier 2 or tier 3 servers without having to worry about too many transfers ruining them over in 1 week.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Riba.3271

[XenesisII.1540]

1 minute ago, Riba.3271 said:

Not exactly, the server amount was originally designed for people who play the game on release. Obviously years after release months, playerbase will be halved or more focused on PvE. So the issue with the system wasn't the system, but the fact that there were too many servers

And instead of deleting servers they could just stop links and leave the current pairs together forever, would serve the same purpose, really makes no difference.

Transfers is the real reason the system failed both ways, something which you want to encourage still.

 

1 minute ago, Riba.3271 said:

I experienced it and its flaws as well. Glicko system won't be a problem, because 1-up-1-down is implemented now.

And 1u1d can still force you into terrible matches because of gap of population between servers.

 

1 minute ago, Riba.3271 said:

And that is exactly the problem. What will keep you playing when your team is doing badly? You cannot influence groups outside your initial group permanently, because nothing connects you.

You ask that as if there weren't bad mono servers before links. Like there weren't bad matches because some t8 server got the unlucky glicko roll and went up 3 tiers they weren't suppose to be in and the match was done after reset. Or blob servers that absolutely ran over the opposition that had to sit out weeks against them because there were only a handful of people playing. Many people play for their guilds anyways, regardless of server, hence the bandwagons.

WR is required because players have ants in their pants, they want to blob for the advantage, everyone deserves to have a good time in wvw, not just the boon blobs of 50 rolling over maps.

[Riba.3271]

48 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

 

And instead of deleting servers they could just stop links and leave the current pairs together forever, would serve the same purpose, really makes no difference.

Not exactly, they would also need to make the population status and transfer costs based on total on the linking.

48 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Transfers is the real reason the system failed both ways, something which you want to encourage still.

Actually no, it would discourage transfers. Full status without open link would limit transfers and control player count better. Transfer costs to open servers would increase since there isn't a cheaper option in same linking. Even the possibility of the server you're leaving going full will make you think twice about leaving.

Are you really saying people transfer now less than before linking system?

48 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

I experienced it and its flaws as well. Glicko system won't be a problem, because 1-up-1-down is implemented now.

And 1u1d can still force you into terrible matches because of gap of population between servers.

Yes, 1-up-1-down isn't perfect but it fixed the 2 biggest issues glicko system had: Slow tier changes and stagnant matchups. 1-up-1-down is in use with linking and World Restructuring systems so its flaws isn't relevant to whetever monoservers are better choice. Just whetever it is better than glicko.

48 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

You ask that as if there weren't bad mono servers before links. Like there weren't bad matches because some t8 server got the unlucky glicko roll and went up 3 tiers they weren't suppose to be in and the match was done after reset. Or blob servers that absolutely ran over the opposition that had to sit out weeks against them because there were only a handful of people playing

Seems all your examples why monoserver system is bad are about glicko system. Can you focus on why monoservers with 1-up-1-down won't work (like being suggested)? I get it, you had bad memories about glicko but what makes 2 servers together better than 1? Is the current transfer system better than in the past? (in the past high tier servers were full or cost more)

48 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

WR is required because players have ants in their pants, they want to blob for the advantage, everyone deserves to have a good time in wvw, not just the boon blobs of 50 rolling over maps.

True, lot of people like to play on server that can gather 50+ people on map as at that point it isn't your servers but enemies fault for not bringing enough to the fight. But you also have to admit that Full status in monoserver system would limit their population a bit. And matchmaking would be much more fair with Rank 1 and Rank 2 servers staying in tier 1 facing each other instead of being shuffled around every month to faceroll over tier 5 and tier 4 servers.

World Restructuring is decent matchmaking system. But if it was implemented with actual intent of fair matchmaking, it wouldn't have transfers and larger guilds would face against other large guilds with no pugs being around at all. Called premade queue or soloQ in other games. But since pugs and transfers will exist even in "fair matchmaking system", the developers are publically admitting that part of WvW is overcoming problems within the team you're given. Which World Restructuring fails to give time or reason for.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Riba.3271

[XenesisII.1540]

2 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Not exactly, they would also need to make the population status and transfer costs based on total on the linking.

Actually no, it would discourage transfers. Full status without open link would limit transfers and control player count better. Transfer costs to open servers would increase since there isn't a cheaper option in same linking. Even the possibility of the server you're leaving going full will make you think twice about leaving.

Are you really saying people transfer now less than before linking system?

Yes, 1-up-1-down isn't perfect but it fixed the 2 biggest issues glicko system had: Slow tier changes and stagnant matchups. 1-up-1-down is in use with linking and World Restructuring systems so its flaws isn't relevant to whetever monoservers are better choice. Just whetever it is better than glicko.

Seems all your examples why monoserver system is bad are about glicko system. Can you focus on why monoservers with 1-up-1-down won't work (like being suggested)? I get it, you had bad memories about glicko but what makes 2 servers together better than 1? Is the current transfer system better than in the past? (in the past high tier servers were full or cost more)

True, lot of people like to play on server that can gather 50+ people on map. But you also have to admit that Full status in monoserver system would limit their population a bit. And matchmaking would be much more fair with Rank 1 and Rank 2 servers staying in tier 1 facing each other instead of being shuffled around every month to faceroll over tier 5 and tier 4 servers.

World Restructuring is decent matchmaking system. And if it was implemented with actual intent of fair matchmaking, it wouldn't have transfers and larger guilds would face against other large guilds with no pugs being around at all. Called premade queue or soloQ in other games. But since pugs and transfers will exist even in "fair matchmaking system", the developers are publically admitting that part of WvW is overcoming problems within the team you're given. Which World Restructuring fails to give time or reason for.

Nothing you say here changes my mind to have the old mono server system, eventually populations will go out of whack again, there will still be a large gap between servers from T1-5,  as long as transfers and an open system remains. WR closes the system by doing a full reset after 4 or 8 weeks. Anet left the sorting to players for 11 years, and they kittened it up in every possible way.

1U1D still has it's problem with servers forced to go up into a tier they don't belong in, which btw is something that should have less effect in the WR system since servers are suppose to be aligned closer in population measurement. Like I'm legit on a T4 server forced into T3 and getting shellacked this week. Or how about servers actively tanking to avoid a tier, no one plays to win unless they're the number one server that can blob everyone else down, T2 avoids T1, and T3 and 4 accidentally end up wherever their ppters get them.

You go back to old mono servers there's absolutely no point to running seasons or tournaments or trying to win. Not to mention wasting of what little 5 years of development Anet made on WR, you might as well tell them never touch wvw ever again.

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

Not exactly, the server amount was originally designed for people who play the game on release. Obviously years after release months, playerbase will be halved or more focused on PvE. So the issue with the system wasn't the system, but the fact that there were too many servers

Let's delete your server then.  Keep mine.

[Cyninja.2954]

This entire discussion is pointless.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the only thing which would prevent world restructuring from happening is the development failing or the developers deciding to cut the resources (resources which definitely would not be available for WvW after, pretty much dooming this mode to absolute death, even more than now).

The developers are looking at this from the perspective of automation and better balancing as well as reinvigorating the mode with a big shake up. It's mental to believe that going back to a fixed server system at this point is even remotely in the cards (it might be if WR epicly fails as last resort before never spending any resources again on the mode).

Instead of repeating nonsensically the same thing over and over, a far more productive approach would be to think about how to improve WR and what would be important in that system, IF ones primary goal was to improve WvW.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Riba.3271]

22 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Nothing you say here changes my mind to have the old mono server system, eventually populations will go out of whack again, there will still be a large gap between servers from T1-5,  as long as transfers and an open system remains.

It seems you have never met a person or guild who transferred away from high tier to lower tier server because they wanted away from queues, lags or just more quiet roaming environment. Yes, there are many people who want to be in very populated server, but there are also quite many who want to be in less populated server. So let them.

Not every server needs to have exactly same amount of people and it is enough to just be alive. Actually as long as transfers are enabled, it is preferable for playerbase if they have different choices.

You're misunderstanding WvW with matchmaking games: You're not facing tier 1 server as tier 4 server, so you don't need same population. Part of why tiers are so great, is because they reflect the activity and entertainment provided in each server.

22 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

 

1U1D still has it's problem with servers forced to go up into a tier they don't belong in, which btw is something that should have less effect in the WR system since servers are suppose to be aligned closer in population measurement. Like I'm legit on a T4 server forced into T3 and getting shellacked this week. Or how about servers actively tanking to avoid a tier, no one plays to win unless they're the number one server that can blob everyone else down, T2 avoids T1, and T3 and 4 accidentally end up wherever their ppters get them.

True, but after WR score is meaningless, so 1-up-1-down is meaningless. You could argue score already is, but at least playing actively provides entertainment to your server mates and you can control future matchups. After WR, no one can keep track of what direction their server should aim to, and strangers will be even more strange. Even worse, you won't have any choice of what kind of server you want to be in, because they will all be pretty much the same.

In hindsight, I don't think 1-up-1-down fits WR at all, wouldn't tournament mode converge to better matchups faster? Losers face losers and winners winners.

But yes, I do completely agree servers actively tanking to avoid overpopulated servers or being unlinked is a big problem right now. But that won't be as big of a problem in mono server system because full servers will be mostly facing full servers. And tanking to avoid being unlinked will disappear all together, because it will be replaced with same wall of Full status.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Riba.3271]

24 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Let's delete your server then.  Keep mine.

Even better. Lets delete all the server, and make new ones with somewhat equal populations. Just no linkings. If some server gets noticeable amount of transfers, make them full and block any future transfers. If some server loses people, make them cheaper to transfer to.. Wait, this sounds like a great system!! It is almost like it was.. the original suggestion after couple of months...

Edited December 15, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Zyreva.1078]

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

What will keep you playing when your team is doing badly?

The knowledge that the bad situation is only temporary maybe? After all you don' have to worry about getting stuck in a bad matchup permanently anymore. Unlike in the past ...

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Average of half of your team will be from your link. Meaning they won't be permanent and will cause guilds, timezones, queues, commanders and player strength to vary a lot. Same applies to opponents which obviously means great fun timezone this month won't be great fun timezone next month

How many players of your world are you actually interacting with? Probably much less than half. So instead of worrying so much about all those randoms, why not band together with those that actually share your playtime and playstyle, form a guild and voila - you have got a consistent team and won't have to worry that much about all the other randoms you can't influence much anyway. As for "fun" opponents - you can't guarantee those in a static system either and your fight server can easily get stuck against a PvDoor server that avoids any confrontation with your boonblob. Permanently.

Just transfer then you might say, but then you are back at where you are now - no consistent "team", imbalanced matchups, all that bad stuff you say you want to avoid.

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Servers are always open through link and people move to fight with those servers. Even though they should be marked full already. Linking losing 20% of its population facing one that gained 20% more population, will be 80% vs 120%, so facing 50% more players or guilds.

Could be easily fixed without reverting back to the old server system (and WR will take care of it it seems).

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

 For example this linking, there was an EU server that won over 90% of skirmishes and won't even reach tier 1 before next relinking occurs

What was an unusually imbalanced linking period was pretty much a permanent situation during the old system. Servers at the bottom are bound to die sooner or later in a static server system and if you keep deleting servers - well, eventually there won't be any left.

Despite all the flaws - that are certainly there - the linking system kept the WvW population relatively stable for years. Something that can't be said about the old server system.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Zyreva.1078

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

with somewhat equal populations

How?  Please, describe in detail exactly how this will happen.

[joneirikb.7506]

Personally I've never felt that servers had any kind of static membership. There's always a mix of fair-weathers, transfers, band-wagoners, wandering guilds etc, that even back when my server was the bottom of the barrel t8 server that almost no one ever wanted to go to, we still continually had a slow shifting of population. Naturally we also had our core people, which was generally in 4-5 guilds and a couple of guys outside those.

Back when Linking got introduced it actually made the number of players from my server go up, because for the first time in years, it was actually possible to zerg on the server... and it definitively helped a much larger number of players enjoy the game mode more on the server. (Though I personally still miss the old near dead roaming t8-land, I'm definitively in the minority, and wouldn't want to ruin it for everyone else just to get it the way I like it)

And we'd go right back to all the old problems with transfer, big guild transfer down to a bottom server and crush everything to ride it up the tiers until they hit opposition, and abandon them and pick another bottom server. Leaving the band-wagon'ed server lost in tiers they likely can't deal with for weeks (Thank you WarMachine...). Linking sure isn't perfect, transfers remains the single largest problem with the game mode, 1up1down a bandaid just to get rid of Glicko which is designed for a completely different scope. But honestly, I don't want to go back to mono-servers either, I feel the entire server system would have needed to be changed to work well, and honestly I can't see any good way to do it.

----

I agree with Cyninja's line of thought that it would be more constructive to discuss how to improve on WR, as it's what we're getting. And specifically on how to make it easier or more convenient for players to form communities? As that is the main complaint against it that I've seen.

One idea is actually to change the size of the match-up. If a new "Team" is supposed to be 2500 players (approx, depending on how they compare it to player-hours etc). And a single guild (alliance) is max 500, and the usual 4 maps. Then one option could be to instead make a "Team" be 500-650 (players/x-hours), and limited to only a single EBG ?

That would let you focus entirely on a single community (guild/alliance eventually), get some options to recruit, and make the new smaller team play on a scale (single map) more matching to that player-count. And would also make most communities look to find some coverage for themselves as well, so as to have a presence around most of the clock, so you don't have 500 people trying to queue into ebg. While generally retain the same scale of combat on that one map.

I'd probably put ABL/DBL into EotM as alternative maps. And yes, enable pips/mount/glider on eotm/other maps.

[Riba.3271]

9 hours ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

12 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

What will keep you playing when your team is doing badly?

The knowledge that the bad situation is only temporary maybe? After all you don' have to worry about getting stuck in a bad matchup permanently anymore. Unlike in the past

With the past system and 1-up-1-down, you could can easily change tier of servers. Or transfer. Currently, or with World Restructuring, even if you prefer activity of tier 2 and fighting tier 2 servers, there is extremely low chance your server will actually manage to do it. You will be lucky to get such action once per week.

Do note that monoservers are more stable, so if you find a good server, it will stay as such. Right now, there is no good environment, it is a scrapshoot how your new linking will affect your server. And this is not even mentioning the fact that stable monoservers give your actions and voice ability to make the server better slowly, instead of resetting progress in most things everytime.

9 hours ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

12 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Average of half of your team will be from your link. Meaning they won't be permanent and will cause guilds, timezones, queues, commanders and player strength to vary a lot. Same applies to opponents which obviously means great fun timezone this month won't be great fun timezone next month

How many players of your world are you actually interacting with? Probably much less than half. So instead of worrying so much about all those randoms, why not band together with those that actually share your playtime and playstyle, form a guild and voila - you have got a consistent team and won't have to worry that much about all the other randoms you can't influence much anyway. As for "fun" opponents - you can't guarantee those in a static system either and your fight server can easily get stuck against a PvDoor server that avoids any confrontation with your boonblob. Permanently.

While organised group can overcome much of the problems with player quality, the best way to get frequently decent fights is controlling type of enemies so you want to face, so tier you want to be in, and stable environment. Both of which are not characteristics of linking or restructuring systems.

Of course in static system if you choose to be in PvD server (tier 1), you should be willing to go inside keeps to do the same. I wouldn't say it is developers fault you expect Tier 3 (fight focused) behaviour from Tier 1 server (point focused). Choose a server that is close to tiers that provide fights. While choosing such server won't guarantee proper enemies will log in, it will still increase the odds of such behaviour compared to systems based on lot of randomness

9 hours ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

 

Just transfer then you might say, but then you are back at where you are now - no consistent "team", imbalanced matchups, all that bad stuff you say you want to avoid.

Servers you can transfer to would be limited and capped (Full status), more expensive, and leaving your original server can often backfire due to it getting full. So it still succeeds at controlling populations better than current system. Also if you're already at best possible server, and there aren't massive changes like relinkings, will it really change that often? While I do agree World Restructing is better regarding keeping playercount even across all servers, such a thing isn't necessary in tier based systems where tiers guarantee somewhat even matchups. It actually removes choice of how active they want WvW to be from the players.

Are you saying seriously that a system where worst performing tier 1 server, facing best performing tier 3 server, has much more imbalanced matchups than whatever we have currently, or during restructuring? Tier 5 linkings facing Tier 1 linkings is hardly a great system. Same will happen after restructuring because alliances will go inactive, swap to alts or teams will just be less efficient at using their time.

9 hours ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

12 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

for example this linking, there was an EU server that won over 90% of skirmishes and won't even reach tier 1 before next relinking occurs

What was an unusually imbalanced linking period was pretty much a permanent situation during the old system. Servers at the bottom are bound to die sooner or later in a static server system and if you keep deleting servers - well, eventually there won't be any left.

Despite all the flaws - that are certainly there - the linking system kept the WvW population relatively stable for years. Something that can't be said about the old server system.

You must realise that the months required for tier 5 server to climb a couple of tier was at least half a year in the past. With 1-up-1-down it will be 4 weeks from tier 5 to tier 1 so the progress will be very controllable and visible. The systems are drastically different and you can't blame flaws of glicko system to monoservers.

Reason groups didn't stay in lower tier servers despite the gem saving incentive, was because it was practically impossible to climb. Even if you won matchups. I have personally experienced this. People just ran out of fumes of beating dead servers and seeing absolutely no progress.

Anyways, if we actually reminisce about the past, what caused people frustration was the glicko and matchmaking system. No one was saying the server system was illogical. Because they had choice of server.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Riba.3271]

6 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Back when Linking got introduced it actually made the number of players from my server go up, because for the first time in years, it was actually possible to zerg on the server... and it definitively helped a much larger number of players enjoy the game mode more on the server. (Though I personally still miss the old near dead roaming t8-land, I'm definitively in the minority, and wouldn't want to ruin it for everyone else just to get it the way I like it)

This was because reduction of tiers. It had nothing to do with linking system being better. Same would have occured if they just deleted lower tier servers and distributed them to high tier servers. After all, it isn't like linkings magically added players in the game, everyone just enjoyed playing with more players and commanders. There were just too many servers, so commanders struggled finding players, and players struggled finding commanders that already had players.

6 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Linking sure isn't perfect, transfers remains the single largest problem with the game mode, 1up1down a bandaid just to get rid of Glicko which is designed for a completely different scope

Yes, transfers are main problem. If server (or linking) outpopulates all other servers, they should be blocked for transfers until this isn't true anymore. Something monoserver system does succesfully.

6 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

 

I agree with Cyninja's line of thought that it would be more constructive to discuss how to improve on WR, as it's what we're getting. And specifically on how to make it easier or more convenient for players to form communities? As that is the main complaint against it that I've seen.

 

There are ways to improve WR, it just wasn't topic of this thread. I will summarize some of them here:

Matchmaking enemies: 1-up-1-down is very slow at finding good matchups. If they want good matchups to occur faster, they need to put winners against winners and losers against losers.. At least during initial weeks. 4 weeks isn't long enough time period for tiers to matter.

Matchmaking allies: Main driving force World Restructuring is balancing the population across teams. For this to stay consistant, it should occur as frequently as possible: every week. And transfers should be disabled.

Communications: As server voice chats are currently discord and teamspeak based, the numbers there are also dependant on how many people already have the adress in the past. Squad wide voice communications needs to be implemented in the game.

Options: There should be option for players to not face against premade teams. Players should have choice of avoiding premade teams, so commanders without premade team vs commanders without premade team. After all, couple of tiers of only solo players, will improve experience of both premade teams and solo players.

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by Riba.3271