My Issue with FAQ: Why is there World Linking instead of some other solution?

[LetoII.3782]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Silver.2076 said:

@McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:

@Endelon.1042 said:

@McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:

3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since
   people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.

Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ??

edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system.

We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect.

Really? A glimmer of hope on the finer horizon! HYPE!!!!1111!!11No, seriously, yeah, please look at it. There is so much potential in WvW! I repeat myself; (Well if its anything like the promised 100% focus on WvW after HoT, we're in for a treat in a year or two.

Fool me once

[Roksiel.6123]

I can't say I've played much WvW before the linking, but I understand why people hate it. I myself hate it since every server we get linked to has a different playstyle, like one link people only care about points while the next link we're with a server where people don't defend anything and all they care about is fights. I hate it but I can live with it. That being said, what I can not stand is having to wear the name on the server we get linked to. If anything, I do not want to be Vabbi, Piken Square or anything else. I'm Underworld so they could at least give us the option to represent our real server.

[joneirikb.7506]

@"Roksiel.6123" said:I can't say I've played much WvW before the linking, but I understand why people hate it. I myself hate it since every server we get linked to has a different playstyle, like one link people only care about points while the next link we're with a server where people don't defend anything and all they care about is fights. I hate it but I can live with it. That being said, what I can not stand is having to wear the name on the server we get linked to. If anything, I do not want to be Vabbi, Piken Square or anything else. I'm Underworld so they could at least give us the option to represent our real server.

I do agree with you, but there are some problems with that as well. Mostly that it lets servers go toxic against each others "Don't help the Server2 players, let them die." "Ah it is Server2 that is trying to defend Bay that is wh it's failing." etc. Players will always try to separate players into an "us and them" system, to increase their own ego or self esteem or something.

I believe this is the main reason ANet didn't do this, and likely won't. It is one of their core tenets for the game, that you should always be happy to see another player (on your team for pvp/wvw).

[Loosmaster.8263]

@McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

I know you can't say what you're investigating but can toss a potential time frame for some type of announcement?

It will be after the holidays.

So it's after the holidays. Can you give an update on statement time frame?

Sorry if this is a necro'ing but it is a much needed communication.

Thanks

[Rennie.6750]

Let's be realistic, world linking is here to stay, because it's the best of the worst solutions.

Merging servers permanently is a temporary solution. It does not address population shifts with time and at one point links will come back, but worse because there are less servers to link.

Having 3 standard factions and randomly putting people into them would come with a myriad of technical issues (what about guilds? what about people who just log out until they are put in the winning faction? what about activity? things would get insanely one sided - yes more than now). It would also come at the cost of the spanish french and german servers being left out of WvW as a lot don't speak english at all.

Overall all alternative solutions are bad for the WvW population on the long run, and drama because of links is probably the best of all possible wrongs. From a personal standpoint I find the linking drama ridiculous and insanely entertaining, like, why people care in the first place, I will never understand that.

[Loosmaster.8263]

I was more hoping this statement was broader than just about linking. More of a statement on the issues with WvW and what they have planned.

[Aeolus.3615]

WvW fix, add more aoe to all classes and more power creep... sooon.

Class imbalance and bad design IMO is what makes the population being a issue.Links by the other hand are just a way to cover servers mergings if possible, And avoid actually working on the gamemode, if players are ktraining game is good right?

[hunkamania.7561]

Ya, I would say we should just go megaserver. Especially for the off hour guys who have nothing to fight when it's ocx, sea and eu in NA same goes for the EU servers. Even primetime can get extremely boring in a bad matchup(fight servers against ppt servers for example) in some matchups there's 1 dead server which makes it a 1 server vs 1 server which gets stale . WVW is good endgame content(for PVE and PVP players) so you want it to be action packed 24/7 or close to it and the only way to do that is megaservers with 3 factions.

[Ya Ya Yeah.7381]

I don't see this as a linking issue or a player population issue but rather as a player attraction issue. Arena net will never be able to balance the population by linking or any other measure simply because the populations are constantly changing based on a variety of reasons from what I can see. The only way to achieve balance in population is to GROW the population and place caps. Which means they have to look at the core issues of what is causing and has caused people to leave as well as some attraction methods. Some of those reasons are simply RL reasons and nothing Arena net can do about that but there is a lot that are and could be addressed. When it comes to Pvp or pvp format style games you need to base a lot of your decisions based off player feedback, development creativity should play a more limited role. What I mean by that is sometimes the vision of the developers is in clear contrast to what players actually want. Perhaps the players are only seeing a part of what in actuality is a bigger picture but without transparency to the player base then all the players are seeing is a failing format. So, basically it comes down to this, give the players what they want or explain in detail what it is actually happening or development is trying to achieve.

[Trajan.4953]

@Caliburn.1845 said:Finding people to fight, even with linked servers is becoming more and more difficult during all times zones. If you did away with linked servers things would be much worse. This does not mean there isn't a host of problems with linking.

Perma linking servers has its own set of problems.

What we need is a third, fresh solution. Be it battlegroups, time-slices, or whatever.

Cali gets it.

[Redponey.8352]

HI there!

Thanks for your answers about WvW world linking @McKenna Berdrow.2759.

I think that the world linking is different from NA to EU.I explain that in NA, there is no differences in all servers ( except population) , it's look like there is only National servers.

in EU, we have different kind of issues ( National servers and EU servers) theses two types of server are not equal in prime time and whole day coverage by population.National server will always be weaker in day coverage population vs an EU servers that attracts more people because they uses universal language (english).

The same balancing system (world linking) will have different effects on both region (EU/NA).

World linking then affects more national servers ( see leaderboard) than EU servers because it offer no possibilities to switch the server to join a community.Actually there is no more or dusty remain of WvW communities.

I personnally think that world linking will be able to "balance population and matchup' but i think it's not sustainable because new players (not all but often most of all) will left WvW when they have done their reward tracks or pips rewards.

As far i remember , when i joined WvW that was not for it loots (only banana lords and killing bags) but for it communities because they give the will to play and get involve in it. that why people kept to play this gamemode.
I stayed in this gamemode because it was bringing us server identity (like a familly) and tremendous , awesome and intense fight.

Nowadays, there not that much left of both , Servers communities are dying (starving) and Fight most of the time is about number not synchronization and teamplay. (except few hardcore guilds that remains)

World linking also killed competition between servers :/ and being tier 1 or 3 or 4 doesnt matter now...

as you said before merging is not the solution, on another post i have put some idea

it's here : https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19740/a-server-held-hostage-by-its-population#latest

@"Redponey.8352" said:Hi here,

As Commander and player on national server ,Linking to rebalance the population was a good mecanism until the 2th linkage, where we lost most of our population for higher server. We went from mid-top tier from the bottom with this.

To rebalance population ,this might be good if we are just looking at number of player that connect on WvW. But actually this system destroy most of all WvW Communities through put and remove or switching server. Theses communities were created during 3 years, now there are ash and dust.

WvW population will always be unbalanced ( some people want to play with less people , others want to zerg etc...). Trying absolutly to balanced without any regard on WvW communities as a whole might be a mistake. (I think, it was)

I think that the most important part of WvW is communities (that will keep and bring people to play WvW) and challenging part (Tournament were great).Actually, we lost most of WvW communities , Forums (not GW2) are dead, new player will not get involve or less involve than before.Current WvW player get bored to not have challenge ( to be in top tier or bottom tier is the same except the fact ennemies are different) and leave the Game.

Creating a GvG system would be great if it would be done as soon as possible. (Twitch streaming GvG etc would be great to give good entertainment to people and others)(I remember Team Aggression [TA] Vs [LaG] Callous Philosophy, Obsidian sanctum were full and with Q , we were easily more than 500 people to watch the stream)

I can give some idea , i hope that Anet will read this.

I propose, is to stop linkage system and put each server is alone. After that, offer to everyone a 1 free migration ticket for "mid population server"This may attract guilds to leave higher tier to lesser tier.With this i would have bring some idea that will keep guilds on mid server:-Increase from 1 to 2 or 3 weeks, the migration possibility-Bring some challenging guild achievement ( killing xx or xxx K during 1-2months, Capture and upgrade xxxx structure during 1-2 months etc)Finishing this achievements will reward guilds (member of this guild) with special loots (WvW armor/weapons skin, hall stuff and an exclusive emote for 1-2 month (as /Guild /Ladder in GW1)

• Put season( as PvP season) (4-5 seasons/year) instead of month as i spoke earlier. (Winter , Spring , Summer and Autumn would have been great)With this , some challenging conditions could be bring to create more diversity of gameplay. (as Gw1 PvP has) something like " when you die , you will put down a package that will give a random buff" or " when you die , a minions appear" etc....

All We ask from anet now is to do something. Not only check stats... We need you ANET to get involve in your WvW Mode!! :)

Thanks for reading ,You may apologize my english...

I'm sorry about my poor english and my grammar mistakes , i tried to explain as clear as possible.

Cheers all and Happy New year!!

Eris

[Loosmaster.8263]

@McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

I know you can't say what you're investigating but can toss a potential time frame for some type of announcement?

It will be after the holidays.

Bumping this as we still haven't received an answer...

[Arlette.9684]

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

@McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

I know you can't say what you're investigating but can toss a potential time frame for some type of announcement?

It will be after the holidays.

Bumping this as we still haven't received an answer...

He prolly means holiday season 2018 :wink:

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Arlette.9684 said:

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

@McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

I know you can't say what you're investigating but can toss a potential time frame for some type of announcement?

It will be after the holidays.

Bumping this as we still haven't received an answer...

He prolly means holiday season 2018 :wink:

Pssshhh. Everyone knows the holidays in the states includes Super Bowl Sunday.

[LetoII.3782]

Fourth of July also a holiday

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

Oh I forgot about 4th of July! Thanks now I can push it back further! jk. In all seriousness we're working on a post right now. One thing we wanted to do with some of these bigger discussions is have the main posts be translated so we can include as large of a group as possible in the discussion. So we are trying to take extra time to edit and refine the post before we send it out. I'm sorry its taking as long as it is but I'm really hoping the additional reach of the message will payoff in the end. Don't worry guys just 162 days until the 4th ;)

[X T D.6458]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:Oh I forgot about 4th of July! Thanks now I can push it back further! jk. In all seriousness we're working on a post right now. One thing we wanted to do with some of these bigger discussions is have the main posts be translated so we can include as large of a group as possible in the discussion. So we are trying to take extra time to edit and refine the post before we send it out. I'm sorry its taking as long as it is but I'm really hoping the additional reach of the message will payoff in the end. Don't worry guys just 162 days until the 4th ;)

Why not St. Patricks Day...think of all the disappointed little leprechauns :disappointed:

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:Oh I forgot about 4th of July! Thanks now I can push it back further! jk. In all seriousness we're working on a post right now. One thing we wanted to do with some of these bigger discussions is have the main posts be translated so we can include as large of a group as possible in the discussion. So we are trying to take extra time to edit and refine the post before we send it out. I'm sorry its taking as long as it is but I'm really hoping the additional reach of the message will payoff in the end. Don't worry guys just 162 days until the 4th ;)

Well played. :grin:

[Klipso.8653]

@McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:that could leave several worlds with a dwindling population suffering for a long amount of time. This is particularly bad for getting any new players into WvW,

Kinda how BG lost most of it's guilds because they were unable to recruit after being on a locked server for 3 years? We only have 5 active guilds left and we still can't recruit new players.

I know the running propaganda is that we have 50 man blobs on every map 24 hours a day, but that hasn't been true since 2013. We've been locked for so long, we can't even recruit players who started after HoT.

[Roxanne.6140]

@Klipso.8653 said:

@McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:that could leave several worlds with a dwindling population suffering for a long amount of time. This is particularly bad for getting any new players into WvW,

Kinda how BG lost most of it's guilds because they were unable to recruit after being on a locked server for 3 years? We only have 5 active guilds left and we still can't recruit new players.

I know the running propaganda is that we have 50 man blobs on every map 24 hours a day, but that hasn't been true since 2013. We've been locked for so long, we can't even recruit players who started after HoT.

Don't worry now, we know anet knows this and you have their sympathies. The gates of BG will be open soon once again and all who stands outside willbe binded once and for all

[ThunderPanda.1872]

@Klipso.8653 said:

@McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:that could leave several worlds with a dwindling population suffering for a long amount of time. This is particularly bad for getting any new players into WvW,

Kinda how BG lost most of it's guilds because they were unable to recruit after being on a locked server for 3 years? We only have 5 active guilds left and we still can't recruit new players.

I know the running propaganda is that we have 50 man blobs on every map 24 hours a day, but that hasn't been true since 2013. We've been locked for so long, we can't even recruit players who started after HoT.

Kind of like how they killed JQ. Solving population balance by artificially induced implosion.

[Seffen.2875]

@"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:Thanks for creating a thread discussing one point of the FAQ. This is what we were hoping would happen when we posted it.

There are several reasons we don’t believe merging is better than linking.

1. The biggest reason is worlds would end up where they were before linking, with the tiers having very different populations as time goes on. Then in the future, if we have less worlds, we might not be able to merge worlds again for a long time and that could leave several worlds with a dwindling population suffering for a long amount of time. This is particularly bad for getting any new players into WvW, because if they are on a world with a low population than they are more likely to never play. It also makes it more difficult to add new content or balance WvW the further the populations are apart.

Yes. This one is right and really hard to solve. A question on that Topic: Do you still try to normalize Population within one Tier? At least that is what i know. Is it possible to normalize Population across all tiers? So every Server has almost the same Population in the end. Is that making sense anyhow?

2. The culture, identity, and community point goes both ways. Linking can cause server communities to clash but if we were to merge worlds than some would argue we are removing their culture, identity, and community when we merge them with a host world. Essentially all “guest” worlds would no longer exist. I think both points are valid, this is just one of the many reasons it is not easy to find a solution to the population problems. Linking isn’t perfect when it comes to preserving identity but we feel like it helped preserve it better than some of the other options like merging.

I ask myself, what would be the longterm outcome? Because if you Keep the linking this will always stay the same. But if you merge it will fade after some months. Sometimes it is worth risking something on the short run to get better outcome on the Long run. (though i am pretty sure you know what it feels like to get **** on for something which turns out right in the end.) One Thing that could be done is a whole new Name for the merged Server. So at least it feels "fair" for both the smaller and the bigger Server.

3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.

I can understand this but i think you are making the wrong assumptions. I do not think that People are questioning the linking System on itself. I am pretty sure everyone is able to understand, that the linking was needed to Balance out the matches. I think it is really rather the changing of Partners and the smaller Server beeing smaller. These things would be actually solved by merging. A lot of People ranting here are just not able to articulate fittingly what they want.

Also to explain why we world link every 2 months, that was mostly determined by a poll we held. 27% of people who voted for an option wanted linking to happen monthly and the other 73% wanted it to be more than a month (there were several options and the 73% were split up between those options). We determined 2 months seemed fair based off of these results since majority wanted longer than 1 month but 1 month had the most votes of the options. We also felt like we could not do monthly since glicko did not adjust fast enough, but now that we use 1 up 1 down that isn’t a problem. We are open to changing how frequently or infrequently we link, I just wanted to explain how 2 month links were determined.

A(aaaaaaa)h(hhhhhhhh). This one. this one is an Argument i really do not want to take into account anymore. This one was before the linking. Things have changed since then. A lot. The poll Held back then is not representative anymore. Either do a new one. (i can understand if you do not since they always carry a lot of aftermath with them) or stop quoting this one.This is pretty much saying you: Yeah this did not turned out like you wanted it but hey you wanted it so we will Keep it. Instead of: OK. You were wrong. We know. You know it now as well. Let's look Forward.

I suggest you try anothe poll. A poll that is a bit bigger. trying to come up with a bigger and more complete Picture of the whole Situation. I would gladly invest a lot of my spare time in it. Too bad i am not good at computing.If you communicate it the right way, this could be a huge deal.

i just wish we can all together solve this Situation.

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

@"Seffen.2875" said:Yes. This one is right and really hard to solve. A question on that Topic: Do you still try to normalize Population within one Tier? At least that is what i know. Is it possible to normalize Population across all tiers? So every Server has almost the same Population in the end. Is that making sense anyhow?We try and normalize the population across the whole region. Tier teams are not fixed and so we need to try and get population as close across the board as we can.I ask myself, what would be the longterm outcome? Because if you Keep the linking this will always stay the same. But if you merge it will fade after some months. Sometimes it is worth risking something on the short run to get better outcome on the Long run. (though i am pretty sure you know what it feels like to get ** on for something which turns out right in the end.) One Thing that could be done is a whole new Name for the merged Server. So at least it feels "fair" for both the smaller and the bigger Server.There maybe some long term benefit to merging in server identity as people get used to being part of the new server. Long term this makes the problem of keeping worlds balanced hard as we have fewer pieces to move around. Server transfers with still be a thing so players and guilds will want to move around. Over time this will cause the same imbalance we see in the worlds now accept we wont have small worlds like we have now to move them around to help even things out. If server populations had stagnated the links would never change and would effectively be "merged"I can understand this but i think you are making the wrong assumptions. I do not think that People are questioning the linking System on itself. I am pretty sure everyone is able to understand, that the linking was needed to Balance out the matches. I think it is really rather the changing of Partners and the smaller Server beeing smaller. These things would be actually solved by merging. A lot of People ranting here are just not able to articulate fittingly what they want.There are people who question the links every time we do them. Every time links change it is because server population status since the last link have changed and so worlds need to be shuffled. I think the topic would grow stale rather then solve anything.A(aaaaaaa)h(hhhhhhhh). This one. this one is an Argument i really do not want to take into account anymore. This one was before** the linking. Things have changed since then. A lot. The poll Held back then is not representative anymore. Either do a new one. (i can understand if you do not since they always carry a lot of aftermath with them) or stop quoting this one.This is pretty much saying you: Yeah this did not turned out like you wanted it but hey you wanted it so we will Keep it. Instead of: OK. You were wrong. We know. You know it now as well. Let's look Forward.We quote this poll because that is why the time period was picked. While my sample size isn't as large as that poll (it does span worlds, and regions) I can tell you there is still a lot of division on the topic. A lot of it has to do with what kind of world you play on. People on linked servers tend to have a different opinion then ones on host worlds etc. I'm curious what you think the link time frame should be.I suggest you try anothe poll. A poll that is a bit bigger. trying to come up with a bigger and more complete Picture of the whole Situation. I would gladly invest a lot of my spare time in it. Too bad i am not good at computing.I'm not sure what you mean here. What would a bigger poll look like?If you communicate it the right way, this could be a huge deal.i just wish we can all together solve this Situation.I agree.

[Swagger.1459]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"Seffen.2875" said:Yes. This one is right and really hard to solve. A question on that Topic: Do you still try to normalize Population within one Tier? At least that is what i know. Is it possible to normalize Population across all tiers? So every Server has almost the same Population in the end. Is that making sense anyhow?We try and normalize the population across the whole region. Tier teams are not fixed and so we need to try and get population as close across the board as we can.I ask myself, what would be the longterm outcome? Because if you Keep the linking this will always stay the same. But if you merge it will fade after some months. Sometimes it is worth risking something on the short run to get better outcome on the Long run. (though i am pretty sure you know what it feels like to get

** on for something which turns out right in the end.) One Thing that could be done is a whole new Name for the merged Server. So at least it feels "fair" for both the smaller and the bigger Server.There maybe some long term benefit to merging in server identity as people get used to being part of the new server. Long term this makes the problem of keeping worlds balanced hard as we have fewer pieces to move around. Server transfers with still be a thing so players and guilds will want to move around. Over time this will cause the same imbalance we see in the worlds now accept we wont have small worlds like we have now to move them around to help even things out. If server populations had stagnated the links would never change and would effectively be "merged"I can understand this but i think you are making the wrong assumptions. I do not think that People are questioning the linking System on itself. I am pretty sure everyone is able to understand, that the linking was needed to Balance out the matches. I think it is really rather the changing of Partners and the smaller Server beeing smaller. These things would be actually solved by merging. A lot of People ranting here are just not able to articulate fittingly what they want.There are people who question the links every time we do them. Every time links change it is because server population status since the last link have changed and so worlds need to be shuffled. I think the topic would grow stale rather then solve anything.A(aaaaaaa)h(hhhhhhhh). This one. this one is an Argument i really do not want to take into account anymore. This one was

before** the linking. Things have changed since then. A lot. The poll Held back then is not representative anymore. Either do a new one. (i can understand if you do not since they always carry a lot of aftermath with them) or stop quoting this one.This is pretty much saying you: Yeah this did not turned out like you wanted it but hey you wanted it so we will Keep it. Instead of: OK. You were wrong. We know. You know it now as well. Let's look Forward.We quote this poll because that is why the time period was picked. While my sample size isn't as large as that poll (it does span worlds, and regions) I can tell you there is still a lot of division on the topic. A lot of it has to do with what kind of world you play on. People on linked servers tend to have a different opinion then ones on host worlds etc. I'm curious what you think the link time frame should be.I suggest you try anothe poll. A poll that is a bit bigger. trying to come up with a bigger and more complete Picture of the whole Situation. I would gladly invest a lot of my spare time in it. Too bad i am not good at computing.I'm not sure what you mean here. What would a bigger poll look like?If you communicate it the right way, this could be a huge deal.i just wish we can all together solve this Situation.I agree.

Sir Lukes, I have some amazing solutions to share!

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/20653/re-wvw-faq-factions-a-solution-that-solves-all-the-issues#latest

[Loosmaster.8263]

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"Seffen.2875" said:Yes. This one is right and really hard to solve. A question on that Topic: Do you still try to normalize Population within one Tier? At least that is what i know. Is it possible to normalize Population across all tiers? So every Server has almost the same Population in the end. Is that making sense anyhow?We try and normalize the population across the whole region. Tier teams are not fixed and so we need to try and get population as close across the board as we can.I ask myself, what would be the longterm outcome? Because if you Keep the linking this will always stay the same. But if you merge it will fade after some months. Sometimes it is worth risking something on the short run to get better outcome on the Long run. (though i am pretty sure you know what it feels like to get

** on for something which turns out right in the end.) One Thing that could be done is a whole new Name for the merged Server. So at least it feels "fair" for both the smaller and the bigger Server.There maybe some long term benefit to merging in server identity as people get used to being part of the new server. Long term this makes the problem of keeping worlds balanced hard as we have fewer pieces to move around. Server transfers with still be a thing so players and guilds will want to move around. Over time this will cause the same imbalance we see in the worlds now accept we wont have small worlds like we have now to move them around to help even things out. If server populations had stagnated the links would never change and would effectively be "merged"I can understand this but i think you are making the wrong assumptions. I do not think that People are questioning the linking System on itself. I am pretty sure everyone is able to understand, that the linking was needed to Balance out the matches. I think it is really rather the changing of Partners and the smaller Server beeing smaller. These things would be actually solved by merging. A lot of People ranting here are just not able to articulate fittingly what they want.There are people who question the links every time we do them. Every time links change it is because server population status since the last link have changed and so worlds need to be shuffled. I think the topic would grow stale rather then solve anything.A(aaaaaaa)h(hhhhhhhh). This one. this one is an Argument i really do not want to take into account anymore. This one was

before** the linking. Things have changed since then. A lot. The poll Held back then is not representative anymore. Either do a new one. (i can understand if you do not since they always carry a lot of aftermath with them) or stop quoting this one.This is pretty much saying you: Yeah this did not turned out like you wanted it but hey you wanted it so we will Keep it. Instead of: OK. You were wrong. We know. You know it now as well. Let's look Forward.We quote this poll because that is why the time period was picked. While my sample size isn't as large as that poll (it does span worlds, and regions) I can tell you there is still a lot of division on the topic. A lot of it has to do with what kind of world you play on. People on linked servers tend to have a different opinion then ones on host worlds etc. I'm curious what you think the link time frame should be.I suggest you try anothe poll. A poll that is a bit bigger. trying to come up with a bigger and more complete Picture of the whole Situation. I would gladly invest a lot of my spare time in it. Too bad i am not good at computing.I'm not sure what you mean here. What would a bigger poll look like?If you communicate it the right way, this could be a huge deal.i just wish we can all together solve this Situation.I agree.

Sir Lukes, I have some amazing solutions to share!

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/20653/re-wvw-faq-factions-a-solution-that-solves-all-the-issues#latest

GW3 will be out before that happens...