Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Why did servers even get linked to begin with?


Zefrost.3425

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

@Dralor.3701 said:I agree it isn’t sustainable but I believe a lot of people have used it as a scapegoat for other issues.

Hopefully the restructuring helps.

Well the impact is undeniable, but there have also been many other issues as well so its not just linking.

And restructuring is another godawful mess that will just make it even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Elva.6372 said:

@Adamarc.7463 said:...because Heart of Thorns decimated the WvW population...

How so, in what way? Was it the change of map designs? If so, I missed the old maps, too.

There were several factors. Desert bl was very badly designed and many of us hated it. All 3 alpine maps were replaced by dbl so the only way to escape it was to play on eb which meant waiting in queues. The tactics were poorly balanced and over the top. Anet basically stayed silent and did nothing about WvW for over 6 months. Upgrading guild halls was/is a nightmare, upgrades your guild already had unlocked pre-hot were taken away and locked behind massive gold/mat grinds and timegating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Swagger.1459" said:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Additional-World-Linking-Information

“We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks, world linking, and the return of the Alpine borderlands. On top of that, we use a fairly long historical tail on WvW activity level for world population purposes.”

That was 2 years ago. Population has declined by a lot since then apart from a brief upsurge with the WvW armour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dralor.3701 said:

@Dralor.3701 said:Worse or different?

Both

I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@morrolan.9608 said:

@"Swagger.1459" said:

“We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks, world linking, and the return of the Alpine borderlands. On top of that, we use a fairly long historical tail on WvW activity level for world population purposes.”

That was 2 years ago. Population has declined by a lot since then apart from a brief upsurge with the WvW armour.

I was answering the question “Why did servers even get linked to begin with?”, and rebutting the “vocal minority” comment.

We also don’t know how the populations differ from then and now, and linking doesn’t matter anyway since it’s going to change to Alliances. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@X T D.6458 said:

@Dralor.3701 said:Worse or different?

Both

I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

That is quite a bit of speculation, entirely possible but that sounds more like a worse case scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dralor.3701 said:

@Dralor.3701 said:Worse or different?

Both

I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

That is quite a bit of speculation, entirely possible but that sounds more like a worse case scenario.

Believe me when I say I hope I am wrong, I really do. I would much rather have a lively and healthy WvW then being able to say I told you so.

I have been a fan of the Guild Wars franchise for many years and I really like Anet, I may disagree with them at times but they are a solid company and their Devs can be incredibly innovative and creative when they really focus on something. I am continuously impressed with the stuff they come up with. So while I may not be a fan of this idea, I do have some faith that it might someday be successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Taygus.4571 said:

@"Sovereign.1093" said:^hope they implement it soon.

As do most WvW players.

Pretty sure its not coming soon. Rumour has it as being "sometime next year" now.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about how soon it would be coming.

Hoping is a different matter.

I'm pretty sure I was responding to all the people who are hoping its coming soon - and as such are completely misguided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, a side note, it isn't the vocal minority ruining WvW, it is the majority that is ruining WvW.The minority got ignored for years, their warnings and complains fall on deaf ears. It is only when WvW obviously become dead enough, their feedbacks suddenly become insightful.

Bandwagoning and stacking alike are caused by the majority. Majority like big fights and easy wins. I must emphasis, easy wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Btw, a side note, it isn't the vocal minority ruining WvW, it is the majority that is ruining WvW.The minority got ignored for years, their warnings and complains fall on deaf ears. It is only when WvW obviously become dead enough, their feedbacks suddenly become insightful.

Bandwagoning and stacking alike are caused by the majority. Majority like big fights and easy wins. I must emphasis, easy wins.

Many of us have always been more interested in fights as opposed to ktraining or steamrolling our opponents with superior numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dralor.3701 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Btw, a side note, it isn't the vocal minority ruining WvW, it is the majority that is ruining WvW.The minority got ignored for years, their warnings and complains fall on deaf ears. It is only when WvW obviously become dead enough, their feedbacks suddenly become insightful.

Bandwagoning and stacking alike are caused by the majority. Majority like big fights and easy wins. I must emphasis, easy wins.

Many of us have always been more interested in fights as opposed to ktraining or steamrolling our opponents with superior numbers.

Ironically, that what's happen when you stack servers, Stacked servers steam roll non-stacked servers or servers with lesser coverage. Furthermore, stacked servers have way more experienced players compare to other servers. By stacking server, one is accelerating the depopulation of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Btw, a side note, it isn't the vocal minority ruining WvW, it is the majority that is ruining WvW.The minority got ignored for years, their warnings and complains fall on deaf ears. It is only when WvW obviously become dead enough, their feedbacks suddenly become insightful.

Bandwagoning and stacking alike are caused by the majority. Majority like big fights and easy wins. I must emphasis, easy wins.

Many of us have always been more interested in fights as opposed to ktraining or steamrolling our opponents with superior numbers.

Ironically, that what's happen when you stack servers, Stacked servers steam roll non-stacked servers or servers with lesser coverage. Furthermore, stacked servers have way more experienced players compare to other servers. By stacking server, one is accelerating the depopulation of the game.

I agree, what happened in T1 was pretty bad. Just saying a lot of people also transferred out of T1 and think have been enjoying the fights in T2-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@X T D.6458 said:

@Dralor.3701 said:Worse or different?

Both

I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Waffle.3748 said:

@Dralor.3701 said:Worse or different?

Both

I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post).

This is from the original post on restructuring:"Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon."

The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@X T D.6458 said:

@Dralor.3701 said:Worse or different?

Both

I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post).

This is from the original post on restructuring:"Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon."

The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap.

Right, so you would still be limited by the number of players in the alliance and the alliance is not the whole world that will be created. I think the big guild thing is what many servers will be doing, nothing new there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@X T D.6458 said:

@Dralor.3701 said:Worse or different?

Both

I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post).

This is from the original post on restructuring:"Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon."

The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap.

That is true to a point. But if an alliance number has a hard cap of let's say 500, and a 501st player tries to join, i would imagine (though I don't know) it will likely lead to a choice: the guild leaves the alliance, or that player would not be in the alliance OR guaranteed to run with their WvW guild until matchups change and people leave the guild/alliance.

One thing is much more likely; alliance leaders will wield a large amount of 'power' and guild leaders may use repping as a larger indicator of who stays in the guild.

If the 'alliance cap' isn't a hard cap, then they are wasting their time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Waffle.3748 said:

@Dralor.3701 said:Worse or different?

Both

I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win.

Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits.

Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits.

The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post).

This is from the original post on restructuring:"Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon."

The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap.

Right, so you would still be limited by the number of players in the alliance and the alliance is not the whole world that will be created. I think the big guild thing is what many servers will be doing, nothing new there.

Its more of an organizational issue. And the population caps might not be an issue at all, or it could we will see. Personally I don't see like the guild cap, I am fine with the population cap, but the issue with having to mark a guild as your wvw guild and have a small cap per alliance really bugs me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...