Combining Dead WvW Servers into One Server

[akm.9738]

I feel we should combine our dead WvW servers into one server; i.e. Jade Quarry and Maguuma becoming one. But that's just my personal opinion.

[Crius.5487]

That would put us back into the same situation as before the links when a mass number of guilds start transferring servers. Guilds do still transfer so probably better to keep it as it is until we get the alliances system.

[LordEnki.9283]

@Crius.5487 said:That would put us back into the same situation as before the links when a mass number of guilds start transferring servers. Guilds do still transfer so probably better to keep it as it is until we get the alliances system.

This, plus we would just end up with a single tier as dead as the game mode is . I exaggerate, but it's pretty bad out there population wise even on T1 a lot of times.

[SkyShroud.2865]

That's the purpose of linking isn't it? It is glorified version of merging with flexibility to throw things around when need to.

[Justine.6351]

If you put a bunch of dead servers together it will just be a lot of random bads getting farmed and the server will remain dead.

[Trajan.4953]

This game mode is basically dead. Alliances may save it but I have my doubts

[jamesdolla.3954]

Maguuma +CD + DR. 3 dead servers in 1

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Justine.6351 said:If you put a bunch of dead servers together it will just be a lot of random bads getting farmed and the server will remain dead.

^ This.

Then those random bads will leave the game..

[clone wars.9568]

@akm.9738 said:I feel we should combine our dead WvW servers into one server; i.e. Jade Quarry and Maguuma becoming one. But that's just my personal opinion.

I've been saying this for FIVE YEARS! Anet made too many servers, to begin with, because they were guessing how popular the game would be. That's fine but once you know the numbers and they should be re-organizing them. At the same time, the lower wvw servers were falling apart increasingly. All Anet had to do was delete 1 server per wvw tier to help wvw game mode. Instead of taking this simple solution Anet dragged their feet for 5 years+. 50% of the main wvw pop has vanished and not being replaced with new players purely because of Anets bad management skills on server numbers. It's clear ANET want to push people to PVP or PVE and close down wvw game mode. This idea has cost the ten of thousands of players who do not and will not go to pve/pvp instead of wvw, Which in turn will have cost ANET a lot of money in gemsales.

[Widmo.3186]

• Create X servers
• Stop making any WvW events and developing this game-mode
• Wonder why ppl stopped playing

Idea of synthesis dead servers is pretty good, but wont happen. Just wait for alliance (soon™).

[Frozen Peace.4930]

@clone wars.9568 said:

@akm.9738 said:I feel we should combine our dead WvW servers into one server; i.e. Jade Quarry and Maguuma becoming one. But that's just my personal opinion.

I've been saying this for FIVE YEARS! Anet made too many servers, to begin with, because they were guessing how popular the game would be. That's fine but once you know the numbers and they should be re-organizing them. At the same time, the lower wvw servers were falling apart increasingly. All Anet had to do was delete 1 server per wvw tier to help wvw game mode. Instead of taking this simple solution Anet dragged their feet for 5 years+. 50% of the main wvw pop has vanished and not being replaced with new players purely because of Anets bad management skills on server numbers. It's clear ANET want to push people to PVP or PVE and close down wvw game mode. This idea has cost the ten of thousands of players who do not and will not go to pve/pvp instead of wvw, Which in turn will have cost ANET a lot of money in gemsales.

Like Crius said, people and guilds transfer for many different reasons. Thus, deleting servers will somewhat help population situation at the beginning but actually exacerbate the situation later because you will end up with several full or very high pop servers and some dead servers; and there is no way to balance the situation.

On the other hand, having numerous servers gives Anet at least some leverage to balance the WvW every 2 months since there are people who will not leave their home servers to bandwagon. We could change it to 3 tiers instead of 4, but we could probably see crazy que numbers and people won't be able play WvW when they want to.

Having said that, I think the upcoming alliance system offers most flexibility and leverage to Anet in regards to balancing WvW population situation.

[DeWolfe.2174]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:Then those random bads will leave the game..

It's more like that all that's left.

[clone wars.9568]

@Frozen Peace.4930 said:

@clone wars.9568 said:

@"akm.9738" said:I feel we should combine our dead WvW servers into one server; i.e. Jade Quarry and Maguuma becoming one. But that's just my personal opinion.

I've been saying this for FIVE YEARS! Anet made too many servers, to begin with, because they were guessing how popular the game would be. That's fine but once you know the numbers and they should be re-organizing them. At the same time, the lower wvw servers were falling apart increasingly. All Anet had to do was delete 1 server per wvw tier to help wvw game mode. Instead of taking this simple solution Anet dragged their feet for 5 years+. 50% of the main wvw pop has vanished and not being replaced with new players purely because of Anets bad management skills on server numbers. It's clear ANET want to push people to PVP or PVE and close down wvw game mode. This idea has cost the ten of thousands of players who do not and will not go to pve/pvp instead of wvw, Which in turn will have cost ANET a lot of money in gemsales.

Like Crius said, people and guilds transfer for many different reasons. Thus, deleting servers will somewhat help population situation at the beginning but actually exacerbate the situation later because you will end up with several full or very high pop servers and some dead servers; and there is no way to balance the situation.

On the other hand, having numerous servers gives Anet at least some leverage to balance the WvW every 2 months since there are people who will not leave their home servers to bandwagon. We could change it to 3 tiers instead of 4, but we could probably see crazy que numbers and people won't be able play WvW when they want to.

Having said that, I think the upcoming alliance system offers most flexibility and leverage to Anet in regards to balancing WvW population situation.

Complete rubbish! If they had done what I said (delete the bottom server 1 per tier) then we would have had a far more balanced situation. Granted if all went well reset night would be packed. But even then that could make it more exciting not knowing which guilds/people could get in the maps for each side. Most of the issues were not reset nights anyways, its coverage weekdays that lacked players. Taking out the bottom tiers WOULD have 100% solved that issue (of numbers). Anet could have at least tired that idea out, instead the choice to go with "pairing" which never worked. Because it wasn't a perma situation servers didn't even bother working together when n the same teams no sharing of voice comms for the most part they stayed on their servers own voice comms and acted independently. FAIL.

Now again ANET going to try another option instead of perma servers they want worlds which I will tell you right now is 100% doomed to fail. It will not only remove the server pride and the main reason a lot of people played the game mode in the first place. It will, in the end, restrict guilds to A. only being wvw guilds B. having to kick members who have been inactive for shorter time periods (because of reduced ally membership numbers allowed). C. It will also prevent people from playing with their guilds at peak times in the world (again because of total ally members allowed in one map). So it will kill guilds as well. The SIMPLE solution is normally always the best (deleting bottom servers and merging) But yet again this will not be the path anet takes. Already lost 50% of the active wvw players, expect to see this be the death of wvw.

[Blocki.4931]

That server would be super stacked. So much so that many wouldn't get to play the game at all lol

[Dayra.7405]

Dropping a tier would make sense in EU as well as in NA, but generally it's better for linking to have more smaller server, than larger ones. That's exactly the reason why ANet is working on the Alliance system.

But as usual: Changes take so much to long, when they finally come the situation has changed so much that they fail.

[Swagger.1459]

@akm.9738 said:I feel we should combine our dead WvW servers into one server; i.e. Jade Quarry and Maguuma becoming one. But that's just my personal opinion.

Servers are going away and we are getting Alliances. GL

[Sovereign.1093]

reset guilds every 2 months from their home server. so active players can choose worlds and play vs. 1 tier until full then a new tier. etc.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

Basically what alliances is set to try and accomplish, though it will likely fail. Player mentality needs to change before anything will work. We still have players and guilds over-stacking themselves to avoid any type of even competition, then hiding when numbers are more even. This is happening on about 3 servers at the moment. Maybe it's better to shut those 3 servers down then randomly disperse all those players, then lock those players down from ever transferring again. Then when alliances hit, randomly add those players to whatever alliance and lock them down there from transferring.

You can't fix a system to make things even when we have a bunch of players who have no interest in even competition. The only way to fix it is to impose it on them.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Sovereign.1093 said:reset guilds every 2 months from their home server. so active players can choose worlds and play vs. 1 tier until full then a new tier. etc.

That... is effectively what alliances does.

[joneirikb.7506]

@DeadlySynz.3471 said:Basically what alliances is set to try and accomplish, though it will likely fail. Player mentality needs to change before anything will work. We still have players and guilds over-stacking themselves to avoid any type of even competition, then hiding when numbers are more even. This is happening on about 3 servers at the moment. Maybe it's better to shut those 3 servers down then randomly disperse all those players, then lock those players down from ever transferring again. Then when alliances hit, randomly add those players to whatever alliance and lock them down there from transferring.

You can't fix a system to make things even when we have a bunch of players who have no interest in even competition. The only way to fix it is to impose it on them.

Keep wanting to see what would happen if you make a game rule that divided any rewards/loot/pips etc on the number of players that does something. Basically, make people want to reduce numbers around them in order to barely pull something off to maximize their rewards. While 80 people in a zerg gets like 1/80th of a pip per second for killing 1 enemy player :p

Risk vs Reward

Unfortunately that will never fly with ANet.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

@joneirikb.7506 said:

@DeadlySynz.3471 said:Basically what alliances is set to try and accomplish, though it will likely fail. Player mentality needs to change before anything will work. We still have players and guilds over-stacking themselves to avoid any type of even competition, then hiding when numbers are more even. This is happening on about 3 servers at the moment. Maybe it's better to shut those 3 servers down then randomly disperse all those players, then lock those players down from ever transferring again. Then when alliances hit, randomly add those players to whatever alliance and lock them down there from transferring.

You can't fix a system to make things even when we have a bunch of players who have no interest in even competition. The only way to fix it is to impose it on them.

Keep wanting to see what would happen if you make a game rule that divided any rewards/loot/pips etc on the number of players that does something. Basically, make people want to reduce numbers around them in order to barely pull something off to maximize their rewards. While 80 people in a zerg gets like 1/80th of a pip per second for killing 1 enemy player :p

Risk vs Reward

Unfortunately that will never fly with ANet.

So, forcing everyone to roam or havoc? Dude, that would never fly with the players.

[wey daw ming.5784]

Anet should just start the alliance transition now by taking the bottom 3 servers and the links and add them in the top 9. We dont need 12 servers right now time to start the change.

[joneirikb.7506]

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:

@joneirikb.7506 said:

@"DeadlySynz.3471" said:Basically what alliances is set to try and accomplish, though it will likely fail. Player mentality needs to change before anything will work. We still have players and guilds over-stacking themselves to avoid any type of even competition, then hiding when numbers are more even. This is happening on about 3 servers at the moment. Maybe it's better to shut those 3 servers down then randomly disperse all those players, then lock those players down from ever transferring again. Then when alliances hit, randomly add those players to whatever alliance and lock them down there from transferring.

You can't fix a system to make things even when we have a bunch of players who have no interest in even competition. The only way to fix it is to impose it on them.

Keep wanting to see what would happen if you make a game rule that divided any rewards/loot/pips etc on the number of players that does something. Basically, make people want to reduce numbers around them in order to barely pull something off to maximize their rewards. While 80 people in a zerg gets like 1/80th of a pip per second for killing 1 enemy player :p

Risk vs Reward

Unfortunately that will never fly with ANet.

So, forcing everyone to roam or havoc? Dude, that would never fly

with the players.

True... but just imagine how quick those servers would de-stack ;)

Unfortunately I don't think anything will ever change ANet's "Care-Bear-Rule", that they will never add any negative impact for having more friendly players around. Which means WvW will always remain as it is, with stacking being the best "strategy".

Blowing up servers is just another way of punishing people for playing together (and doing well). But there isn't a whole lot of ways they can encourage players to split up (both for de-stacking servers, de-blobbing, or even run multiple groups of 20 instead of one of 50+), that won't be punishing players for grouping up more players. And as long as this exists, there won't be any solution for server-stacking, no matter how many servers you blow up.

The game already rewards you with better chance to win the match by gaining points, if you split up into many small groups and capture lots of objectives around and behind the enemies one giant zerg, while continually feeding them a few people to kill so they're busy chasing rather than taking buildings. But how many people care about that ? So even if it is strategically smarter to split up into small groups, and actually feed the giant enemy zerg with (slow) kills so they get less efficient, not many wants to play that way.

So how should ANet try to break up this mentality ? I'm just saying that touching the personal rewards is a really fast way of doing that, though it sure wouldn't be popular, and would cross the Care-Bear-Rule, so no go.

/tired-rant

[Trajan.4953]

Easy solution. Bring back old stability. With that comes blob busting groups. Zergs get blown up fast then smaller groups form.

[hunkamania.7561]

stab is fine there's tons of stab application in the game. There's bigger issues like Population imbalance(So many dead timezones and servers), scoring(bad servers like sos and YB in high tiers) and skills still need tuning(range is way more rewarding than melee so it's rev hammers and necro spikes all day)