WvW insane matchup

[MarkBecks.6453]

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:Welcome to “bandwagoning after relinking”. Happens every relink.

I honestly think the linking rotation is to long, and a shorter link-up will reduce the imbalances albeit temporary. If linking was reduced to 3 week rotation, then even if people went by their droves bandwagoning, the damage would be temporary, and would never give enough time to allow 1 dominating server at the top. The frustration, anger is real, and this causes players to leave the game, especially when all you can muster is 5 or 6 charrs against a 40 man faceroll blob on a BL. Temporary solutions are far better than no solutions, and that's my opinion.

[Voltekka.2375]

Just look at what happened with Dzagonur, its overstacked. ZERO interest in the matchup (T1 eu), one server already gave up. People i know already left the game. More will follow.

[Doug.4930]

Why not just implement a system that prevents stacking to the lesser populated link in order to stack with the populated server.

For instance if server A is stacked and thus full with a huge WvW population that does not allow any transfers to it, then its link server B should also be marked as full, thus preventing everyone bandwagoning to server B in order to play on server A

[Dayra.7405]

Welcome to https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/82410/should-the-transfer-system-be-fixed ;)

@Voltekka.2375 said:Just look at what happened with Dzagonur, its overstacked. ZERO interest in the matchup (T1 eu), one server already gave up. People i know already left the game. More will follow.

But, to be realistic: T1 is just upset, that's it's own overstacking, got overstacked even further, or not? ;)Next week Aurora-RS will take over another T1 place, don't worry you will be only in T1 every 2nd week then till next relink+mass-transfer :)

[Dawdler.8521]

@MarkBecks.6453 said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:Welcome to “bandwagoning after relinking”. Happens every relink.

I honestly think the linking rotation is to long, and a shorter link-up will reduce the imbalances albeit temporary. If linking was reduced to 3 week rotation, then even if people went by their droves bandwagoning, the damage would be temporary, and would never give enough time to allow 1 dominating server at the top. The frustration, anger is real, and this causes players to leave the game, especially when all you can muster is 5 or 6 charrs against a 40 man faceroll blob on a BL. Temporary solutions are far better than no solutions, and that's my opinion.

Not gonna happen, because its detrimental to WvW for the exact same reason bandwagoning is. Shorter than 2 months just isnt enough for servers to settle into the new links and where they end up in the tiers, while longer periods are just... too long because nobody wants to be stuck somewhere for what feels like forever. 2 months is a compromise between technical reasons and stagnation.

[Sovereign.1093]

too many tiers is the problem. :/ there should only be 1 2 or 3; so eotm will have a use too. and more stable servers for us to wvw in. EXTERMINATE

[Dayra.7405]

@Dawdler.8521 said:Not gonna happen, because its detrimental to WvW for the exact same reason bandwagoning is. Shorter than 2 months just isnt enough for servers to settle into the new links and where they end up in the tiers, while longer periods are just... too long because nobody wants to be stuck somewhere for what feels like forever. 2 months is a compromise between technical reasons and stagnation.

But that's only the case, because ANet does the post-relink matchmaking via (confused irrelevant Glicko+) Random. If they would instead make the matches based on the link-population they compute to do the linking, re-link could be every week.

Also the reduction of tiers which is already overdue would speed up settling.

[Dayra.7405]

@Sovereign.1093 said:too many tiers is the problem. :/ there should only be 1 2 or 3; so eotm will have a use too. and more stable servers for us to wvw in. EXTERMINATE

Just 1 tier with: Int vs DE vs FR+ES and EotM (without color-binding to wvw) with PIPS and EB-Map (as alternativ choice to EotM-map) added would be cool :)

[geist.4126]

No thanks to 3 tiers only. I don't want to sit in queue 30 minutes or longer every day. I prefer to be able to map jump with a group if needed.Easy solution: Don't stack your servers and follow some guild around. You won't have a better experience by that.

[Sovereign.1093]

@geist.4126 said:No thanks to 3 tiers only. I don't want to sit in queue 30 minutes or longer every day. I prefer to be able to map jump with a group if needed.Easy solution: Don't stack your servers and follow some guild around. You won't have a better experience by that.

it hasnt even happened yet.

and in t4 not much really happens here.3 tiers or less.

[Dayra.7405]

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@geist.4126 said:No thanks to 3 tiers only. I don't want to sit in queue 30 minutes or longer every day. I prefer to be able to map jump with a group if needed.Easy solution: Don't stack your servers and follow some guild around. You won't have a better experience by that.

it hasnt even happened yet.

and in t4 not much really happens here.3 tiers or less.

You should add NA or EU, if your talking about tiers as they are different.EU-T5 is clearly superfluous. 4 tiers for EU would be enough, but 3 probably to much queue without EotM with Pips.I've no idea for NA

[Sovereign.1093]

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@geist.4126 said:No thanks to 3 tiers only. I don't want to sit in queue 30 minutes or longer every day. I prefer to be able to map jump with a group if needed.Easy solution: Don't stack your servers and follow some guild around. You won't have a better experience by that.

it hasnt even happened yet.

and in t4 not much really happens here.3 tiers or less.

You should add NA or EU, if your talking about tiers as they are different.EU-T5 is clearly superfluous. 4 tiers for EU would be enough, but 3 probably to much queue without EotM with Pips.I've no idea for NAmmm

no clue about eu now too. =/ but so far cd and yb probably are tanking

[shiri.4257]

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@geist.4126 said:No thanks to 3 tiers only. I don't want to sit in queue 30 minutes or longer every day. I prefer to be able to map jump with a group if needed.Easy solution: Don't stack your servers and follow some guild around. You won't have a better experience by that.

it hasnt even happened yet.

and in t4 not much really happens here.3 tiers or less.

You should add NA or EU, if your talking about tiers as they are different.EU-T5 is clearly superfluous. 4 tiers for EU would be enough, but 3 probably to much queue without EotM with Pips.I've no idea for NAmmm

no clue about eu now too. =/ but so far cd and yb probably are tanking

yes, we're tanking to t5.

[Sovereign.1093]

@shiri.4257 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@geist.4126 said:No thanks to 3 tiers only. I don't want to sit in queue 30 minutes or longer every day. I prefer to be able to map jump with a group if needed.Easy solution: Don't stack your servers and follow some guild around. You won't have a better experience by that.

it hasnt even happened yet.

and in t4 not much really happens here.3 tiers or less.

You should add NA or EU, if your talking about tiers as they are different.EU-T5 is clearly superfluous. 4 tiers for EU would be enough, but 3 probably to much queue without EotM with Pips.I've no idea for NAmmm

no clue about eu now too. =/ but so far cd and yb probably are tanking

yes, we're tanking to t5.

ok. t4 fights are indeed fun. but i can respect that.

[Dayra.7405]

@shiri.4257 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@geist.4126 said:No thanks to 3 tiers only. I don't want to sit in queue 30 minutes or longer every day. I prefer to be able to map jump with a group if needed.Easy solution: Don't stack your servers and follow some guild around. You won't have a better experience by that.

it hasnt even happened yet.

and in t4 not much really happens here.3 tiers or less.

You should add NA or EU, if your talking about tiers as they are different.EU-T5 is clearly superfluous. 4 tiers for EU would be enough, but 3 probably to much queue without EotM with Pips.I've no idea for NAmmm

no clue about eu now too. =/ but so far cd and yb probably are tanking

yes, we're tanking to t5.

If you loose NA-T4 you come to EU-T5? :) I must have missed that in the release Notes :)

[Sovereign.1093]

@Dayra.7405 said:

@shiri.4257 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@geist.4126 said:No thanks to 3 tiers only. I don't want to sit in queue 30 minutes or longer every day. I prefer to be able to map jump with a group if needed.Easy solution: Don't stack your servers and follow some guild around. You won't have a better experience by that.

it hasnt even happened yet.

and in t4 not much really happens here.3 tiers or less.

You should add NA or EU, if your talking about tiers as they are different.EU-T5 is clearly superfluous. 4 tiers for EU would be enough, but 3 probably to much queue without EotM with Pips.I've no idea for NAmmm

no clue about eu now too. =/ but so far cd and yb probably are tanking

yes, we're tanking to t5.

If you loose NA-T4 you come to EU-T5? :) I must have missed that in the release Notes :)

mmm... mix all servers.

[Cambeleg.7632]

Wait, what? Someone complaining against the marvelous "linking system"?

No no no, sir. Game mode is fine, nothing wrong in the calculations and manual links.

Nothing to see here, moving oooooon!

[SkyShroud.2865]

I support more people complaining about population balance.Personally I gave up. You guys shouldn't, keep complaining! You must be heard!

[shiri.4257]

@"Cambeleg.7632" said:Wait, what? Someone complaining against the marvelous "linking system"?

No no no, sir. Game mode is fine, nothing wrong in the calculations and manual links.

Nothing to see here, moving oooooon!

It's not that there's something wrong with the linking system. It's that all the other suggested systems are even more flawed. The system that might be less flawed is just the 1 tier -3 faction system. but then what's to stop a wvw population of beta males from bandwagoning onto the same faction?

[Sovereign.1093]

@shiri.4257 said:

@"Cambeleg.7632" said:Wait, what? Someone complaining against the marvelous "linking system"?

No no no, sir. Game mode is fine, nothing wrong in the calculations and manual links.

Nothing to see here, moving oooooon!

It's not that there's something wrong with the linking system. It's that all the other suggested systems are even more flawed. The system that might be less flawed is just the 1 tier -3 faction system. but then what's to stop a wvw population of beta males from bandwagoning onto the same faction?

well not all players can assume the male role - (big bang theory).

[Cambeleg.7632]

@shiri.4257 said:

It's not that there's something wrong with the linking system. It's that all the other suggested systems are even more flawed. The system that might be less flawed is just the 1 tier -3 faction system. but then what's to stop a wvw population of beta males from bandwagoning onto the same faction?

I was being ironic, Shiri. The linking system was a very very very bad idea since beginning, and time proved it. Alliances will be another failure, 'cos it drinks from the same waters than the linking system... and time will prove it again.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Cambeleg.7632 said:

@shiri.4257 said:

It's not that there's something wrong with the linking system. It's that all the other suggested systems are even more flawed. The system that might be less flawed is just the 1 tier -3 faction system. but then what's to stop a wvw population of beta males from bandwagoning onto the same faction?

I was being ironic, Shiri. The linking system was a very very very bad idea since beginning, and time proved it. Alliances will be another failure, 'cos it drinks from the same waters than the linking system... and time will prove it again.

Not gonna argue about linking being bad. My preference would have been contraction but that wasn’t something that Anet and many (no clue as to majority or not) wanted.

And alliance’s of course drinks from the same waters as linking.... Because the waters are the current player pool as assigned to servers.

Time will prove that WvW is dying. But more in the sense of once something becomes ‘alive’ by definition it is in the process of dying.

Population with wane gradually, some will leave because of alliances, some will come back (likely less then the numbers that go) but the population pools for each ‘season’ will be somewhat more predictable. At least until people figure out how to game it on a large scale.

[shiri.4257]

@Cambeleg.7632 said:

@shiri.4257 said:

It's not that there's something wrong with the linking system. It's that all the other suggested systems are even more flawed. The system that might be less flawed is just the 1 tier -3 faction system. but then what's to stop a wvw population of beta males from bandwagoning onto the same faction?

I was being ironic, Shiri. The linking system was a very very very bad idea since beginning, and time proved it. Alliances will be another failure, 'cos it drinks from the same waters than the linking system... and time will prove it again.

why was it bad? did you prefer glicko lock and stack?

strider hits it on point. population after the first year usually wanes. for wvw to have lasted beyond 5 years is a testament to the game design and adjustments that have been made.

[SWI.4127]

Well I think even Anet has acknowledged that their links system is broken - that's why they're working on alliances. In the meantime though, I think NA should shrink to 3 tiers. Most servers have maybe one queue during NA prime these days. I personally think they should just do away with links and have 9 servers, 3 tiers - just as a band-aid fix until alliances actually come out.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

@Doug.4930 said:Why not just implement a system that prevents stacking to the lesser populated link in order to stack with the populated server.

For instance if server A is stacked and thus full with a huge WvW population that does not allow any transfers to it, then its link server B should also be marked as full, thus preventing everyone bandwagoning to server B in order to play on server A

In theory this work, but it really has nothing to do with numbers; it's playtime. In the NA T1 match-up (for the sake of not naming servers and making it a match-up thread), the blue side actually has far more numbers on their side than green (the server everyone thinks is stacked). Blue has way more people, they just don't play all the time. They raid 1-2 nights a week and call it a day.

It's almost impossible to align playtime because it's a player mentality thing. Many players it seems have no interest in playing outside their guild raid times. That's not Anet's fault.