Is it time for 3 tiers in NA with next re-link

[Optimator.3589]

A reduction in tiers is long past due. But Anet won't listen. Like usual.

[style.6173]

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:What is this gonna accomplish? Like explain your plan. So 6 servers get eliminated? Where we go? No way would a bunch from those 6 coordinate an attempted stack if we get to chose. Is it a free transfer? How you chose which 6 servers? And after it's done what happens? Oh the NA prime has a couple ques now so you feel better. Does it fix the time zone imbalance. The transfer issue. Anything?

Huh. Your message makes no sense. How does reducing the number of tiers eliminate servers? It doesn't.

[RisingDaewn.8703]

@Optimator.3589 said:A reduction in tiers is long past due. But Anet won't listen. Like usual.

Well, we've been asking the same on the EU side too, but here we are still stuck with 5 tiers.

[Sovereign.1093]

basic demand and supply. they can ask in game for what players want and have an ingame poll.

you can have the best quality game out there but if players want something different, then, they will look for something else.

=)

and players wants changes too. so therefore there must be the capability to change every 6 months.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Diku.2546 said:OH!

That's not true imho.

We had a vocal majority that wanted Server Linking.

We gave them Server Linking, but in giving them Server Linking...we un-intentionally killed off our Guest Server Communities.

Then, those vocal majority left to get hamburgers someplace else.

Sorry, I have to disagree that caving into the vocal majority's demands should not have been done. There's another alternative that would have met their demands concerning population in-balance given the lack of resources.

We gave the vocal majority what they wanted...they VOTED for Un-Healthy & Un-Sustainable Zerg parties; and the devastation of these Zerg parties are beginning to sink in.

We damaged the WvW ecosystem...and we're paying for it.

Do I want to take a VOTE by vocal majority again?

Short answer - No.

My true feelings is this:

When you damage an ecosystem...sometimes the right thing to do is to revert it back to what it was before...and hope nature takes hold & finds its course again

Careful planning & nurturing is what's needed afterwards...as a follow-up to ensure the health & viability of the ecosystem returns for the Long-Term.

Yours truly,Diku

Credibility requires critical insight & time.

yes, anet should follow the trend always. if players change mind they should follow or predict it and change every quarter or half annual.

[C Cspace Cowboy.5903]

Another server dropped to medium. 5 high, 1 vh,not for long, and one full, also not for long.

[Gop.8713]

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:

@style.6173 said:

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:What is this gonna accomplish? Like explain your plan. So 6 servers get eliminated? Where we go? No way would a bunch from those 6 coordinate an attempted stack if we get to chose. Is it a free transfer? How you chose which 6 servers? And after it's done what happens? Oh the NA prime has a couple ques now so you feel better. Does it fix the time zone imbalance. The transfer issue. Anything?

Huh. Your message makes no sense. How does reducing the number of tiers eliminate servers? It doesn't.

So you want to double link 6 of the 9? Assuming BG gets one. You make no sense

Double links actually make a lot of sense. It increases the number of shards anet has to play with, so it makes balancing easier. Ofc as mentioned above as long as transfer is permitted balance is a fantasy, as players have demonstrated through their behavior that they are willing to pay to avoid balance . . .

Two tiers makes the most sense to me bc there are only five servers that have managed to maintain their host status uninterrupted since links were introduced . . .

[Sovereign.1093]

transfers should be allowed as long as servers exists.

wvw is 24/7 thats where the imbalance stems cause you cant get 12 x 4 x 300 everyday.

its just not doable unless you decide to have pvp like queue. or have only 3 mega servers.

[Lalary.3561]

Please just no... no more downsizing WvW. If we reduce to three tiers what's guaranteeing that Anet will not kill off more tiers further down the road?The game is already laggy as it is. I do not want to see more blobs and queues everywhere.

[BadMed.3846]

I'm keen to see BG split into 3 servers and put in a tier. The PPT and back-capping warfare will be an amazing spectacle. I'm sure this would be the new tier 1.

[Aeolus.3615]

N4 t4 has no players, it’s one full server vs several empty servers.

Hosts on t4 besides BG need to become links, nsp included.Nsp has been linked with other empty server wich means populations still almost none.

Nsp needs to become a link.

[Gop.8713]

@BadMed.3846 said:I'm keen to see BG split into 3 servers and put in a tier. The PPT and back-capping warfare will be an amazing spectacle. I'm sure this would be the new tier 1.

This actually sounds like exactly the kind of fun I would like wvw to be. The problem again is the players. As long as transfers were allowed, the fun would only last until everyone decided which of the three servers they were all going to transfer back to . . .

[Sovereign.1093]

@Aeolus.3615 said:N4 t4 has no players, it’s one full server vs several empty servers.

Hosts on t4 besides BG need to become links, nsp included.Nsp has been linked with other empty server wich means populations still almost none.

Nsp needs to become a link.

we be a link as we med pop now. i knew things would change since i lessened our raid to 4 hours instead of 6.

i dont see some of our guys recently. so, probably they want to do something else.

the change i did is learned to solo roam. since i cant raid pass 4pm.

[BadMed.3846]

@Gop.8713 said:

@BadMed.3846 said:I'm keen to see BG split into 3 servers and put in a tier. The PPT and back-capping warfare will be an amazing spectacle. I'm sure this would be the new tier 1.

This actually sounds like exactly the kind of fun I would like wvw to be. The problem again is the players. As long as transfers were allowed, the fun would only last until everyone decided which of the three servers they were all going to transfer back to . . .

And that's exactly the kind I'm trying to leave in a seperate tier. Back-capping is the last thing I'd like to do. Queensdale content is more fun compared to it.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@BadMed.3846 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@BadMed.3846 said:I'm keen to see BG split into 3 servers and put in a tier. The PPT and back-capping warfare will be an amazing spectacle. I'm sure this would be the new tier 1.

This actually sounds like exactly the kind of fun I would like wvw to be. The problem again is the players. As long as transfers were allowed, the fun would only last until everyone decided which of the three servers they were all going to transfer back to . . .

And that's exactly the kind I'm trying to leave in a seperate tier. Back-capping is the last thing I'd like to do. Queensdale content is more fun compared to it.

So, you don’t think other besides BG have done it?

[borgs.6103]

Maybe when the NA server status goes down to 23 Medium and BG, Anet may take action.

[c space cowboy.2764]

@borgs.6103 said:Maybe when the NA server status goes down to 23 Medium and BG, Anet may take action.

I mean, at that point, itll only be another few years till alliances....

[Stagar.7216]

@BadMed.3846 said:I'm keen to see BG split into 3 servers and put in a tier. The PPT and back-capping warfare will be an amazing spectacle. I'm sure this would be the new tier 1.

PPT? how about you look at SOS ppt at least bg fights

[SWI.4127]

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Aeolus.3615 said:N4 t4 has no players, it’s one full server vs several empty servers.

Hosts on t4 besides BG need to become links, nsp included.Nsp has been linked with other empty server wich means populations still almost none.

Nsp needs to become a link.

we be a link as we med pop now. i knew things would change since i lessened our raid to 4 hours instead of 6.

There are already 3 other medium-population host servers. FC, CD, Mag. So it's not so cut-and-dry. (SF is also medium, but they were one of the highest populated servers when they were last designated as host)

[Iozeph.5617]

Just keep servers as they are, don't bother with alliances.

Keep the borderlands maps and the Eternal battlegrounds. Allow joining/queuing as a five man maximum but anything above that out of the question. When you queue up you end up on whatever side you end up on randomly for that day. The colour team you're on is permanently set until the universal server reset the next day. So dropping out of the battleground and requeuing isn't going to change it.

Queuing, apart from small groups, will be treated as megaservers currently are for the purposes of dungeons or fractal LFGs. When people are put onto red, blue, or green team for the day they are part of the game-wide(NA and EU being separated) red, blue, or green pool of players for that day with the server keeping track of the number of players on those respective teams and filling map queues with an eye toward even distribution. Also, when entering the mode for the first time every reset, players will be asked to select which, among the many guilds they might be members of, they will be representing in WvW for that day. This includes limiting random joins on certain maps to the five guild member limit, whether queued as a group or not, so long as there are plenty of maps being filled across the mode. The restriction being more relaxed if for some reason there aren't enough people to fill even one map at the time(the mode arguably having bigger problems if that's the case.)

No stacking. No hopping. No reason to. Those who want to play the mode for the mode's sake still get to play the mode on a hopefully more even playing field. Those who only say they want to play that way but were secretly wanting to run around and beat up on pushovers? Well they're free to try and do their best with four of their friends/guildmates. If that's not enough for them, well, tough.

For those who say this invalidates WvW/pvp guilds make WvW participation another method of acquiring favour/aurilium for guild hall advancement. We've seen this done with legendary armour and weapon acquisition as well as for earning elite spec advancement so why not allow for guild progression as well? This way, even if larger guilds are still split up into five man blocks at random across the red, blue, and green teams for any given day their collective participation isn't squandered.

Game's old enough as it is and if anything this might encourage more new players, players who would have otherwise felt they had no alternative on joining GW2 than to be absorbed into a larger guild as a means to the benefits of a more fully kitted out guild hall, not to quit. It will also allow players in guilds with a more eclectic mix of playstyles(solely competitive as opposed to solely PvE) to feel that they are also contributing to the overall success of their guilds in some way.

These sorts of solutions aren't perfect but, short of Anet waking up and addressing profession balance, they're a good step in the right direction for addressing the problems concerning population imbalances.

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

I am actually torn. With less tiers, there would be more people in the BL's, thus would be a wait/more of a wait to get into WvW, and more skill/server lag. Those may actually make WvW worse and make even more people leave faster than they are now.

Ive said this before and will say it again, WvW needs a major overhaul in general, including servers/linkings, tiers and population. Now I am still hopeful that Alliances (god forbid we hear something about them to give us a bit of faith) if made right, can potentially be the complete overhaul that it needs.

[XenesisII.1540]

@Iozeph.5617 said:

1. Keep the borderlands maps and the Eternal battlegrounds.
2. Allow joining/queuing as a five man maximum but anything above that out of the question.
3. When you queue up you end up on whatever side you end up on randomly for that day.
4. The color team you're on is permanently set until the universal server reset the next day. So dropping out of the battleground and requeuing isn't going to change it.
5. Queuing, apart from small groups, will be treated as megaservers currently are for the purposes of dungeons or fractal LFGs.
6. When people are put onto red, blue, or green team for the day they are part of the game-wide(NA and EU being separated) red, blue, or green pool of players for that day with the server keeping track of the number of players on those respective teams and filling map queues with an eye toward even distribution.
7. Also, when entering the mode for the first time every reset, players will be asked to select which, among the many guilds they might be members of, they will be representing in WvW for that day.
8. This includes limiting random joins on certain maps to the five guild member limit, whether queued as a group or not, so long as there are plenty of maps being filled across the mode. The restriction being more relaxed if for some reason there aren't enough people to fill even one map at the time(the mode arguably having bigger problems if that's the case.)

Heavy restrictions on allowing you to play with friends and your guilds every day, temporarily getting dumped on a red blue green side daily, that would be the last sledgehammer hit to communities.

This isn't spvp, this is world vs world vs world, stop trying to slap on 5 player restrictions in an area where it's expected to have huge groups participating. There is no need to heavy hand the amount of people entering when you're also randomly distributing them on random sides to keep the sides even, and on a daily basis, there goes the point of weekly matches. You might as well have suggested wvw go full on eotm mode.

The alliance system still looks 100x better than this plan.

[Liston.9708]

Down to seven non medium servers. With 3 tiers there are still two medium hosts (versus 5 medium hosts with 4 tiers). More and more convinced it is time.

[BadMed.3846]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@BadMed.3846 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@BadMed.3846 said:I'm keen to see BG split into 3 servers and put in a tier. The PPT and back-capping warfare will be an amazing spectacle. I'm sure this would be the new tier 1.

This actually sounds like exactly the kind of fun I would like wvw to be. The problem again is the players. As long as transfers were allowed, the fun would only last until everyone decided which of the three servers they were all going to transfer back to . . .

And that's exactly the kind I'm trying to leave in a seperate tier. Back-capping is the last thing I'd like to do. Queensdale content is more fun compared to it.

So, you don’t think other besides BG have done it?

Not really to the elite 24/7 ultra boring back-capping level. BG plays a different game altogether.

[BadMed.3846]

@Stagar.7216 said:

@BadMed.3846 said:I'm keen to see BG split into 3 servers and put in a tier. The PPT and back-capping warfare will be an amazing spectacle. I'm sure this would be the new tier 1.

PPT? how about you look at SOS ppt at least bg fights

SoS has always been a ktrain server. It's slightly different. They just come in for a champ train farm and leave. They're not committed enough to endlessly back-cap.