Transferring to linked server should cost same as to main server

[Riba.3271]

[Sovereign.1093]

It's like you want players to stay put. I want that too. But, people must be allowed to go where they please.

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

No; transfers just need to be locked for the first week after relinks and the first day of each matchup, problem solved. No one's going to pay transfer fees to bandwagon when the reset adrenaline's already faded, only those who genuinely want to move.

Although I wish they'd rework server "population" for transfers to be based more upon war performance.

[SWI.4127]

I think the main server's population should probably affect the price of the linked server at least. Makes no sense that certain servers are full when you can just transfer to the link for a really discounted price.

[MedievalThings.5417]

I agree that the cost should equal the host cost, if people bandwagon to a link, it should cost them.That said, there should be no transfers for at least 2 weeks after relinking. It is ridiculous the way it is now.

[L A T I O N.8923]

It would surely means a server could come back alive only if Both the servers have the status 'medium'Im okay if IT got more expensive to transfer to a server linked to a really crowded one...like:Medium-very high pairing.Medium:500gems'Very high:1400gems.Combines:1900 gemsTransferring medium:950gemsTransferring verry high server:1400gems

Medium- medium pairingTransferring:500 gemsCombines:1k gemsTransferring medium: 500gems

But not to leave a death server to rot because the main server gets bandwagoned

[Sovereign.1093]

Organizing in mass is also a strategy to win. But not man can afford. So, it's best to make friends as allies.

[Dayra.7405]

Better: fix the hole in the transfer mechanic:https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/82410/should-the-transfer-system-be-fixed

[Riba.3271]

@Sovereign.1093 said:It's like you want players to stay put. I want that too. But, people must be allowed to go where they please.

You can make grand words about anything. What about if it would cost 0 gems to transfer? Would that be okay? There is a balance somewhere.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Threather.9354 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:It's like you want players to stay put. I want that too. But, people must be allowed to go where they please.

You can make grand words about anything. What about if it would cost 0 gems to transfer? Would that be okay? There is a balance somewhere.

It's seems you thought I wanted free transfers. I think how it is now is just fine.

[Dawdler.8521]

Or they could just do sort of what alliances was supposed to do - allow us to transfer to a lower population server at the end of a season (week 8) for free.

[Riba.3271]

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Threather.9354 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:It's like you want players to stay put. I want that too. But, people must be allowed to go where they please.

You can make grand words about anything. What about if it would cost 0 gems to transfer? Would that be okay? There is a balance somewhere.

It's seems you thought I wanted free transfers. I think how it is now is just fine.

Yes but you said players should be allowed to go where they please which counters that statement

[Sovereign.1093]

@Threather.9354 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Threather.9354 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:It's like you want players to stay put. I want that too. But, people must be allowed to go where they please.

You can make grand words about anything. What about if it would cost 0 gems to transfer? Would that be okay? There is a balance somewhere.

It's seems you thought I wanted free transfers. I think how it is now is just fine.

Yes but you said players should be allowed to go where they please which counters that statement

It does not. The statement is like the mirror of a player's feelings. A wants to go to Z. Of course there is a price.

It is like going on a journey to figure where you belong.

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

@Dawdler.8521 said:Or they could just do sort of what alliances was supposed to do - allow us to transfer to a lower population server at the end of a season (week 8) for free.

sth alliance-plan like at least. not much switching, and the rewards for ranking should still be fixed.

about the OP: i see no reason for transfer cost increase nor decrease. i dislike transfers overall. (wouldn't forbid it tho)

[Infusion.7149]

Remove links from "full" servers that have the same timezone coverage maybe.Obligatory : "You are the weakest link, goodbye"

[Riba.3271]

@"Infusion.7149" said:Remove links from "full" servers that have the same timezone coverage maybe.Obligatory : "You are the weakest link, goodbye"

issue is majority of active guilds are on linked servers (cheaper transfers) and then they stack every 2 months to chosen few 500 gem servers. This means WvW has 0 stability because guilds are not on main servers, but on the links. And move around every 2 months.

This of course applies to pugs as well because they will follow the guilds that have open commanders.

[Taobella.6597]

i think transfer rate should be same across the board. but you should not gain any WvW exp until next relink.

[Fish.2769]

I've said this from day one when links became a thing. Yeah, sure it fixes some issues with populations to an extent but if you're moving en-mass to a new server because you dislike who you're linked with (Which is what happens, don't even try an deny it) then the cost should be the same as the host, if the host is classed as "Full" then it should be 1,800 gems the same as a server that's Very High because the difference between the 2 is mostly minimal since it can be swayed due to playing hours.

[Aquamarine.3698]

bandwagon should be limited

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

the sad part is, it would be so freaking easy to limit bandwagoning. best option would probably be to limit switches per year. so let's say 2 switches for seven months allowed or sth alike.

i personally still think it's impossible to really make fair pairings without having a official leaderbord. there are tons of unofficial data towards that, the only blurry sytem is the official one. with that standing, a serverhopping limit would slow down bandwagoning.

also, there should be kinda notifications if servers are open, and some criteria for joining servers. for example, it should not be "klick and in"/"first come, first serve", rather players from guilds that are linked to a servers should be able to have kinda priority.

[Riba.3271]

@"kamikharzeeh.8016" said:also, there should be kinda notifications if servers are open, and some criteria for joining servers. for example, it should not be "klick and in"/"first come, first serve", rather players from guilds that are linked to a servers should be able to have kinda priority.

Server pop updates only every week currently. Meaning there isn't really "first come, first serve" priority, just whole guild has to transfer during the week it is cheaper/not full.