XenesisII.1540 Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 I dunno about that. It takes a tier 4 server 4 weeks to even get to tier 1, and by then you want to reset again when a server finally settles on it's appropriate place. Some people don't like playing in tier 4 or tier 1 or with certain servers or against certain servers. Doesn't really solve the problem of bandwagoning if the option and reasoning for it is still there. You might also accelerate community burnout with this. Having said that, I'm currently on a server I don't want to be linked with, fighting servers that are not fun, but have to wait another 3 weeks for relinks, /shrug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrHome.1920 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Shorter link times make bandwagoning less attractive but generate also more need for bandwagoning. Only anet knows the sweetspot (they have the statistics). > It takes a tier 4 server 4 weeks to even get to tier 1 This is no issue when the bandwagoning is at a minimum value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 would get rid of both op and up links faster, seems like a win win. bandwagoners would have to spend more money, another plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkeyspit.3965 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Why do we even have links? Why not just offer free transfers to specific servers from the existing link servers, and then shut them down. You'll still have some variance in population between the 'host' servers that are left. but nothing as drastic as we have now with links, and it stops the bandwagon. 'course that means ANET would see less gem sales if nobody is server transferring every 8 weeks...which is why they don't make these types of changes, Alliances is a meme, and nothing is being done to address server population imbalances...because it's more profitable for ANET no to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 It's not a good idea. In 4 weeks a server can achieve almost nothing by just loosing one matchup. Remember that each weekly loss means one more week spent on trying to win again, then one more week to actually move anywhere other than where you started. All it would accomplish is undeserving servers jumping over tiers faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blocki.4931 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Sounds fun as an experiment, but I prefer longer links as we have them now. It's just that the links themselves are questionable sometimes in my opinion, but doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 It's fine as it is. All that we need is tournaments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonWing.9480 Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Nothing would change. I suppose it would be more expensive to bandwagon but cost isn't exactly a factor for people that hop around anyways. What we need is a game mode that people want to actually play. Anyone that comes into the game mode only to find out there's only 2 large groups in a staring contest waiting for the other side to push into arrow carts and dragon banners would think the game mode is a huge joke.... and they'd be right. Work on combat balance and reduce the viability of siege bunkering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anduriell.6280 Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Alliances, what we need is alliances and not to spend any more resources in the server system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonNeonite.1048 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 The linking system is a big mess especially in the EU, it's kills servers apart from those who can actually fight and compete in the Tiers they end up in. So would 4 weeks be better than 8 weeks, with more stacking or bandwagoning? Perhaps, but people would be still moving alot within the first week constantly anyway, instead of gradually over 8 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostof Luzifer.6159 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 dont worry alliances will come in the coming months! :+1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted May 18, 2020 Share Posted May 18, 2020 Each servers have their own game style. As I play with each new server it takes around atleast 3 to 5 weeks of adjustment before you get used to each other. Linking should disappear imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylden Ar.3724 Posted May 18, 2020 Share Posted May 18, 2020 > @"Ghostof Luzifer.6159" said: > dont worry alliances will come in the coming months! :+1: Would you like to buy this lovely ocean view property I have for sale in New Mexico? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threather.9354 Posted May 18, 2020 Share Posted May 18, 2020 They need to increase transfer costs to medium servers. People and guilds go to links to save money and be with main server Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted May 18, 2020 Share Posted May 18, 2020 > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said: > > @"Ghostof Luzifer.6159" said: > > dont worry alliances will come in the coming months! :+1: > > Would you like to buy this lovely ocean view property I have for sale in New Mexico? Pffft.. I have a bridge to sell you in NY that is likely worth more. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamikharzeeh.8016 Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 links overall are not working at the moment. either give all no link and merge smallest ones, or crazily raise cost for moving to anything than low population servers. and make the server population counts more precise, hell. we're constantly outnumbered on 3/4 maps, wipe blobs with 30 ppl groups but are unlinked and "full" since several weeks now. solid job Anet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry.5713 Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 Double the amount of gems people spend on transfers, increased revenue, more resources going towards the development of alliances. Good joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugeboss.5432 Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 The wvw community had an official poll on this a few years back. The community voted for 1 month (majority vote), but Anet had a few other reasons to reconsider, and decided 8 weeks would be a better mechanic to make it actually work out ok. _[You can prolly find the actual data & info in the archieves]_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 World's don't matter now in pve. It matters only on wvw. :/ They should just reset it and allow us to choose world's based on in game etc., I.e. Press b. Wvw world's. Group abc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 > @"hugeboss.5432" said: > The wvw community had an official poll on this a few years back. The community voted for 1 month (majority vote), but Anet had a few other reasons to reconsider, and decided 8 weeks would be a better mechanic to make it actually work out ok. > _[You can prolly find the actual data & info in the archieves]_ _The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:_ _38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly. 28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly. 15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month. 11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months. 5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months._ _After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!_ TL;DR 62% of the community voted for 2 months or longer relinks. Anet picked a compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaba.5410 Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said: > Why do we even have links? Is this an #OpenBG question? Because WvW is a numbers game and players have been cheating the system for years. Anet could simply remove players instead and add them to another server but that would generate a big storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugeboss.5432 Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"hugeboss.5432" said: > > The wvw community had an official poll on this a few years back. The community voted for 1 month (majority vote), but Anet had a few other reasons to reconsider, and decided 8 weeks would be a better mechanic to make it actually work out ok. > > _[You can prolly find the actual data & info in the archieves]_ > > _The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:_ > > _38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly. > 28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly. > 15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month. > 11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months. > 5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months._ > > _After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!_ > > TL;DR 62% of the community voted for 2 months or longer relinks. Anet picked a compromise. > Yeah thats the poll. As you can see, what Anet tries to explain as 62%, is actually only option #3 (15,9% every other month). Good wording from Anet though (I smirked but didnt say anything about it, no need for drama). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenesisII.1540 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 Because it was: 38.1% monthly 15.9% 2 months 28.9% 3 months You can slice it however many ways you want, a good chunk of people wanted 1-3 months, so 2 months was a good compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyshaAdbinderMoonshard.70 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 > @"Duca di Ebonhawke.1045" said: > So I have to pay 500 gems to move every 4 weeks instead of every 4 weeks to get out of t1 lag/zergfest where there's 0 fights, wonderful, well wonderful for anet at any rate. Would rather see serverlinks removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now