Can we just remove all servers

[Aenaos.8160]

If you want to diminish this game mode to a faceless blobfest like EotM,you can remove servers.

If you want the game mode to be healthy you won't.

[Tobias.8632]

Just remove blackgate and everyone who plays there for being a c*nt

[Aeolus.3615]

I think the actual system is very poor, in terms of fun its inferior to AB and FA imo, gw2 issue is the lack of strong content, its lacks a backbone and the game feels lost content with forced gameplay, besides story, raids well player does nothing, and wvw its a aoe stack n spam gamemode, imo they need to envolve to something strong.

 

 

-> 3 faction system

-> No servers

-> More maps

-> Maps with less structures, some maps could be small (supply maps that would server to boost supply lines, i can imagine roamers taking this maps and getting rewards for how long they can hold the supply lines ?)

-> Strucutres that give stuff to guilds (to use in pve and WvW) (this would force guilds to not ktrain?)

-> Theres some dedication of guilds to WvW and those guilds/players are completelly unreawarded, ,make stronger objectives (as in hold rewards and unlocks while hold the structure) would make guilds fight for those structures and defend them, just because the game basicly "rewards u for being afk" does not meants its a good rewards system....

 

yeah i know its complex, but gw2 its way to much themepark and way to much simple compared to any other mmo... very dumbed down game :skull: wish it could have a good strucutre...

[Arcuss.6457]

@coglin.1496

I get it, you don't like my idea, and most people don't, but i don't post things because i expect them to happen. I just want to get the gears turning and see what everyone could come up with to improve the "ok" system we have now. I would prefer if people replied back to this post with other ideas instead of just telling me everything wrong with mine.

 

To answer a few of your question:

 

I shouldn't have to define bandwagoning, it's a pretty simple term. No, Server's are not entities, but every server I've been on (5 so far) has wvw leadership. servers at higher tiers have a lot of guilds that were paid to transfer over by that leadership (specifically, oceanic guilds that can run during the down times in america). To me that just seems ridiculous.

 

What i should have said was "the only downside i can see". obviously there are numerous downsides to my idea.

 

Finally, I don't have any idea about anet's income, but neither do you; however, anet is a business, and people are spending real money to transfer to servers at higher tiers (again bandwagon effect). As a business, they are most likely not going to remove a feature from their game that brings them any sort of profit.

[Orpheal.8263]

This Game just needs a full server RESET..

 

Put every single player again into the Status, where they have to choose, to which Server they want to go with a 1 time free Change Server for making a correction, which expires if not used within say 2 weeks from the day on, when a player has logged in and chosen a server.

 

Such a kind of Server/Game Full Reset would give populations a fresh new wind for WvW, cause WvW is the only mode of the game, which requires the game to have a server system.

 

Anet should also slightly reduce the amount of servers this time which we can choose, so that it is made sure, that more server get more players that before.

you should always begin with less server and once you see, that your player population grows too big, then you add new servers step by step, cause that will ensure for WvW, that player populations will be balanced

 

Say for example each Server can hold maximum 500k players, loets say we have 6 Million active GW2 players, that would require to have exactly 12 Servers for that simple example. Lets say within the next month it is about expectable, that player population grows to 6,5 Million players whyever, then its neccessary to add 1 new Server, maybe 2 to go sure, everything wll run safe..

 

But you dont start from begin on with like 24+ servers, far more than you basically ever will need, what will lead only to the situation, that the community spreads out too much, will be on certain "meta" servers dense and on certain servers nearly non existant, due to too less players beign there, than that this server could be ever in WvW successful at all, because we also may not forget - only because a server is full, doesn#t mean, that all of those play4s on it are also WvW players

 

You can have a server that has only 100k WvW players in the game, that is more successful, than a 500k player ful server, from which are 450k players just only pvEers and PvPer, but have only 50k WvWers which play by far not as much WvW as liek the smaller sever with its 100k active WvWers..

 

Thats an issues, that needs to be taken into consideration too and why a full server reset would be after 5 years now I think a good idea, just to mix the cards new

Server Merging aside of that would be also something, that needs to happen, the amount of servers just has to get reduced.

 

An Alliance System won't be a sol8ution for player populations, but a FACTION SYSTEM will be a solution ... we dont need a gazillion servers, we just need basicslly for WvW only 3 Factions among which all players from all servers need to be distributed evenly. That would make WvW an international game mode, yes, but its the only true solution in which you will never have population or time zone problems, because if you have factions among which players of all internationalities and all time zones play together, then you will always find for each faction someone on for your side, regardless if you are now sleeping in your time zone - ypu will know, someone else who is from your faction will be at that time lioving in a different country awake now and fight for your faction - at least a solution for european servers.

For american servers, where its players all live in the same time zone basically this is no issue and there is internationality language wise also no issue as much as like in europe, where alot more languages clash together in online games.

 

However, thats something i guess, which is basically already solved through the Commander System where you just follow that commander on the map, which group speaks the same language than you, and if you find nonwe, then this will surely lead to more smaller groups in WvW maps, which will be also somethign good, instead of this permanent zerging in only huge blobs

I think its just something ,that would be worth it to get tested out, how well it would run and i think Factions would be deinetely something, that would make WvW as renamed FvF more interesting, especiually if each Faction is something really unique and different with its very own style, history, design, logo and so on so that you have as a player basicalyl not anymore "Server Pride" in WvW, but actually instead "Faction Pride" with that you identify yourself as player

[Tiawal.2351]

In WvW, we need enemies, more than allies. If nothing to fight, the game is dead, and I log out. Now there are those who are happy taking something that is undefended, but I'm not: just feels bad, really. Also PPT means absolutely nothing, so I don't care about capturing, just the fun of the fights.

 

If we would have a system like in sPvP, asking to volunteer to join some other side for a while (minutes, hours), just to balance numbers and quality (take personal KDR for the past few hours as quality rating) -- then I would gladly join the other side, even "our worse enemies" - if that means that I can participate in a fight that can last a while, doesn't matter who wins it, I'm more than happy to fight, even if my side loses all fights. Surely there are more who feel the same, and want fun fights, while also giving fun fights -- isn't that love towards your team, even towards the "enemy" ?

 

Remove all servers? Create a new alliance system? Sure, those would help adjusting the huge discrepancies we have now - but would still need the system I described in previous paragraph, to balance certain hours when one side has less players due to RL events or unexpected, can't be balanced 24/24h otherwise.

 

What we have now? Very rarely fights, maybe ~2h in 24h, on most active tiers, maybe, bit more during weekends. The rest? One huge zerg PPT-ing empty maps, while the other huge or less huge, even tiny, back caps somewhere else. There could be some "defending" involved, meaning some siege weapon use, but that "defending" is even more "dead game" and boring than the capturing part. Same happens in sPvP too: capture this point, capture that point... Really the most fun part in GW2, the fighting system, must be so ignored?

[joneirikb.7506]

> @Orpheal.8263 said:

> This Game just needs a full server RESET..

 

If they first do dare to make a full reset, they probably would (and should) do away with the server structure entirely. It hasn't worked as it should from day one, and players have gamed it in every game it has been used. I don't know what they should replace it with, but it sure as heck shouldn't be new servers. It would need to be flexible and dynamic enough to adapt to changing numbers.

 

I think that if ANet had their choice, they would have implemented EOTM as WvW in the first place, since it does solve a lot of those issues. But the negative backlash it created scared them away from that.

 

Really wish I could come up with a genious idea to solve all this, but I haven't been able to so far :(

[joneirikb.7506]

> @Tiawal.2351 said:

> In WvW, we need enemies, more than allies. If nothing to fight, the game is dead, and I log out. Now there are those who are happy taking something that is undefended, but I'm not: just feels bad, really. Also PPT means absolutely nothing, so I don't care about capturing, just the fun of the fights.

 

Agree with you, and the people I usually run with would agree as well. People are different however, and I've run into all kinds of people that disagree, and enjoy other aspects of the game mode.

 

Personally I think one of the better ways to solve this is to make maps that focus on different parts/aspects of the game. So players can sort themselves by going to the maps with mechanics that interest them. Some examples:

 

* A Ruined City: Lots of broken walls, houses, streets of various sizes with debris scattered around. That would work as a continual medium scale fighting map, with tonns of chokes, ambush spots, lots of places to place siege, and people fight door to door, street to street, wall by wall etc. Objectives could be supply depots, strategic defensive houses/towers etc, and some large mansions like a nobles fortified home, and the town barracks.

* Ancient Roman Arena: Basically take the colliseum from Rome, with many smaller open arenas, some big ones. Where you get points for fighting 1vs1 in the smaller arenas. Objective can be various points that enable different things, like the kennels that lets you release wild lions in some areas. Lots of halls around the arena's where players can fight for smaller objectives. This map should be suited more for small fights, roamers, duelers etc.

* EBG: still the premium zerg/blob map

* Borderlands still the "defend home" maps

 

But in order to make this work, they would have to remove the "home borderland" system, so they don't need to keep 3 identical role maps (borderlands) at the same time, and would have to make some small changes to the borderland maps, so they play more like EBG/3way with a "home corner" for each. So they could change the map list to say:

 

* EBG

* BL

* Ruined City

* Colloseum

* OS

 

Unfortunately, it probably cost too much for ANet to make new maps like this. And a lot of people would likely be really annoyed at losing a own home map (though I think most people could get used to defending a corner rather than a map anyways, would be more lively. domainating entire map is boring anyways).

[Sovereign.1093]

i would not mind locking all current links to their host server and merge them as one. and adjust all closed servers to be open based on those open links.

[Jana.6831]

> @Arcuss.6457 said:

> The only downside would be communication between guilds if paired with randoms every week.

> Just an idea to balance out WvW. I realize that wvw will probably never make such a dramatic change to the system (especially when anet can make a buck on server transfers)

 

How would that balance wvw? That wouldn't change anything for the better.

The problem wvw has got and has gotten for some years now is "bigger = better" that should be worked on, but hasn't happened for ~4 years and will likely never happen. You can merge as many servers as you like, or randomly assign people to play together, the problem remains.

No idea how it is on NA but on EU we currently have 'solid' queues, so the forces are about equal and there shouldn't be a need of more players.

Just that no one wants to tag up because the game is broken. But alas, lets just randomly throw people together that will solve everything.