Proposal: Eliminate/decrease gem costs for transferring servers

[Titan.3472]

I would suggest to allow people to pay a 3000 gold fee to allow them to get a spot on a full server then they would have to pay another 3000 gems to transfer to it. Here a new gold sink and higher gem cost for those who really really want to go to a full server xD.

[Sarrs.4831]

I really like the idea of enabling free transfers to select link servers.

[ThunderPanda.1872]

> @joneirikb.7506 said:

> > @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

> > Just permanently link servers and make all transfer 1800 gems again. Less bandwagons and fluctuation in population -> minimise the need to reset server links all the time -> communities don't break up all the time -> reduces the need for transfer to play with people you met -> if you don't need to transfer, its FREE!

> >

> > oh wait no transfer no revenue $$$$$

>

> Problems with Permanently Linking Servers:

> * Effectively same as server merges.

> * With static links, band wagoning gets static as well.

> * This removes ANet's possibility to mix different servers to counter band-wagons to try to equalize (somewhat) populations.

> * 1800 Gems still wouldn't prevent band-wagoning, with static links they wouldn't need to fear transferring every 2 months.

>

> I do agree about the positive sides though:

> * Community building

> * Stick with Friends

> * Server Identities (somewhat)

>

> Overall, permanently linking = server merge. And with 5 years of experience of GW2/WvW, I can say that people would just stack to abuse it (again). Static servers can only work if the community/player-base actually work together to even out and try to make each server stay relatively competitive. Otherwise, you might as well just request to replace it with EOTM.

>

> > @XenesisII.1540 said:

> > Open all servers, increase all transfer cost, win win for players and anet.

>

> Sometimes I wonder how this would play out. Say ANet set a price, say 3000 gems, to transfer to a FULL server. And just let the Queue's deal with it. Adding a huge warning when you transfer to the full server "YOU MAY BE STUCK IN QUEUE'S AND UNABLE TO PLAY WVW! DO AT YOUR OWN RISK! Check this box to continue, and take responcibility for your own actions."

>

> Or alternatively Bump the prices one step up, so 1800 gems for full server, and making "medium" servers free. To give all the people on full servers a place to run off to when their full servers, grows even more full.

 

The reason I advocate for permanent linking instead of server merge is because of its flexibility. Links can still be changed, but just not in a frequent timeline, and is usually done in situations when imbalanced matchups becomes incapable of balancing itself out.

 

Server bandwagoning and stacking had been stable for many years (contrary to popular beliefs), it had been able to adjust and balance accordingly. Every tiers were relatively stable (except for some extremely low tier servers) - it was so stable that people complained on how stale the matchups were, how they were always playing against the same servers all the time. Yes, there were times were a server on the tier above would occasionally come down and roll over the other two servers, but you cannot deny that tiers were stable, and there were even some care for competition in going up a tier or making another server drop a tier. There were many instances a server on a tier would implode, and matchup on those tiers would be terrible for a few weeks, but there were always servers that could take its place eventually. There were times when there are 4 or 5 servers belonging in the same tier, but would always find itself in a matchup rolling over weaker servers every second week - guess what? they imploded because the players got bored.

 

WvW had only really started going downhills following the content drought after tournament season 2, then the subsequent DBL - it was not because bandwagoning and stacking couldn't adjust, but because a lot of people literally stopped playing and left the game. It was so terrible that populations on many server could no longer even sustain a single map. This was not a result of stacking and bandwagoning, but because of content droughts and poor design choices following HoT. At the time, some sort of server merge wasn't just an option anymore, it was a necessity.

 

Server merge =/= permanent links. Links can be adjusted when the tier is taking too long to balance following a bandwagon spree or implosion.

 

[ThunderPanda.1872]

I supported lower transfer cost for lower servers. But why the kitten do we still have that after server links, that is effectively inviting people to imbalance and break the matchups.

[joneirikb.7506]

@ ThunderPanda.1872

 

Ah thanks for clearing that up, misunderstood you slightly on what you meant with permanent linking.

 

So as I understand it: Make links, keep them as is, until something changes, and ANet needs to move some guest servers around to consolidate. Otherwise, leave links alone ?

 

If so, I think that could be a good idea. Personally I don't mind the moving around as a guest server, I get to see a lot of different places and tiers. But I can understand how frustrating it can be for others.

 

---

 

Regarding the stale tier's etc, that was also something a lot of people wanted to move away from, and is actually another benefit with linking. To actually adjust servers so they have "closer" to even numbers, so a server can rise or fall in the tiers, without *as* much problems as it used to be. (Good old times with the T2 reject...)

 

I consider this a slight advantage toward the current linking, over the permanent-linking. But not by much.

 

---

 

Agree that there are a lot of other reasons why WvW suffers, personally I think the main among them is that the mode is getting older, and people eventually grow tired of repeating the same over and over, without much feel of progress (one way or another).

 

Not much to do about that unfortunately. But considering that the playerbase is going to continually shrink a bit every year, no matter what they do or not (mostly), I think that whatever solution they try to accomplish have to be dynamic enough to adjust itself to the numbers at hand, and not some arbitrary set number (like servers, population, map numbers, map populations, etc).

 

Even old T8 could have managed decent activity if they where all put into a single map. (Pity it would have to be EBG though).

 

/rant