Maguuma Server and relinks

[Warlord.9074]

Thats a valid way too. Just delete every server. Then Make wvw a mega server with 2 hour matches. Increase map caps to 200 per side. Make Every Borderland a copy of Eternal Battle grounds. Instead of EOTM. Then your guild or whatever can just go and raid and we can be done with everything. This would probably fix everything wrong with wvw. Except for a new issue of you not being able to get your guild or alliance or whatever into a certain instance.

[Pretty Pixie.8603]

> @Warlord.9074 said:

> Nah, just create a couple brand new servers with new names, Id say just make 3 new ones. Call them like something cool .

> Anyone on a deleted server has a free transfer to one of them. Players not on a deleted server can't transfer there for a period of 6 months or more. After 6 months open every server except BG. New accounts are only allowed to go to one of the 3 new servers for the 6 month period.

>

> This to me sounds like a better solution than the wack a mole currently.

 

I appreciate that making PvE centric servers is a possible option, but my initial response was aimed at your suggestion o close servers.

 

 

[XenesisII.1540]

You don't need to delete servers... you create like 9 new battlegroups, deactivate the old servers from wvw and have players pick whatever new battlegroup to represent. Dunno why people think they need to delete the old servers, the old servers hold pve players, so you cannot delete them, you also still need to pick a server for new accounts. Dunno how many times I have to state this.

 

[Warlord.9074]

What? no you absolutely can delete servers if you create instanced WvW. As in EOTM no one represents their own server. Battle groups is a terrible idea. Every game that I ever played that had battle groups or alliances had the same problems. Stacking battle groups with all the guild groups for example how is that balance. All that is doing is replacing a server with a battle group. And people can mega alliance a battle group. Bad idea just no. Servers can still hold PVE players just WvW isn't tied to a server. It's instanced.

[Jeknar.6184]

> @Warlord.9074 said:

> What? no you absolutely can delete servers if you create instanced WvW. As in EOTM no one represents their own server. Battle groups is a terrible idea. All that is doing is replacing a server with a battle group. And people can mega alliance a battle group. Bad idea just no. Servers can still hold PVE players just WvW isn't tied to a server. It's instanced.

 

You have to pick a server when you create a account because the server store your account data... Just because the megaservers exist, doesn't mean your account data isn't stored in a certain server. In fact when you are in a instanced content (Like story, Dungeons or even your guild hall) it shows you on the server of the instance owner.

 

They problably _could_ make new servers and force people to choose one of them to do WvW while keeping the old ones only to store account data, but I wonder if it's actually viable or even good considering the large ammount of people that refuse to leave their servers. I'd argue that would just put another nail in WvW coffin at this point.

[Warlord.9074]

BTW all PVE content is now Instanced anyways, and is based on mega servers, When u go to a PVE map that is like every server on the same map together. So There is no Server Identity in PVE anyways. The idea is that you would just do the same for WvW not a difficult concept to wrap your head around. As far as physical servers storing account data. All account data could just as easy be stored in databases. To me that doesn't sound like rocket science. Instead of BG being a server BG just stands for a database name but to me that isn't necessary at all. All accounts could be stored in numerical databases. You don't need to pick a server when u create account. you just create one, it's stored in a database you login and play the game. Like a normal person.

[Warlord.9074]

As far as the notion of deleting servers is a nail in the coffin for wvw, the link servers are not servers anymore. In name they are servers. In impact on WvW they are nothing, and have no communities. Maybe communities in that there are 10 people on that server who refuse to leave. That has no impact on wvw. All the linked servers now are revolving doors of players getting cheap transfers to be paired with a host server. No one is transferring to link servers to be on the link servers themselves. Once you come to the reality that all link servers are dead servers and their only purpose now is to facilitate population via gem transfers to a host server. it's easier.

[cobbah.3102]

> @Warlord.9074 said:

> Dear ANET

> Maguuma has been closed for a very long time. We are fine with that as it prevents bandwagoneers from transferring to our server. But we also hate link servers for the same reason. Link servers bring nothing of value to the game other than to be like shells that your company can attach to other servers to monetize bandwagoning.

>

> Basically instead of fixing the game 5 years now or just pulling the trigger and closing dead servers, they are being milked for gems and the same behavior that has ruined the game still going on but in a way that you can control every 2 months. This is not a solution its only a loop hole. It's like tax deductions for corporations instead of just fixing the tax code. That is totally legal because without it businesses would be noncompetitive but everyone knows its wrong way to do things.

>

> Maguuma is simply just tired of this don't give us link server

 

Why? Is your linked server making it harder for Maguuma to tank ,ohhh poor babies, Anet will not fix anything ,you know this with the crap they have in WvW now its all set up for the cancer servers as it is ,Mag ,BG ,JQ

[Titan.3472]

BG KDR is higher than Mag and this makes Mag rage QUIT match every weeks blaming Trump and his Mother for their epic fail in T1 even with a link. Mag will never win over BG even with link now that old guards are back. At least you tried. Try harder. Btw BG is now top #1 all time winner EU/NA wvw total victories now taking JQ place finally. BG best KDR best PPT & Mag has nothing left but tank to oblivion. This is obvious to anyone Mag likes to farm underperforming opponents in lower tiers and avoid fighting competitive opponents in T1 that wipe their KDR in no time so they rage quit & hide and blame anything around. Gimme a S ! Gimme a A ! Gimme a D ! SAD ! On Bg side we do our best to keep Mag in T1 to save every other lower tiers servers from having to face mag as we deserve to be facing each others in T1 FOREVER for everyone else's greater good. xD

[Titan.3472]

> @Israel.7056 said:

> > @Titan.3472 said:

> > Last T1 server that had an elitist wvw guilds behavior excluding any other people was SoR and we all know how they ended back then and what is their place now. Take notes Mag. xD

>

> And anyone who was around during that time knows that SOR's eventual collapse had nothing to do with elitism. Nice try though.

 

I was there. And I was part of the BG crew former member of [cA] & [WM] (NA/BG) and [RG] (EU/SFR) that nuked [iRON] (SoR) and make them quit over their elitist epic fail behavior. Then SoR felt into abyss. Same is occuring with Mag right now. Praise our Chaos Lord Shiva for granting us the gift of destroying Worlds.

[Swamurabi.7890]

> @Titan.3472 said:

> > @Israel.7056 said:

> > > @Titan.3472 said:

> > > Last T1 server that had an elitist wvw guilds behavior excluding any other people was SoR and we all know how they ended back then and what is their place now. Take notes Mag. xD

> >

> > And anyone who was around during that time knows that SOR's eventual collapse had nothing to do with elitism. Nice try though.

>

> I was there. And I was part of the BG crew former member of [cA] & [WM] (NA/BG) and [RG] (EU/SFR) that nuked [iRON] (SoR) and make them quit over their elitist epic fail behavior. Then SoR felt into abyss. Same is occuring with Mag right now. Praise our Chaos Lord Shiva for granting us the gift of destroying Worlds.

 

Do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on?

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

> @"K THEN.5162" said:

> > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > If they removed links now for us little brother servers we would die again/more.

>

> Your que position is 9999999999999999999...

 

I'd rather see a queue than nobody, and once you flip the entire BL and there's nobody on the other side to fight the entire time, that queue looks pretty appetizing to know you'll actually get to fight people.

[Hesacon.8735]

> @coro.3176 said:

> Yeah. Mag vs BG is boring.

>

> BG takes a keep, then fills it with arrow carts and siege and refuses to come out to fight.

>

> BG enjoys 'winning', no matter what the means.

> Mag enjoys 'fighting' regardless of the PPT score.

>

> It's just a bad matchup.

 

As an SoS player, I saw mag blocking out the sun with arrow carts at SMC the other night while hugging the walls to avoid the open field. I thought I was fighting YB for a minute, but the pugs were too coordinated. Mag will build siege and do the things you're accusing BG of doing.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @Hesacon.8735 said:

> > @coro.3176 said:

> > Yeah. Mag vs BG is boring.

> >

> > BG takes a keep, then fills it with arrow carts and siege and refuses to come out to fight.

> >

> > BG enjoys 'winning', no matter what the means.

> > Mag enjoys 'fighting' regardless of the PPT score.

> >

> > It's just a bad matchup.

>

> As an SoS player, I saw mag blocking out the sun with arrow carts at SMC the other night while hugging the walls to avoid the open field. I thought I was fighting YB for a minute, but the pugs were too coordinated. Mag will build siege and do the things you're accusing BG of doing.

 

Hmm. There must be some mistake. MAG wouldn't do that. It MUST have been their link server. /s

[Drinks.2361]

 

> As an SoS player, I saw mag blocking out the sun with arrow carts at SMC

 

Mag or DR? Which I think is part of the reason that OP started this thread

 

[Israel.7056]

> @Titan.3472 said:

> > @Israel.7056 said:

> > > @Titan.3472 said:

> > > Last T1 server that had an elitist wvw guilds behavior excluding any other people was SoR and we all know how they ended back then and what is their place now. Take notes Mag. xD

> >

> > And anyone who was around during that time knows that SOR's eventual collapse had nothing to do with elitism. Nice try though.

>

> I was there. And I was part of the BG crew former member of [cA] & [WM] (NA/BG) and [RG] (EU/SFR) that nuked [iRON] (SoR) and make them quit over their elitist epic fail behavior. Then SoR felt into abyss. Same is occuring with Mag right now. Praise our Chaos Lord Shiva for granting us the gift of destroying Worlds.

 

Kinda doubt it, you were the laughing stock of BG for years when I was there, I assume you still are. Gz on pity invites from Jang and Sehoon I guess? IRON was probably the most pug friendly guild on SoR they ran open almost every raid and they were super patient with pugs. They disbanded because their GM quit due to RL problems. You're just making stuff up. If anything what SoR needed was more elitism not less they tended to coddle bad players and try a little too hard to turn trash into something good instead of just buying guilds. BG went another route, we just bought the best guilds from other servers until there wasn't any serious competition left. Season 1 we went and got Za Drots from EU to cover a timezone no one else had any coverage for and we won with ease. The only way Mag falls is if the core players quit the game. Could happen I think a lot of people are playing PUBG now while waiting for the next MMO.

 

EDIT: SoR collapsed because their core got tired of trying to carry the server all the time and they refused to just buy guilds to stay competitive. End of story.

[Rektlol.8293]

Mag has literally become a server of uncoordinated, floating pugs. None of the guilds on mag run open guild raids, and shit, the majority of the guilds hardly raid any more (aside from reset + saturday). The best part about mag is the amount of players who troll other servers for running shit like 1v1 classes when that's all mag really runs. Rarely does mag get any sort of "organized" grouping to fight BG. No one is in TS, and most of the guilds just use their private discords anyway. I've been on Mag since right before HoT, and it's always been fun to be on, but it's not a very inclusive server. I can't say whether or not the DR players have had a strictly negative impact on mag, but seems like the server is dying and people have moved on to new games.

[Israel.7056]

Running open sucks you can't blame guilds for wanting to run closed.

[Rektlol.8293]

> @Israel.7056 said:

> Running open sucks you can't blame guilds for wanting to run closed.

 

I definitely don't disagree with you, I'm just saying that if Mag wanted to compete with BG in the "big picture" (PPT + PPK), guilds would prob have to start running open a few nights.

[Israel.7056]

> @Rektlol.8293 said:

> > @Israel.7056 said:

> > Running open sucks you can't blame guilds for wanting to run closed.

>

> I definitely don't disagree with you, I'm just saying that Mag wanted to compete with BG in the "big picture" (PPT + PPK), guilds would prob have to start running open a few nights.

 

Yeah maybe but I don't think it's worth it in the long run. Look at what running open all the time has done to BG guilds. They've gotten so bad they can be beaten by uncoordinated pugs who aren't even on TS.

 

Fighting BG is a great challenge overall due to their numbers and their general ruthlessness but there's no reward if you actually beat them in PPT because they just quit the game until they get more people. So either we lose to them and have fights or we try to organize and if we succeed we kill the game. There's no upside to winning.

 

 

[Sarge.9730]

> @Israel.7056 said:

> Fighting BG is a great challenge overall due to their numbers and their general ruthlessness but there's no reward if you actually beat them in PPT because they just quit the game until they get more people. So either we lose to them and have fights or we try to organize and if we succeed we kill the game. There's no upside to winning.

>

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I don't agree with this for the most part. I will address each of your points with my personal observations

 

**"Numbers"**

 

BG rarely has a huge number of people online at any given time. Its rare to see any borderland with a queue unless its reset night or one of the major guilds is running (and even that's only because everyone in WvW is queued for that map in particular). My personal feeling is that it FEELS like we have a ton more people to those on Mag because your whole server instant queues EB and makes little effort to do anything on any map that doesn't have a castle in the middle of it.

 

**"Ruthlessness"**

 

2 Weeks in a row Mag has flipped BGs Garrison in EB and camped with enough siege to rival YB while chest thumping the whole time. By contrast BG flipped Mags Garrison 2 days ago and... left.

 

**"There's no reward if you actually beat them in PPT because they just quit the game until they get more people"**

 

The last time Mag was in T1 they tanked on purpose the moment they lost their link and played in the lower tiers until they got linked again. At which point they quickly came back to T1 and are currently tanking to leave again. How is that any different than what you are accusing BG of?

 

**"So either we lose to them and have fights or we try to organize and if we succeed we kill the game"**

 

There is no precedent for Mag winning on a regular basis outside of Major Holidays and or Expansion releases so... this remains an untested opinion.

 

 

 

[Israel.7056]

> @Sarge.9730 said:

> > @Israel.7056 said:

> > Fighting BG is a great challenge overall due to their numbers and their general ruthlessness but there's no reward if you actually beat them in PPT because they just quit the game until they get more people. So either we lose to them and have fights or we try to organize and if we succeed we kill the game. There's no upside to winning.

> >

>

> Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I don't agree with this for the most part. I will address each of your points with my personal observations

>

> **"Numbers"**

>

> BG rarely has a huge number of people online at any given time. Its rare to see any borderland with a queue unless its reset night or one of the major guilds is running (and even that's only because everyone in WvW is queued for that map in particular). My personal feeling is that it FEELS like we have a ton more people to those on Mag because your whole server instant queues EB and makes little effort to do anything on any map that doesn't have a castle in the middle of it.

>

> **"Ruthlessness"**

>

> 2 Weeks in a row Mag has flipped BGs Garrison in EB and camped with enough siege to rival YB while chest thumping the whole time. By contrast BG flipped Mags Garrison 2 days ago and... left.

>

> **"There's no reward if you actually beat them in PPT because they just quit the game until they get more people"**

>

> The last time Mag was in T1 they tanked on purpose the moment they lost their link and played in the lower tiers until they got linked again. At which point they quickly came back to T1 and are currently tanking to leave again. How is that any different than what you are accusing BG of?

>

> **"So either we lose to them and have fights or we try to organize and if we succeed we kill the game"**

>

> There is no precedent for Mag winning on a regular basis outside of Major Holidays and or Expansion releases so... this remains an untested opinion.

>

>

>

 

1.) BG runs fat when they do run. I know how BG works, I was there for years.

 

2.) Yeah I mean I think we try to be more ruthless. Generally speaking though if BG holds an objective you're gonna go through all manner of siege to get into it and they'll flash build acs outside towers and double team objectives to get them flipped and pin snipe hardcore. I don't think ruthlessness is a bad thing btw. It's one of the things I like most about fighting BG. Win at all costs.

 

3.) I didn't like the idea of tanking to get relinked but it wasn't my call to make.

 

4.) Make whatever excuse you want the first time we went to t1 Xushin spent all this gold trying to get a decent force together to give BG a run for their money and BG completely caved once we won a few weeks in a row. BG then started trying to do blackouts to get more people but to my understanding that failed so they just waited until all the guilds he'd bought started leaving due to boredom. Then miraculously BG started showing again. Amazing.

 

This time around we won one week and I immediately started noticing less and less BG. But then I guess BG sea realized MGR had actually quit the game so it was safe to play again.

 

EDIT: I guess lots of BG players were really busy farming Griffons at xpac release.

[LetoII.3782]

> @Swamurabi.7890 said:

> > @Titan.3472 said:

> > > @Israel.7056 said:

> > > > @Titan.3472 said:

> > > > Last T1 server that had an elitist wvw guilds behavior excluding any other people was SoR and we all know how they ended back then and what is their place now. Take notes Mag. xD

> > >

> > > And anyone who was around during that time knows that SOR's eventual collapse had nothing to do with elitism. Nice try though.

> >

> > I was there. And I was part of the BG crew former member of [cA] & [WM] (NA/BG) and [RG] (EU/SFR) that nuked [iRON] (SoR) and make them quit over their elitist epic fail behavior. Then SoR felt into abyss. Same is occuring with Mag right now. Praise our Chaos Lord Shiva for granting us the gift of destroying Worlds.

>

> Do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on?

 

A polygraph would be a more appropriate attachment actually.

[Warlord.9074]

On topic, Link servers, generally speaking have no communities. They're servers that ANET deemed dead servers that couldn't compete outside of T8 and T7.

They generally have no "native" guild groups of their own. Any guild groups on Link servers are transient groups that hop to the next link server after relinks.

 

This is bringing no value to the game at all other than to facilitate logistics of moving WvW pop to servers by artificially hard locking host servers and facilitating low transfer fees to a link server to temporarily adjust population VIA bandwagon.

 

This creates a toxic atmosphere in WvW for several reasons. One of them is link servers are basically just along for the ride and because they are transient the players that transfer to them care very little about the game in my opinion.

 

I have suspected for a long time that rater than to adjust server pop every monday like ANET said they were going to, they are not doing this at all. They are just hard locking hosts and giving them links and just keeping Links open for those servers. Reason is because they don't want to kill off those dead servers for whatever reason.

 

This is a bad move Imo because of all the reasons I have listed. It's doing nothing for the game. And it's not revitalizing those dead servers. It never will. There are just simply too many wvw servers compared to active wvw pop in the game and its spreading the overall community too thin.

 

Kill off all of the Link servers and create 3 brand new ones. Give the players on a dead link the option to free transfer to a new host. Lock out all other servers from transferring to a new host. Be done with it. Stop being afraid to cater to communities on dead link servers that don't have any impact on the game. Those communities are like 5 loud people.

[Israel.7056]

The reason for the linkings is so they can continue to make money on transfers. GW2 is a freemium cash shop model and transfers are just another way for them to sell gems.

 

What's even better about their model is that they still demand that you buy the game and the xpac to play and then they just make money selling fluff to PvErs and transfers to WvWers. They've clearly had a harder time monetizing PvP so this might explain why so few of their resources are spent on pvp.