My Issue with FAQ: Why is there World Linking instead of some other solution?

[Jerry CCH.9816]

> @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> Thanks for creating a thread discussing one point of the FAQ. This is what we were hoping would happen when we posted it.

 

> 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.

>

Good Morning !! McKenna Berdrow.2759 :)

 

I apologize for taking up your valuable time but here's some Good Plan :+1:

 

1. Ask Feedback from WvW Server Leadership Group ( Ex : BlackGate NA Rep alt name is " dagneyandleo.6378 "

2. Remove WvW Tower/Keep Auto upgrade ( it's always T3 everything in low Population Timezone)

3. Make NA 3 Tier ( Game already 5 years, no more ppl could coverage all tz

 

Gw's WvW still the best RvR MMO <3

We still hope Anet Team give a hand for us

[Lorx.8507]

> @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> The culture, identity, and community point goes both ways. Linking can cause server communities to clash but if we were to merge worlds than some would argue we are removing their culture, identity, and community when we merge them with a host world. Essentially all “guest” worlds would no longer exist.

 

I think the original question was a bit different than that personally. What is being asked of you, is what happens in the situation where links cause this same problem.

 

Being shuffled around once every two months makes these communities vagrant by nature. And as they shuffle, people who want stability in their play will transfer off to a host server. People who find the larger, host communities, that do mesh with them. No player has enough data to analyze what kind of balance this gives, but if we assume the game mode population is shrinking overall, this exit amount of people from links would likely mean their eventual death as distinct identities. Effectively making the link system akin in purpose to speed dating. Sit at a table, chat about the weather, move on to the next, until you find the person who agrees with your opinions on the weather, and you both exit the loop. Not wanting to stay in that loop longer, risking another clash. The way the link system works, it incentivizes people to leave linked servers once they find an amiable link if they want stability and consistency in community, to break themselves apart to calmer pastures once spotted. Lest they risk the next cycle being a two month clash, with the experience behind them of what that is like to push them forward. It predestines these communities to die.

 

In this proposed scenario, the link worlds are on a sort of timer until their cultures and communities break indefinitely, likely permanently. Looking at the future, this presents us the same problems which prevents us from seeing merged servers. So if these are problems to be avoided, is there a plan forward? Or does internal data show these communities as more stable than outside opinions could conject? That the scenario buildable as an outside perspective looking in is wrong?

 

I don't really want answers necessarily to the questions posed, as I think that's a request unlikely to be granted. But in seeing the proposed direction, I want to voice these questions if only as feedback purposes on what's been presented. The link system works on paper because it doesn't take into account the human mind, it takes into account numbers. If you want every server to be a perfect 10, and keep worlds separate, you can do math. Host is a 7? Give it a 2 and 1 in it's links. Next cycle host becomes a 6, and the links became 1 and 1? Swap out the links for a 4, give the previous links to Hosts at 9. It allows for malleable and versatile math to happen on server numbers balancing. But it does not take into account _who_ those numbers may be, or how they may react to being the Host, or the Link. This system does not care for how the Link at 4 feels about the Host at 6, or what that Link needs to keep a stable community. It's being used as a number, nothing more, nothing less. Which works in math, but does not work for people. In short, it's an engineering department solution, for a community management department problem.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> Also to explain why we world link every 2 months, that was mostly determined by a poll we held. 27% of people who voted for an option wanted linking to happen monthly and the other 73% wanted it to be more than a month (there were several options and the 73% were split up between those options). We determined 2 months seemed fair based off of these results since majority wanted longer than 1 month but 1 month had the most votes of the options. We also felt like we could not do monthly since glicko did not adjust fast enough, but now that we use 1 up 1 down that isn’t a problem. We are open to changing how frequently or infrequently we link, I just wanted to explain how 2 month links were determined.

>

I'm positive that if this poll was redone now it would get a totally different result, and the thing is you wanted 2 months anyway because the process is a manual process.

 

And just on the loss of culture and identity with a merge. Its lost anyway because the linking doesn't preserve it in anyway. Its 1 reason why linking hasn't been a great solution.

[zinkz.7045]

> @"Scarran.9845" said:

> I hate world linking and would prefer they just straight up merged servers rather than this band aid fix.

 

Merging servers would also be a 'band aid fix', because you are still using the same system that resulted in imbalanced populations in the first place.

 

 

 

[Scarran.9845]

> @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > @"Scarran.9845" said:

> > I hate world linking and would prefer they just straight up merged servers rather than this band aid fix.

>

> Merging servers would also be a 'band aid fix', because you are still using the same system that resulted in imbalanced populations in the first place.

 

I never said it would fix the long term population issue's but it would help fix alot of the community issue's that revolve around server linking. For me it is hard to enjoy WvW when I know that 2 months down the line the people I am enjoying grouping up and playing WvW with are going to disappear.

 

I would rather it went back to the old ways where there was more stability as right now I do not know where I am going to end up every 2 months.

[Ebonfire.8270]

> @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

 

> 3. Breaking up forged relationships

> There are multiple instances where new players clueless to the linking system find themselves separated from their guild mates or play mates on an relink, where the only solution to reunite with them is to spend $$$$$ in gems to transfer to their server (given that it is open in the first place). This issue is not only exclusive to new players.

 

In the summer I began playing WvW, and within the week I received an invite to join a guild I had been running with that day. I'm on Ferguson's Crossing and they were primarily made up of Stormbluff Isle players. Some time goes by and my server is relinked to Tarnished Coast. I thought it was odd when I stopped seeing guildmates in EBG, even though I read the strategizing in guild chat, and then one day they were chatting about just flipping SMC. I realized they were now my WvW enemies. I didn't know what was going on, and it made me feel like a spy in my guild, so I muted guild chat. It was not until November that I understood what was going on with server linking. My guild was working on the only solution to reunite players: by linking to an open EU server. So they took donations for several weeks to pay for the relink. Well, my brother also plays on Ferguson's Crossing, so I stayed back. I agree it would seem like there would have to be a better solution.

 

 

[Silver.2076]

@ McKenna Berdrow.2759

Forgive me, but I see your statement as testimony to your lack of confidence, or just a bad excuse why you don't want to invest in this game or this area any more!

At least admit to seeing the problems. But at the same time you say that you can't change it because it could or would create more problems.

So we are supposed to accept a bad, but nevertheless somehow running system, because a change would be what... too daring?

What's your job, anyway? Managing a game or developing?

 

For fuck's sake! Dare something! Create something new! Break the rusty chains and present us with something fresh and stimulating.

First of all, make it clear that you are only administrators and the game itself is dead!

 

It makes me sad, almost disappointed when I see so much potential in this game, but I don't see any courage on your side to implement it.

[Tiny Doom.4380]

How about making the existing Guest links permanent so that the remaining players on those servers can settle down, but also creating some new "Mercenary" links, notional servers that players can opt to transfer to, which you can then use to provide additional population as and when required. Assuming players actually chose to fill those notional servers, which they most likely would if free transfers were offered when needed, you'd have a much more flexible response to fluctuating population issues on the regular servers. Players on the Mercenary servers would have to accept that they could find themselves linked with a different server as often as every week or could end up with the same server for a lot longer depending on the needs of the game at the time. They would, of course, be able to transfer off at the regular Gem cost the same as anyone else so they wouldn't be trapped there any more than anyone is.

 

 

[ThunderPanda.1872]

> @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> Thanks for creating a thread discussing one point of the FAQ. This is what we were hoping would happen when we posted it.

>

> There are several reasons we don’t believe merging is better than linking.

> 1. The biggest reason is worlds would end up where they were before linking, with the tiers having very different populations as time goes on. Then in the future, if we have less worlds, we might not be able to merge worlds again for a long time and that could leave several worlds with a dwindling population suffering for a long amount of time. This is particularly bad for getting any new players into WvW, because if they are on a world with a low population than they are more likely to never play. It also makes it more difficult to add new content or balance WvW the further the populations are apart.

> 2. The culture, identity, and community point goes both ways. Linking can cause server communities to clash but if we were to merge worlds than some would argue we are removing their culture, identity, and community when we merge them with a host world. Essentially all “guest” worlds would no longer exist. I think both points are valid, this is just one of the many reasons it is not easy to find a solution to the population problems. Linking isn’t perfect when it comes to preserving identity but we feel like it helped preserve it better than some of the other options like merging.

> 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.

>

> Also to explain why we world link every 2 months, that was mostly determined by a poll we held. 27% of people who voted for an option wanted linking to happen monthly and the other 73% wanted it to be more than a month (there were several options and the 73% were split up between those options). We determined 2 months seemed fair based off of these results since majority wanted longer than 1 month but 1 month had the most votes of the options. We also felt like we could not do monthly since glicko did not adjust fast enough, but now that we use 1 up 1 down that isn’t a problem. We are open to changing how frequently or infrequently we link, I just wanted to explain how 2 month links were determined.

>

 

Thanks for the reply. Please do not let angry trolls who do nothing but make insults to whoever disagrees with them discourage you from continuing the transparency and WvW discussions.

 

1. This, I can see the point and agree.

2. The way I see culture, identity, and community of a server is not that somehow servers with different name inherently have different 'identity', but more to do with what the overall playstyle the players on the server likes in general.

 

I could be a bit biased, but the server I consider 'my home server' is not the server I started in, in fact, it is also not the server I first transferred to. It is the like-minded community, the fact that the majority of the players on the server cares for their borderlands and many other factors where an individual's playstyle can be appreciated by the community. I am proud of being on my server, but I am sure when I feel my playstyle is no longer appreciated on my server, I will seek to find a new server (if I still want to play the game). This is how servers like BG, JQ and Mag are able to keep their community for a long time - because they are servers that don't see insults spammed in their team chat constantly for playing differently (except maybe Mag, when their links get angry at them for not defending structures). What I'm really trying to say is that server identity changes, people who don't like the community leaves, and people who like enters. Some people also like to play with the community/guild they met on the server before links, and a relatively short two months of a host server doesn't justify them to transfer. Instead of grinding out 2 months of frustration, a longer permanent merge might make them reconsider on staying on the server. For example, if you love ppt and you find out your server will be permanently linked to Mag, you would start to seriously consider moving to a ppt oriented server. Likewise, if you really only care for fights, and your linked to , you would start to make serious considerations to move.

 

But before we talk about all these, it is already evident server culture, identity, and community on linked servers are and will continue to erode, with new players that don't even know the server they belong to. Players don't even know whether the people they are talking to are from the same server. Unless we are going to see what @"Dawdler.8521" previously mentioned about the alliance 'mercenary feeling', is it really worth it to waste time, resource and mental fatigue to constantly relink and keep these server identities for the ever decreasing number of people? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying abandon and ignore them, you could always intrinsically honor the linked server with some title, name, or anything in their new permanently or long term merged server. Even a small icon beside their name (like the PvP badges) can go a long way.

 

3. In my opinion, I really don't think people are upset about receiving no links because they all wanted to dominate their competition. Instead, I think some of the main reasons people are upset about their new (or lack of) links are:

* Every new links can have an immediate affect on the performance of their server in their tier. It is demotivating to feel you no longer are able to compete in the tier both numerically and coverage right after new links. Maybe player activity didn't change numerically, but your new linked servers could have fewer guilds and organized groups to drive the engine of the servers.

* Servers are closed. For example, JQ has been closed forever, even longer than most other NA server (except for BG). The server had been floating in t2 and t3 for a very long time, and felt like they couldn't improve their server position (Yes, one of the last few servers that still relatively cares for the server rankings). It was, and still is to this day, that they are struggling to recruit new players and create new guilds to replace the slowly dwindling population. Thank you for acknowledging that algorithms needs to be improved, as it makes no sense that just last week, almost all t2 and above servers were full when none could remotely imagine to compete with the top server.

 

Once again, please do not let the trolls and angry people discourage you. I am certain that communication like these are greatly appreciated by many players even if their personal opinion differs.

[Roxanne.6140]

Anet logged in and set JQ population threshold to 1

 

The same way Rick killed the galactic federation except that his was 0 and JQ's is 1

[Vavume.8065]

> @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> We are open to changing how frequently or infrequently we link, I just wanted to explain how 2 month links were determined.

 

So long story short, all you are willing to do is change the frequency of links, like that will really make all the difference /s. I want to play WvW and feel like I belong to something, to feel like winning is important, I used to have those feelings before you killed my server with server links. The only way now I will ever get those feelings back is if you reset WvW to a version 2.0 with a brand new smaller league with new server names and let us start over again.

[Reaper Alim.4176]

> @"Silver.2076" said:

> @ McKenna Berdrow.2759

> Forgive me, but I see your statement as testimony to your lack of confidence, or just a bad excuse why you don't want to invest in this game or this area any more!

Yup pretty much.

> At least admit to seeing the problems. But at the same time you say that you can't change it because it could or would create more problems.

Why, when it serves no one at all?

> So we are supposed to accept a bad, but nevertheless somehow running system, because a change would be what... too daring?

No, if you don't like the package ANet is feeding you. Then you can simply look for better entertainment elsewhere. Which I'm going to guess most of the Ex-WvWers have done, seeing the drastic population declines that has unfolded. No one is forcing you to play or invest in GW2.

> What's your job, anyway? Managing a game or developing?

Their job is to make money for themselves and their actually investors. They are not here to entertain us anymore. You don't like it. Then don't support them.

>

> For kitten's sake! Dare something! Create something new! Break the rusty chains and present us with something fresh and stimulating.

Why would they? When they can just continue to forget that WvW even exist.

> First of all, make it clear that you are only administrators and the game itself is dead!

Again why would they, when this serves no one?

>

> It makes me sad, almost disappointed when I see so much potential in this game, but I don't see any courage on your side to implement it.

Yeah same here. But I've learned to adapt and live with these facts. As did others. As I'm sure you are capable of doing the same.

 

 

[SugarCayne.3098]

My issue is she’s spelled peek instead of peak. :(

[CrimsonNeonite.1048]

Links are just a bandaid for the Population issues, until they decide to blow things up. It looks like it might not ever happen, because WvW has no clear direction anymore.

 

WvW will continue to bleed players, players will just bandwagon and transfer to the most popular host/linked servers, especially with how the Population Algorithm is allowing all these linked servers in the EU to be open, although no one should transfer, when relinking will happen in two weeks time.

[McKenna Berdrow.2759]

> @"Endelon.1042" said:

> > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

>

> > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.**

>

>

> Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ??

>

> edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system.

 

We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect.

[Loosmaster.8263]

> @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> > @"Endelon.1042" said:

> > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> >

> > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.**

> >

> >

> > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ??

> >

> > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system.

>

> We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect.

 

I know you can't say what you're investigating but can toss a potential time frame for some type of announcement?

[Vavume.8065]

> @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

 

> We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect.

 

Well hallelujah! that is the best news I have heard in a long time, I'm looking forward to hearing more about it.

[McKenna Berdrow.2759]

> @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

 

> I know you can't say what you're investigating but can toss a potential time frame for some type of announcement?

 

It will be after the holidays.

[Loosmaster.8263]

> @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> > @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

>

> > I know you can't say what you're investigating but can toss a potential time frame for some type of announcement?

>

> It will be after the holidays.

 

TYVM!!!

[Endelon.1042]

> @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect.

 

Hey that's awesome, thanks!

 

 

[devious.4605]

> @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> > @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

>

> > I know you can't say what you're investigating but can toss a potential time frame for some type of announcement?

>

> It will be after the holidays.

So is it safe to say, WvW population reviews are disabled till after the holidays as well?

[Sovereign.1093]

by their promise and reply we have hope. =)

[atheria.2837]

> @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

> I want to first thanks @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" for coming out and breaking the silence by answering a lot of long standing questions we had. But there are some factors in world linking I just cannot agree on.

>

> Don't get me wrong. I support world linking, and would prefer linking over tiers of dead servers or any other more extreme, bipolar and controversial solutions. What I have huge issue with is the bimonthly relinks.

>

> 1. It takes away server culture, identity and general unity as a server community.

> Server cultures can often clash (example mag & their links). There is no sense of unity, no common goal or position where they would like to see their server be at. Linked server may often find itself to have multiple server voip. Multiple guilds have also stopped using the community voip due to the hassle of changing their voip every two months.

> There were times in the past where servers each had their own specific ways of coordinating in WvW (e.g. look at how some servers used different tag color to specify their roles in WvW), this is almost impossible to see in the current system. Map assignments on reset are also rarely possible, not only because of no unity in the linked servers, but players just generally care less about their server.

> 2. Instability every two months

> Why should anyone care about the position of their server when how they perform in WvW relative to other servers can often be dictated by the links they receive every two months. It is also demoralizing for players who have acclimatized to t1 and t2 in the current link, but finds themselves helplessly in t3, t4 or t5 the next relink. Not to mention how do servers compete with servers with a long standing community that are generally united in their style of play.

> 3. Breaking up forged relationships

> There are multiple instances where new players clueless to the linking system find themselves separated from their guild mates or play mates on an relink, where the only solution to reunite with them is to spend $$$$$ in gems to transfer to their server (given that it is open in the first place). This issue is not only exclusive to new players.

>

> Please stop looking at population balance purely with numeric figures. If you want to monitor changes, tweaks and balance "easily", please look at the feasibility of permanent or long term links. Have patience and let population self regulate, and make changes in linking only when it is absolutely necessary. Discourage bandwagoning and encourage population participation not by forcing players to play together or split apart, not by trying to dictate their numbers, but by implementing features that will make players care for their server community and encourage them to invest their time for their server community.

>

> It is the weekend and there is probably no one in the office reading this. But I sincerely hope the WvW team reconsiders bi-monthly relinks that has been detrimental to community unity and morale.

I more than agree.

 

I used to spend 8 or more hours in WvW because I knew those people and most of them trusted me. I 'served' on three Silver tournament winners

Fort Aspenwood (tourney 1) Henge of Denravi (tourney 2) and Yaks Bend (tourney 3). To most commanders I was a valued scout and 'pug' in the

kindest of senses.

 

Now?

 

Ok, how's this:

 

Pepper is the most hated and blocked player in the game.

 

Hmmm... On my server?

 

No. On a linked server who never wanted to get to know me or why so many disparage anyone on any server.

 

The game mode called WvW is supposed to be fully cooperative between players and yet, every time I jump in and try

to stop even more trolling - I am 'the most hated person' for being the adult in the room.

 

WvW must be a place for those who want to get to know one another and trust one another over time, not the "Beta"

'fix' that still is harming WvW to this day.

 

Give us back WvW.

 

How about just one server versus another and let the servers fall where they may? Not three, not warbands, not alliances, just two servers to duke it out

without as many who fight and collude against another where it can and is oftentimes is FIVE servers versus TWO servers and the fight still isn't

'fair' for any side.

 

One server versus one server.

 

 

##SaveWvW

 

[Silver.2076]

> @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> > @"Endelon.1042" said:

> > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> >

> > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.**

> >

> >

> > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ??

> >

> > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system.

>

> We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect.

 

 

Really? A glimmer of hope on the finer horizon! HYPE!!!!1111!!11

No, seriously, yeah, please look at it. There is so much potential in WvW! I repeat myself; (

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Silver.2076" said:

> > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> > > @"Endelon.1042" said:

> > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> > >

> > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.**

> > >

> > >

> > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ??

> > >

> > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system.

> >

> > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect.

>

>

> Really? A glimmer of hope on the finer horizon! HYPE!!!!1111!!11

> No, seriously, yeah, please look at it. There is so much potential in WvW! I repeat myself; (

Well if its anything like the promised 100% focus on WvW after HoT, we're in for a treat in a year or two.