World Restructuring

[Euryon.9248]

> @"Macilien.3078" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"Macilien.3078" said:

> > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > > > @"Macilien.3078" said:

> > > > > A problem (and an opportunity) I see with this new system is accessibility.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m in a guild with ca. 400 members of which 10% – 20% actively play WvW. As it is now, if one of our guild members wants to get started with WvW the natural approach is to join one of our guild raids if they are on the same (or a linked) server, else they have to get help from somewhere else or their interest just fizzles out (usually the later).

> > > > >

> > > > > With the new system a thing I’d like to see is an opportunity for starting (and maybe returning) players to cheaply (ideally for free) join their guild mates.

> > > > >

> > > > > Conditions could be some or all of these:

> > > > > Transfer is free if

> > > > > - had no transfer in the current season

> > > > > - played no more than 10 hours in the last season

> > > > > - played no more than 10 hours in the current season

> > > > > - WvW-Rank is no more than 149

> > > > >

> > > > But... It is free :/

> > > >

> > > > Either you:

> > > >

> > > > A) Set the 400 man guild as your WvW guild as is. Everyone will be on the same world, even if people that stopped playing 5 years ago log back on. It's gonna be free to join guild mates (duh, since no one leaves)

> > > >

> > > > B) Trim the fat and create your own alliance. That way you can still be part of a large group if you want to invite several other guilds, while not taking up 400 slots. I am guessing that there will be some extra slots to make sure guilds have some wriggle room (like, if you have a 210 man guild you take up 250 slots). Gonna be free for anyone joining the guild (after the 8 week MMR is over, max 8 weeks wait min 1 week or whatever it is)

> > > >

> > > > C) Leave the guild and make a considerably smaller new WvW guild and join an alliance or roam freely like A). Like B), anyone wanting to join you for free even after the restructure is in place and 8 weeks has started, just join this guild.

> > > >

> > > > It only gonna cost if you are so impatient you need to join right now today in 1 minute. Which as I have said before Anet *knows* people are but still that's how I understand it will work.

> > > >

> > > > Edit: Point "B" didnt quite work out as intended but kitten it, that works too.

> > >

> > > A: Only those who set their WvW-guild will end up on the same server and it's quite unlikely that people who never (rarely) played WvW will actually set one just in case.

> > >

> > > B: We do have a separate guild for our more active WvW-players, but this doesn't help those in the main guild that want to start WvW.

> > >

> > > C: What I mean by accessibility is exactly that you don't have to tell people something like: "Great that you want to play WvW, see you in 8 weeks."

> > > By that time people likely will have lost interest.

> > >

> > > As I see it these people will have little weight in the balancing algorithm anyway and their placement will be rather arbitrary in that regard, so why make it unnecessarily hard for them?

> > If people loose interest over 8 weeks then what's even the point of arguing? They wont bother playing WvW with you anyway. Also why are you worrying about people not setting their WvW guild due to inactivity? The matchup obviously doesnt matter to them anyway. Either they dont care about where or with who they play or what, they left in 2013 and come in back in 2018 going "omg what is this 8 weeks I cant wait for that long I quit kitten game!"?

> >

> > The question was, is there free transfer. The answer was yes with a delay. Instant would cost. Nothing is made unnecessarily hard on anyone. Well, unless Anet want to introduce a gem cost to joining a guild. Which would be truly evil.

> >

>

> The problem is simply that it's quite hard to keep someone enthusiastic about a gamemode they can't play (properly) for the duration of 8 weeks.

>

> The question never was whether you can transfer for free, but under which circumstances it should be free and instant and in my eyes getting new players into the gamemode is quite a good reason.

 

8 weeks is the absolute maximum time they would have to wait, it's far more likely the season would be in progress before they evinced an interest.

 

They can try the game mode out on any world for 1-8 weeks and then join you at the end of that period. If they would rather just quit the game and not bother than take that option, then I don't see any reason for the devs to make changes to accommodate them. Realistically, how many people, as a % of wvwers overall, would this really cause to quit the game?

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Macilien.3078" said:

> The question never was whether you can transfer for free, but under which circumstances it should be free and instant and in my eyes getting new players into the gamemode is quite a good reason.

But who are these "new" players that get into a new gamemode... and instantly want to transfer world? It can take a loooong time to find a guild. Those new to the game mode wont join WvW and look for a guilds on another world. That's not how it works. They will join WvW and simply play. Will they eventually join a guild? For sure, when this restructure begin there will probably be lots of recruitments. Will they eventually learn about alliances? It'd be hard for them not to. Will they eventually want to transfer worlds/alliances? *Maybe*.

 

And we've given you the circumstances - it's free to transfer with a delay of 1 to 8 weeks. You do that by just joining another WvW guild, leaving your current WvW guild (if you have one). It's gonna cost to transfer instantly. and we dont know that cost.

 

It's that simple.

 

[Macilien.3078]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Macilien.3078" said:

> > The question never was whether you can transfer for free, but under which circumstances it should be free and instant and in my eyes getting new players into the gamemode is quite a good reason.

> But who are these "new" players that get into a new gamemode... and instantly want to transfer world? It can take a loooong time to find a guild. Those new to the game mode wont join WvW and look for a guilds on another world. That's not how it works. They will join WvW and simply play. Will they eventually join a guild? For sure, when this restructure begin there will probably be lots of recruitments. Will they eventually learn about alliances? It'd be hard for them not to. Will they eventually want to transfer worlds/alliances? *Maybe*.

>

> And we've given you the circumstances - it's free to transfer with a delay of 1 to 8 weeks. You do that by just joining another WvW guild, leaving your current WvW guild (if you have one). It's gonna cost to transfer instantly. and we dont know that cost.

>

> It's that simple.

>

 

As I said in my initial post I'm talking about people that already are in a guild, don't play WvW yet and want to play WvW with the people they already know and play with in PvE.

 

Since this new system is not finalized I'm bringing up my concerns so that they might be considered.

[HazyDaisy.4107]

I just thought of something and I was wondering how it would be impacted when this change is in place. Fractal instances? When a friend is in a fractal, they are placed in an overflow server of that instance, you see this when you hover over their name, the server appears with a (D) beside it, for me, it's usually Anvil Rock (D), so, what happens to fractals once AR goes away?

 

Forgive my lack of technicality, just curious how this would work.

[needbeer.1687]

no what youre trying to do is ruin wvw. youre turning it into a gvg.> @"style.6173" said:

> I think this is a great idea. Of course a number of people from BG will complain, but in general it is a much better system than we have today. Population balance and time zone balance is a big issue. Looking forward to this being implemented as soon as possible.

 

and youre damn right bg will complain. why? because they have every right to. everything ever that happened in wvw is always somehow bg's fault. wanna hear a secret? bg isnt as stacked as you think it is.

[HazyDaisy.4107]

> @"needbeer.1687" said:

> no what youre trying to do is ruin wvw. youre turning it into a gvg.> @"style.6173" said:

> > I think this is a great idea. Of course a number of people from BG will complain, but in general it is a much better system than we have today. Population balance and time zone balance is a big issue. Looking forward to this being implemented as soon as possible.

>

> and youre kitten right bg will complain. why? because they have every right to. everything ever that happened in wvw is always somehow bg's fault. wanna hear a secret? bg isnt as stacked as you think it is.

 

You're right, BG may not be as stacked as people think, but some of the guest servers weren't as dead as people claimed they were either THEN. The time to get mad about servers going away was 2 years ago though, instead people cheered and told anyone on a guest that BEGGED to be reconized in some way shape or form to suck it up, that's what happens when you refuse to transfer off of a PVD server. Well, this is what happens when you refuse to transfer off a locked server, lose an occasional match or spread out a bit, not for better linkings or loot, but for a better experience for everyone playing. Everyone had 2 years to try and make the linking system work, we all failed, that's not solely on BG, but AR being stuck in 24th shouldn't have been DH, Ebay, SF, FC, GOM or CD either, but it was.

[Euryon.9248]

> @"needbeer.1687" said:

> no what youre trying to do is ruin wvw. youre turning it into a gvg.> @"style.6173" said:

> > I think this is a great idea. Of course a number of people from BG will complain, but in general it is a much better system than we have today. Population balance and time zone balance is a big issue. Looking forward to this being implemented as soon as possible.

>

> and youre kitten right bg will complain. why? because they have every right to. everything ever that happened in wvw is always somehow bg's fault. wanna hear a secret? bg isnt as stacked as you think it is.

 

Tell me again when was the last time BG lost a matchup and dropped to T2? Is there *any way* any server currently in T4 or maybe even T3 would have even a *remote* chance of winning a matchup with BG if BG wasn't flat-out tanking?

 

Try to see the population imbalance from the bottom or middle instead of just the top. It *is* a huge problem.

[Threather.9354]

> @"needbeer.1687" said:

> no what youre trying to do is ruin wvw. youre turning it into a gvg.> @"style.6173" said:

> > I think this is a great idea. Of course a number of people from BG will complain, but in general it is a much better system than we have today. Population balance and time zone balance is a big issue. Looking forward to this being implemented as soon as possible.

>

> and youre kitten right bg will complain. why? because they have every right to. everything ever that happened in wvw is always somehow bg's fault. wanna hear a secret? bg isnt as stacked as you think it is.

 

Check the graph in the FAQ thread. Anet stated that BG is the one with most population even with being closed for so long. Having 10-20% more playhours is no joke because it makes current linking system hard to balance. Knowing when youre losing for 2 years because enemy has more coverage is different than losing when you know you had the same amount of population at start of 8 week period.

 

Also lets say BG was losing a matchup on tuesday. Wouldnt there be thousands bg players to logging in to PPT, theyre just playing PvE/PvP majority of time because "oh bg will win anyways", so theres lot of hidden population there that just isn't active because there isn't competition. I have been on Rank 1 server on multiple times, and it happens from a lot of players...

 

EU also definitely needs the change. The germans need to be cut a server and spread to other German servers. Permanent bandvagoning is rampant atm so majority of servers that put priority on quality or fights are dodging doing well at t2 or t1 matchups. And as we know, its the same on NA.

 

Is it healthy that the strong servers and veteran players/commanders are not aiming to win with vast majority of other playerbase being also interested in going higher tiers because the amount of people who would transfer to your server refusing to join teamspeak/discord or fight losing fights?

 

Going to T1 really has no meaning in EU because 2 out of 3 servers typically in t2 don't even want to go T1, so 1 server is given a freeride on higher tiers, which also leads to lot of players being incapable of playing as much they want because that would obviously lead to higher score. Its the same on NA.

 

The fact that you can reset your server every 8 weeks leaving all these casual bandvagoner stranded WHILE being able to aim to win is a godsend to servers that will after be able to play as much as they want and aim for higher score without expecting massive wave of casual pugs transferring from other servers.

 

Yes, I know lot of these BG players are being unreasonable because they're afraid of losing afterwards or being left out of the alliance they would want to be in. Which is natural. So yes, its natural for them to complain.

 

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"HazyDaisy.4107" said:

> I just thought of something and I was wondering how it would be impacted when this change is in place. Fractal instances? When a friend is in a fractal, they are placed in an overflow server of that instance, you see this when you hover over their name, the server appears with a (D) beside it, for me, it's usually Anvil Rock (D), so, what happens to fractals once AR goes away?

>

> Forgive my lack of technicality, just curious how this would work.

Think of it like this:

 

Right now every player has a nametag saying "Hi, I am {server}" on them.

Anet removes the nametag.

 

What changes?

Absolutely nothing.

 

Nothing happens to fractals. The instances will still be there.

[Kofiend.2530]

This could be a game changer and lead to more even match ups and fights. All for it

[zinkz.7045]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> World Creation builds teams so they have similar predicted participation, skill, coverage, and language.

 

So unless I am understanding it wrong, then that would mean EU will basically get a crippled version of the new system, because it will be hampered by language separation.

 

To take an example, currently most servers do not want to play Barauch Bay, because they are boring to play against because they lack players much of the day (relative to their tier position), their Primetime starts 2 hours or so later than everyone else, because Spanish eat late, and then late at night they can have blobs (I assume because high Spanish youth unemployment, Spanish speaking North/South American players) when no one else has anything close to those numbers.

 

But if I am understanding the system then nothing will change in that case to any meaningful degree, there will be a Spanish language 'world team', that will basically be Baruch Bay, that will still have hugely lopsided coverage, because you can't add to their numbers when most other people play because you are limited by having Spanish only speakers and you won't be able to put late night players against them, because many will be part of alliances that would mean they have many more players than the Spanish world team in the day/primetime.

 

 

 

 

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > World Creation builds teams so they have similar predicted participation, skill, coverage, and language.

>

> So unless I am understanding it wrong, then that would mean EU will basically get a crippled version of the new system, because it will hampered by language separation.

>

> To take an example, currently most servers do not want to play Barauch Bay, because they are boring to play against because they lack players much of the day (relative to their tier position), their Primetime starts 2 hours or so later than everyone else, because Spanish eat late, and then late at night they can have blobs (I assume because high Spanish youth unemployment, Spanish speaking North/South American players) when no one else has anything close to those numbers.

>

> But if I am understanding the system then nothing will change in that case to any meaningful degree, there will be a Spanish language 'world team', that will basically be Baruch Bay, that will still have hugely lopsided coverage, because you can't add to their numbers when most other people play because you are limited by having Spanish only speakers and you won't be able to put late night players against them, because many will be part of alliances that would mean they have many more players than the Spanish world team in the day/primetime.

Well you can look at it two ways:

 

Either the language barrier will keep them in their cliques and limit the rest of us because we dont want germans building a million ACs in a T1 tower, french running away when outnumbering the enemy 3 to 1 and spanish not even showing up to fight.

 

*or*

 

We can mingle and teach each other how to be to stronger using the new matchup system.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > World Creation builds teams so they have similar predicted participation, skill, coverage, and language.

>

> So unless I am understanding it wrong, then that would mean EU will basically get a crippled version of the new system, because it will hampered by language separation.

>

> To take an example, currently most servers do not want to play Barauch Bay, because they are boring to play against because they lack players much of the day (relative to their tier position), their Primetime starts 2 hours or so later than everyone else, because Spanish eat late, and then late at night they can have blobs (I assume because high Spanish youth unemployment, Spanish speaking North/South American players) when no one else has anything close to those numbers.

>

> But if I am understanding the system then nothing will change in that case to any meaningful degree, there will be a Spanish language 'world team', that will basically be Baruch Bay, that will still have hugely lopsided coverage, because you can't add to their numbers when most other people play because you are limited by having Spanish only speakers and you won't be able to put late night players against them, because many will be part of alliances that would mean they have many more players than the Spanish world team in the day/primetime.

>

>

>

>

 

To a point you are likely correct. But more likely their numbers will be split into 3-4 alliances because of sheer volume.

 

I know priority will be language, but i would think they _could_ split those 4 alliances into 4 worlds.

[Donari.5237]

> @"Macilien.3078" said:

 

> As I said in my initial post I'm talking about people that already are in a guild, don't play WvW yet and want to play WvW with the people they already know and play with in PvE.

>

> Since this new system is not finalized I'm bringing up my concerns so that they might be considered.

 

If they are already in the guild, then use guild communication channels including the MotD and any guild website information pages to announce: "We will be marking this guild as WvW. If you think there is the slightest chance you will *ever* want to try out WvW, and want to try it with this guild, please mark us as your WvW guild as soon as that is an option."

 

When people join the guild, as part of the meet'n'greet mention to them "hey, we're set as WvW so we can stick together if we go there, feel free to mark us as your WvW guild. It won't affect you at all if you never go into WvW but will mean we can help you if you do."

[Discomfort.5987]

I absolutely love this idea. High population on certain servers needs to be addressed and I think getting rid of servers and having different worlds based off of players playtime/rank/time of day play, is very important to finally get balance in WvW.

 

I have a few questions and concerns.

 

1. Max # of alliances per world. I understand some alliances might have max number of players, but in the case of some alliances being low population (let's say 100 wvw'ers as opposed to one with 500 wvw'ers). Will there be extra alliances per world? Or will you compensate with extra random guilds?

 

2. Trying to sort people into worlds based off what time of day they play will be very difficult, is this something you all are looking into? and if so, how will you count a player that plays multiple time zones?

[Loosmaster.8263]

> @"Donari.5237" said:

> > @"Macilien.3078" said:

>

> > As I said in my initial post I'm talking about people that already are in a guild, don't play WvW yet and want to play WvW with the people they already know and play with in PvE.

> >

> > Since this new system is not finalized I'm bringing up my concerns so that they might be considered.

>

> If they are already in the guild, then use guild communication channels including the MotD and any guild website information pages to announce: "We will be marking this guild as WvW. If you think there is the slightest chance you will *ever* want to try out WvW, and want to try it with this guild, please mark us as your WvW guild as soon as that is an option."

>

> When people join the guild, as part of the meet'n'greet mention to them "hey, we're set as WvW so we can stick together if we go there, feel free to mark us as your WvW guild. It won't affect you at all if you never go into WvW but will mean we can help you if you do."

 

The only problem is they may still not get in during a season they have had no activity and the world is full. They may have to wait until next season and that is still "iffy" with no activity.

 

I don't know if they play on another world during the season to get activity rolling to be put in for the next seasons pooling.

[SweetPotato.7456]

BTW, why not try to link NA and EU servers before you go into this big restructuring business? The way I see it now, EU needs players that play NA time and NA servers need Players that play duing EU time. Stop linking the people who play during the same hour and you would have the problem solved . I am from TC, you know what happened when you send those linked servers to TC? They still play during NA time with the rest of the TC players who play duing NA time and the worse part, they recruite TC players and take them away when its time to relink. ... (FYI TC NEEDS SEA TIME PLAYERS you know EU time)

 

**Question**: for the new restructuring, Will there be a "Prominent Guild" that can carry a "world" on every world, or, it is going to be all the big guilds and alliances are going to be group together and fight each other situation?

 

Just wandering how you are going to place/match up the players who don;t belong to any guild or alliances now, and probably not going to attach to any or plan on joining any later will you throw us to the "remainder" of the worlds and still suffer the empty map situation that has no commanders

[Lunacy Solacio.6514]

> @"SweetPotato.7456" said:

> BTW, why not try to link NA and EU servers before you go into this big restructuring business? The way I see it now, EU needs players that play NA time and NA servers need Players that play duing EU time. Stop linking the people who play during the same hour and you would have the problem solved . I am from TC, you know what happened when you send those linked servers to TC? They still play during NA time with the rest of the TC players who play duing NA time and the worse part, they recruite TC players and take them away when its time to relink. ... (FYI TC NEEDS SEA TIME PLAYERS you know EU time)

>

> **Question**: for the new restructuring, Will there be a "Prominent Guild" that can carry a "world" on every world, or, it is going to be all the big guilds and alliances are going to be group together and fight each other situation?

>

> Just wandering how you are going to place/match up the players who don;t belong to any guild or alliances now, and probably not going to attach to any or plan on joining any later will you throw us to the "remainder" of the worlds and still suffer the empty map situation that has no commanders

 

For the same reason NA and EU can't play together in pve.

Players in one region cannot play with those in another, unless they pay and move their account to the other region. Doing so introduces a noticeable latency. Who are you going to force that latency on? All the EU players, or all the NA players? Setting up the backend to work that way pretty much requires rewriting the server and database access based on what Anet has said before. For pve I can imagine some ways they can get around that based on what they've told us before, but WvW is a different beast.

 

 

[Jack Skywalker.5674]

If we could input the sPvP amulets în this I would be very happy!

[Sesbog.8705]

> # Paragon to Close on April 26

> Hey Everyone,

 

> It’s with heavy hearts we’ve decided to close down Paragon.

 

> We truly appreciate everything you’ve put into Paragon. We received many passionate ideas for where to take the game; the outpouring of thoughtful suggestions is another testament to this incredible community.

 

> After careful consideration, and many difficult internal debates, we feel there isn’t a clear path for us to grow Paragon into a MOBA that retains enough players to be sustainable.

 

> We didn’t execute well enough to deliver on the promise of Paragon. We have failed you -- despite the team’s incredibly hard work -- and we’re sorry.

 

> To try to make this right, Epic is offering a full refund to every Paragon player for every purchase on any platform. This refund will come directly from Epic rather than your platform provider.

 

> We’ll continue operating Paragon servers until April 26, 2018. As the player population continues to decrease, matchmaking times and quality will further degrade.

 

This quote can be applied to www gw2, but they probably will not close one of the parts of their pve-program.

After the update, we can see the rebirth with a big burst of queues anywhere and two weeks later the suicide of the whole regime with the outflow of participants due to new problems.

 

 

[shiri.4257]

Instead of having players pay for transfers have guild costs for wvw designations of X number of players. I hate seeing dead guilds and bank guilds take up name space and no maintenance fee.

-Every 8 weeks an alliance and guild maintenance cost along these lines

 

Guild Fees:

-100g/50 wvw player designation slots (that's 2g/per person every 8 weeks) maximum of 500 slots (1000g/guild). This would also require Guild UI to confirm/remove wvw designations internally.

 

Alliance Fees:

-100g/5 guilds in alliance with a predetermined max number of guilds per alliance and player cap. (20 guilds/500 players). Even a 5man roaming guild can come up with 20g/8weeks.

 

**You can even put a Gem Fee for the max one, so guilds can pay like 1000/2000 gems every 8 weeks for maintenance**

 

Why maintenance fees?

1) determine your actual guild numbers vs inactive.

2) Players that want to switch guilds/alliance can do so every 8 weeks and it will be the in the hands of the guild/alliance to accept them for a fee if they wish.

3) I would actually recommend maintenance fees much higher than the proposed.

 

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"shiri.4257" said:

> Instead of having players pay for transfers have guild costs for wvw designations of X number of players. I hate seeing dead guilds and bank guilds take up name space and no maintenance fee.

> -Every 8 weeks an alliance and guild maintenance cost along these lines

>

> Guild Fees:

> -100g/50 wvw player designation slots (that's 2g/per person every 8 weeks) maximum of 500 slots (1000g/guild). This would also require Guild UI to confirm/remove wvw designations internally.

>

> Alliance Fees:

> -100g/5 guilds in alliance with a predetermined max number of guilds per alliance and player cap. (20 guilds/500 players). Even a 5man roaming guild can come up with 20g/8weeks.

>

> **You can even put a Gem Fee for the max one, so guilds can pay like 1000/2000 gems every 8 weeks for maintenance**

>

> Why maintenance fees?

> 1) determine your actual guild numbers vs inactive.

> 2) Players that want to switch guilds/alliance can do so every 8 weeks and it will be the in the hands of the guild/alliance to accept them for a fee if they wish.

> 3) I would actually recommend maintenance fees much higher than the proposed.

>

That's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[shiri.4257]

2000 gems roughly translates to 370g for a whole guild maintenance. not really ridiculous, unless you're a deadbeat freeloader.

 

Which for a presumably 500man guild is about 1.35gold/member every 2months. Still cheaper than server transfer costs. Now its guild transfer costs.

[Djamonja.6453]

Eh, you can look at your guild roster and see who hasn't been online for months -- just kick them if you don't think they are coming back, you can always re-add them to the guild if they do.

[ixl.7190]

Full Disclosure: The following wall of text is coming from the deepest salt mine on Blackgate.

 

We have to start by being 100% honest about the root cause of our problem. I believe the blame is 90% on players for our selfish behaviors, and 10% on ANET for not beating us hard enough for our actions (or turning a blind eye and just ignoring the problem altogether). Take yourself out of your POV and consider what it is like creating a game where your customers will always break and exploit anything good you try to give them.

 

Blackgate didn't do a single thing any other server could not have done. What we did is snowball together a large number of motivated players and retain them, because it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that "good players are on Blackgate" once it starts being proven to be true. A month before pre-launch I started lurking different forums to get a gauge for where a good community of "players motivated to be successfull" was being planned. My ( PVP guild plus PVP community friends from the previous MMO) and i looked at a couple different options while leveling and gearing our first 80's. Then I collected my friends and dragged them here. Alot of other people did the same, for different reasons and game modes. Enthusiasts. Collectors. Die hard YouTuber fanboys. People who just like being around "where things are happening" because it makes them feel more connected to the experience overall. And Elitists (Duh and/or Hello). A large number of people are all of these things combined. Consider the notion that the BG roamer you're about to ambush *MIGHT* have xferred to BG 4 years ago because they wanted to join or just hang out near [DnT] for PvE glory reasons, and they are capping that camp to maintain participation so they can finish their WvW Legendary Armor to match their PVE and SPvP sets. You didn't really get ganked by them just now because they are especially good at WvW, they simply developed the skill to theorycraft a good build in PvE, had the gold to assemble BiS gear, and learned to 1v1 like a champ while getting their SPvP Legendary suit finished. Every server has these motivated players; BG just has an above average amount of them.

 

"Yeah but you try-hards stacked and bought guilds".

 

Fighting your butt off to dominate, only to log-in the next day and find all your work undone, sucks. So we made friends with guilds in other timezones. We understood that when you ask a guild to xfer, you are asking them to sacrifice not only their time/money, but quite possibly having to wipe their account and start over to join you. Not only this, but you fracture their existing community, and ask them to tell guild members who cannot afford to xfer, or cannot leave other friends behind, to find a new home. So yes, when the guild leaders of Blackgate asked us to open our pockets, either by giving away gold freely, or participating in raffles for Legendary items or other shinies the BG Community donated to the cause, we did it. And no one on BG should EVER feel ashamed. Server pride can come from accomplishment, but it also comes from sacrifices made. It's easy to say server pride doesn't matter when you never put the time and work into building one that other people did.

 

"You killed WvW"

 

Yes, if you mean all GW2 players, we certainly did. Second-account spies, tag watching and griefing. Siege trolls capping maps so your zerg cannot even drop one ram. TS server DDOS attacks. All manner of glitching, hacks, exploits, and intentional mass-reporting of commanders. ANET's slow or missing response to these behaviors (or tied hands for legal reasons). I spent 7:30am-9:30am (PT) in the one float team BG could muster this morning, averaging 20-30 players (with 1-2 maps outnumbered almost consistently because the Roamers got pulled into the zerg, too), and we took SMC three times, and ran *MOSTLY* unopposed for the duration. If your server can't cough up one tag and 20-30 people at all times, your server doesn't care about WvW, or your server is a ghost town. Period. During the off-peak hours I play, this is a common scenario, including being outnumbered on 1-2 maps consistently. After 9pm on reset night, the longest queue on EBG I've seen recently is less than 15. A server which could cough up a 50-strong zerg (that isn't wearing mostly zerk gear), a skilled commander, and 20 scattered Roamers/Scouts, can slap us around. Easily. Stop defeating yourselves.

 

"Just rebuild your community as an Alliance"

 

I don't think you understand a community. Your server community, just like your family, includes the people you CAN'T get rid of. What would your chats be like without the trolls, self-righteous, and outspoken? When they are gone, you'll miss them more than you think. The Militia contributes scouting, bloodlust, keeps things contested, flips objectives the zerg cannot justify wasting time on, and fleshes out the zerg. At the same time, the militia AFK's alot, chases squirrels, and doesn't push when the commander needs them to. A system which disincludes the Militia destroys an important check and balance of WvW, especially in t1.

 

"yeah but matchmaking and ANET said and no Alliance will be able to..."

 

I've read this whole thread and am basing the following assumptions on ANET's responses so far of what they *MIGHT* do, so let's call the following a theoretical warning based off of the numbers given and my personal experiences, including the disturbing amount of time I spent in the HzH Alliance in GW1, just to give one example. First off, I contest the notion that there are enough active, highly motivated players to fill 3 1000-strong Alliances and make the top tier interesting. Maybe two days in, maybe two weeks in, an Alliance named "Thanks for helping us get rid of the PUGs LOL" will cement its reign as half of the people in this thread championing the removal of servers realize running in circles and showing up, even when you don't want to, isn't fun for them. Why?

 

Let's say you are really motivated and manage to scrape together 1000 players who put in 50 hours/week on average. So our Alliance weighted average is now 50k hours a week. To balance this, ANET has to link FIVE 1000-strong 10 hour/week WvW Allainces just to get equal potential coverage, so kiss any notion of any extra bodies diluting the talent pool and activity on Green team. Congratulations, the motivated players just ensured every single WvW player on their side is using a META build, in one of two guilds, in the same voice comms, and is reliably showing up to do work. Levels of organization previously impossible are now not only attainable, but realistic, and the "penalty" for excessive hours tagged up actually helps intensify the effect. And even if the 10-hour-a week crowd on Blue Team manages to hold their own against this foe, do you honestly think Red team isn't now reduced to whomever is left over, and soon to be never logging in again? Maybe I'm wrong, but regardless of how many players there REALLY are who will play WvW going forward, a version of this is already being planned and implemented. There is no system ANET can create which motivated players cannot find a way to break and exploit to achieve their goals without hurting everyone as a whole.

 

"You're crazy, that won't ever happen"

 

Keep telling yourself that. The second ANET adds a single skin or title that you can attain 10% faster by being on the winning side, the absolute worst behaviors possible manifest. If I thought for one second it would last more than a day, I'd be trying to convince anyone who cares about Server Pride into boycotting the gemstore until ANET knocks it off. The theory is sound, as I am willing to bet my Chaos Gloves that TC and BG make up a disproportionate amount of raw cash for gems sales, and voting with dollars would work. For 10 seconds. Then they'd offer up a new way to look cool standing on the bank steps, and that would end the boycott.

 

"RP"

 

I don't RP. I have, however, spent time on RP servers and IMHO, just give RP players whatever they want, as long as the other players don't have an incentive to destroy it. How cool would it be if TC was made the official RP server, and players there could just guest fight on any side in WvW, and have all sorts of RP scouting, spying, skirmish battles, and court intrigue to amuse themselves and narrate their experience? I suspect it would be their favorite thing ever. Until 5 minutes later when TC becomes permanently full, because every WvW player with a second account moves there so they can exploit the system and cut the RP players out of this sweet action.

 

"EU"

 

Sorry fam, I have no idea if anything I'm saying applies to you, but you're probably gonna get stuck with whatever happens to NA. Because of NA. Sadly, I'm sure you're used to it by now.

 

"I want to see player specific metrics"

 

Once again, this will always be used by the elite to disinclude the casual. Any dingbat who can locate Metabattle and put gear on a Scourge can just put a big shade in the center of a zerg, instantly spam all four skills, and run away while other people actually finish the fight. Rinse, repeat until a 50:1 Kill death ratio or any other metric you can dream of is attained. For those who didn't play GW1, there was this cool ability to easily link your character's full build into chat for others to look at, and even save to their account and load onto their own toon. It was a really awesome tool for communication, helping others, and saving multiple specs for different uses and game modes. Then players happened. Simply trying to join a pick-up-group for any content was immediately greeted with the request "Ping plis", at which point you were instantly judged and kept, kicked without a word, or informed you would run the build the party leader suggested (if they felt charitable). Please don't give us shareable stats, we cannot be trusted with them.

 

"OK mister doom n gloom, I don't hear solutions"

 

If we were to go forward with killing servers, my suggestion is that ANET create a RP checkbox at log in that, when selected, prioritizes putting them all in the same instance whenever possible. Simple and easy. Just give them one extra instance of each city open at all times, and open map instances as needed (" A new Roleplaying experience has been started, please click here to join"). The most consistently abused community with the least toxic environment deserves to get something for once. I don't think this is controversial at all, and is the absolute LEAST we can do for them. If the amount of skins, musical instruments, recustomizes, and makeovers they buy with gems isn't worth it to you, ANET, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

For WvW, ANET can start by admitting this game is five years old, anyone who didn't come back when PoF launched isn't coming back, bite the 'PR humilation of server mergers' bullet, and take a hard look at what they are using to determine server capacity restrictions. Next, choose the top 9 population servers in NA, and give everyone else free transfers to wherever they want for 30 days according to your new server capacity determination. Anyone logging in for the first time after this time frame ends gets 48 hours of free transfers. Once time is up and you've chosen your home by typing your server name into the same *darn* box i have to verify annoying item names in i want to delete, ANET gives you 500gems as a one time apology for making you move. People who don't declare a different server than they were on before this takes effect don't get anything. Yeah, some people won't be happy, but this affects the LEAST amount of customers, and gives a token consolation prize for the inconvenienced. If WvW is still imbalanced, then we can clearly say ANET tried and the players chose to let it fail. Now the concerned Dev team can concentrate on improving the actual game mode with the next six months instead of dealing with bad player behaviors counter-measures.

 

Another option is to invest in some more powerful physical game servers, take the maps up to 100 per side by making them bigger and resdesigned so that winning will require three zergs, instead of one, to control a map. One 3-server matchup/week and the top three servers get to host everyone else as linked servers. EotM continues as an overflow, but contributes score based on all existing EotM instances averaged out to count as one for contribution (with tight controls on when they open/close), and gives pips. This will mean people who are only wanting pips can stick to EotM, but players waiting on Eb/BLqueues get equitable rewards and the fight on EotM matters. Meanwhile, any karma train collusion on EotM will only serve to give the same score contribution to all three sides due to win trading the map simultaneously. If the community who will consistently WvW is as small as I think it is, this would work just fine. How do you determine who the top servers are to host these matches? A combined metric of player activity in WvW, based on actual activity, like real button presses. Could this be gamed? Sure, and I'm sure it could be improved on, but it is a different angle to attack the problem using mostly existing systems and retaining servers.

 

Please continue only giving us rewards which are earned by particpation slowly over time, and cannot be easily bandwagoned to achieve.

 

Big thanks and love to everyone who has stood up for server pride, or even just cared enough to formulate a good argument. Those of you saying "the responses here are overwhelmingly positive" should keep in mind that many people don't post on our read these forums, and many people saw the announcement and just quit without saying a word.