SWI.4127 Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 This was 100% players fault this time. JQ already had population that most servers would kill for. Yet it wasn't enough for some people, so almost all your guilds transferred to a link server, created the most stacked server in the game. Did they do this before re-link? No, they did it right after re-link, completely invalidating an entire 2 months of supposed "balance". How many matchups were ruined by this mass movement of players? It's okay though, because they're "winning" now with their blobs, long queue times, nobody to fight, and sub-1.0 KDR. The only thing I think A-net could do better is update population at a quicker pace to prevent this stuff. Also re-links might need to happen every month instead of every 2. Have the links react to the player movement instead of player movement reacting to the links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining One.1635 Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said: > I do know a developer who dislikes JQ. Any particular reason he dislikes the server itself and not specific players on the server? After almost 20 years in IT, I've come to dislike some servers in my time... especially those that were temperamental while I was sleeping and on-call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oogabooga.3812 Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 > @"SWI.4127" said: > This was 100% players fault this time. JQ already had population that most servers would kill for. Yet it wasn't enough for some people, so almost all your guilds transferred to a link server, created the most stacked server in the game. Did they do this before re-link? No, they did it right after re-link, completely invalidating an entire 2 months of supposed "balance". How many matchups were ruined by this mass movement of players? It's okay though, because they're "winning" now with their blobs, long queue times, nobody to fight, and sub-1.0 KDR. > > The only thing I think A-net could do better is update population at a quicker pace to prevent this stuff. Also re-links might need to happen every month instead of every 2. Have the links react to the player movement instead of player movement reacting to the links. It was an interesting move to game the system. I don't doubt that the player(s) responsible won't do this again with every relink. We know that anet makes money off of this strategy that makes one previously desolate server the host while making others desolate. So I suspect that anet is not exactly motivated to make changes. In fact, I don't think making relinks faster would change a thing. Whether we like it or not, and whether anet installs the alliance system or not, a version of an alliance system is in play now, and 20+ servers are suffering under the oppression of the Galactic Empire. I am interested to see if anet would make a move that would hurt their pocketbooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Substance E.4852 Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 > @"SWI.4127" said: > This was 100% players fault this time. JQ already had population that most servers would kill for. Yet it wasn't enough for some people, so almost all your guilds transferred to a link server, created the most stacked server in the game. Did they do this before re-link? No, they did it right after re-link, completely invalidating an entire 2 months of supposed "balance". How many matchups were ruined by this mass movement of players? It's okay though, because they're "winning" now with their blobs, long queue times, nobody to fight, and sub-1.0 KDR. > > The only thing I think A-net could do better is update population at a quicker pace to prevent this stuff. Also re-links might need to happen every month instead of every 2. Have the links react to the player movement instead of player movement reacting to the links. No, what they need to do is put a hard cap on how may times you can transfer per year. Virtually every time this happens, it's because a certain group of individuals move their hardcore group of players around trying to engineer matchups. It's not going to stop until Anet stops them from bouncing from server to server every other month. Any reactive system won't prevent the problem and will only leave a path of hollowed out servers and demoralized players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geist.9173 Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 Transfering doesn't need a cap. The costs should go up by 30% every time you transfer. Either you think about where to transfer and better to be smart to stay or you may pay a lot more money for that "fun". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HazyDaisy.4107 Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 There doesnt need to be a yearly transfer limit, but there does need to be some monetary penalty to dissuade frequent bandwaggoning. I think, regardless of servers population calculation, the minute servers are paired through the ending of that pairing, every guest should inherit the transfer cost of their host, unless the guest is linked to a full server in which case it'd be the highest transfer cost (1800 gems) to transfer to that guest. Of course, the pop calcs change every now and then and everything should be updated accordingly when it does, but, in the mean time, a system like that would make big groups think twice about jumping on a med pop cheap server in a "3 link easy win" pair and perhaps consider the more economical 2 link Med/Med pair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 short answer no. long answer no. players chose to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum Moderator.5907 Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 We're going to go ahead and close this thread, as match-up threads are not permitted on the forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts