Suggestion for curbing WvW server transferring, while retaining flexibility

[Redseven.3985]

Hello anet Dev ! As you are aware, frequent server transferring has had a negative impact on WvW server community. It has also, in this players judgment, negatively affected the competitive spirit of WvW. When a server begins to lose, players transfer off to a winning server, or server linked to a winning server.

 

My suggestion for now, is simply increase the gem cost to transfer. A significant increase will detour frequent transfers, but still allow for this to happen _occasionally_.

[starlinvf.1358]

I doubt that will make any impact if people are really going that far just to stay on a winning server. Which is why alliances will either work or not work, and the fate of the WvW population hangs in the balance.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Redseven.3985" said:

> Hello anet Dev ! As you are aware, frequent server transferring has had a negative impact on WvW server community. It has also, in this players judgment, negatively affected the competitive spirit of WvW. When a server begins to lose, players transfer off to a winning server, or server linked to a winning server.

>

> My suggestion for now, is simply increase the gem cost to transfer. A significant increase will detour frequent transfers, but still allow for this to happen _occasionally_.

 

I’m pretty sure the devs are aware of the situation because they are working on Alliances. Check the sticky in this section.

 

Have a good one!

[Dawdler.8521]

Yeah the alliances might actually have a good way for dealing with this and it involves **many more free transfers** instead of pushing an excessive gem cost on people. Since that free shuffle only takes place upon relinking, most people will probably just keep fighting where they are and look forward to the change instead of giving up. Telling people to pay up or stay where you are will never lead to happy people.

[Israel.7056]

It would take a lot more heavy handed approach than just increasing the cost of transfers gold is very easy to make and many people will pay almost any price to win.

[Aiga.3075]

> @"Redseven.3985" said:

> When a server begins to lose, players transfer off to a winning server, or server linked to a winning server.

 

I am still trying to figure out what is is people actually win.

[Kaiser.9873]

Upping gold cost wouldn't do it, unless the increase were draconian. Then people would just quit playing. Same with extending the loss of pips to a month or whatever.

 

People should be able to do what they feel works best for them/their guild. We've been told servers are being phased out, so why play for a server anymore anyway.

[Grim West.3194]

Alliances are a VERY LONG WAYS AWAY. So anything that immediately slows down the idiot cow herd transfer karma train would be a good thing.

 

I would also suggest limiting transfers per account to once every six months.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

Just limit the amount of people per map to 20, and before the cap increases to 30, all other maps must have 20 in them first. Once it hits 30, force 30 in every other map before allowing a cap of 40.. etc.. etc..

 

That way we avoid the constant attempt at outnumbering and bandwagoning going on. Wouldn't matter if a server got a mass influx of transfers, 90% of the time they'd be forced to only have 20 on a map imposing on them even fights. This also stops the mega-zerg bouncing from map to map. Only thing against this is if guilds try to field more than 20 at once.. which 99% never happens. If the guild does try to field more than 20 at once, split apart between 2 maps.

 

The only reason people keep transferring is they're looking for easy wins. They have no interest in facing even numbers; this was evident when BG was "accidentally opened" and at least 2 guilds moved. No interest in evenness or fairness. Limiting the numbers to 20 per map until all maps are filled would go leaps and bounds to eliminating this behavior.

 

 

[Ubi.4136]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> Just limit the amount of people per map to 20, and before the cap increases to 30, all other maps must have 20 in them first. Once it hits 30, force 30 in every other map before allowing a cap of 40.. etc.. etc..

>

> That way we avoid the constant attempt at outnumbering and bandwagoning going on. Wouldn't matter if a server got a mass influx of transfers, 90% of the time they'd be forced to only have 20 on a map imposing on them even fights. This also stops the mega-zerg bouncing from map to map. Only thing against this is if guilds try to field more than 20 at once.. which 99% never happens. If the guild does try to field more than 20 at once, split apart between 2 maps.

>

> The only reason people keep transferring is they're looking for easy wins. They have no interest in facing even numbers; this was evident when BG was "accidentally opened" and at least 2 guilds moved. No interest in evenness or fairness. Limiting the numbers to 20 per map until all maps are filled would go leaps and bounds to eliminating this behavior.

>

>

 

This is an interesting idea. I also don't have a problem with them just making it so people have to go a month before they can earn pips after transferring, maybe 2 months for the next bandwagon, and so on.

[Sovereign.1093]

players will find where they want to be in. give them wings huhu

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> The only reason people keep transferring is they're looking for easy wins.

Amd the reason people move borders is either because they cannot win or because there is nothing to do. Your scenario *assumes* that a border is equally competetive for all 3 sides in equal numbers. That not reality. Getting locked down to a border isnt going to **force** people to "enjoy" the game any more than forcing them to play on a server they dont want to play on.

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > The only reason people keep transferring is they're looking for easy wins.

> Amd the reason people move borders is either because they cannot win or because there is nothing to do. Your scenario *assumes* that a border is equally competetive for all 3 sides in equal numbers. That not reality. Getting locked down to a border isnt going to **force** people to "enjoy" the game any more than forcing them to play on a server they dont want to play on.

>

 

I think a fair number of players would tolerate strict measures if on balance it made matches feel more competitive.

[Sovereign.1093]

few reasons why players stay or go

 

stay - friends go - going to friends

stay - fighrs go - fights

stay - win go - win

stay - avoiding trolls go - avoiding trolls.

 

how to make people stay - have a decent community

 

why go - going to a decent community

 

---

 

never stop people from moving, you have to let them go and grow.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> few reasons why players stay or go

>

> stay - friends go - going to friends

> stay - fighrs go - fights

> stay - win go - win

> stay - avoiding trolls go - avoiding trolls.

>

> how to make people stay - have a decent community

>

> why go - going to a decent community

 

Guilds are communities.

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > few reasons why players stay or go

> >

> > stay - friends go - going to friends

> > stay - fighrs go - fights

> > stay - win go - win

> > stay - avoiding trolls go - avoiding trolls.

> >

> > how to make people stay - have a decent community

> >

> > why go - going to a decent community

>

> Guilds are communities.

 

not why ppl transfer most of the time though

 

but i'd like wvw to be guild centered. it's like the family in a community, basic block

[Djamonja.6453]

I think a lot of people stick around in WvW now because of the ability to transfer to a server they'd like to play on. Anet isn't going to stop that with pip blocks or map caps. This is just how WvW is going to be until the alliance system is implemented, try to have fun however you can.

[SkyShroud.2865]

I sincerely believe doubling the gem price will reduce the rate of people transferring. The purpose isn't to eliminate but to deter long enough for the servers to build up their populations. Otherwise, the continuous transferring will always upset the population balance, deterring newer players from playing while driving away the older players. The bandwagoners and stackers do not care about the well-being of the overall wvw, anet has to take actions. Otherwise, who knows by the time the WvW revamp come, we still have how many people around playing. Sure, there will be a spike but a spike is not equivalent to a regular population. For reference, we had a spike during reward patch too but how many still stick around?

 

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > few reasons why players stay or go

> >

> > stay - friends go - going to friends

> > stay - fighrs go - fights

> > stay - win go - win

> > stay - avoiding trolls go - avoiding trolls.

> >

> > how to make people stay - have a decent community

> >

> > why go - going to a decent community

>

> Guilds are communities.

 

So happen that many guilds transfer to win under the disguise of fight. :)

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Redseven.3985" said:

> My suggestion for now, is simply increase the gem cost to transfer. A significant increase will detour frequent transfers, but still allow for this to happen _occasionally_.

 

If 1800 gems (over US$20, over 450 gold) doesn't slow people down, I doubt very much that a higher price will. Plus there are actually legit reasons that people transfer and this will hurt those people.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Redseven.3985" said:

> > My suggestion for now, is simply increase the gem cost to transfer. A significant increase will detour frequent transfers, but still allow for this to happen _occasionally_.

>

> If 1800 gems (over US$20, over 450 gold) doesn't slow people down, I doubt very much that a higher price will. Plus there are actually legit reasons that people transfer and this will hurt those people.

 

We can't have nice things because of bad eggs. It is either we let the bad eggs burn the world or we burn the legit players. Is sad, which do you prefer?

Alternatively, we can put multiplier on cost for every transfer they made with a cooldown of 6 months but that means additional programming which I doubt they will do since they are already working on revamp thus I believe transfer cost is the most realistic change that can be made now.

[subversiontwo.7501]

To clarify a bit of what Sovereign is onto, I'd put it like this:

 

The server pairings have not created the issue but they have sped up the process. Low-populated servers have low transfer costs for obvious reasons. Groups who want to reset the process tend to use them for that.

 

The process itself has been around for a long time. You have three sets of players or player groups. You have casual players who, with a low intensity, (over-) populate the highest ranking servers. Players or groups that create content (eg., lead groups) for those servers tend to transfer out to avoid players who can't be lead (won't listen, act defiantly, make demands etc.). Those groups transfering out are often GvG guilds and "fight" guilds. When those groups transfer out a more active tail of other players and/or player groups tend to follow them (some wanted, some less wanted). When that happens the new (recently underpopulated-) server starts to climb and as it does the influx of casual players rise with the climb in tiering.

 

Few people mean any harm it is just the way the system is designed. That is also why Anet is designing a new system. As others have said, all we can do is wait and hope that the new system proves better over the test of time. At the very least it will shake up the process for a while after release. Other options are not on the table at the moment which became evident as Anet first revealed their work on the new system after the design of it had already been fleshed out. They wanted to draw the concept themselves and only use us for post-concept feedback.

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> So happen that many guilds transfer to win under the disguise of fight. :)

 

Humans are very good at finding plausible moral justifications for anything they do.

[shiri.4257]

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> The process itself has been around for a long time. You have three sets of players or player groups. You have casual players who, with a low intensity, (over-) populate the highest ranking servers. Players or groups that create content (eg., lead groups) for those servers tend to transfer out to avoid players who can't be lead (won't listen, act defiantly, make demands etc.). Those groups transfering out are often GvG guilds and "fight" guilds. When those groups transfer out a more active tail of other players and/or player groups tend to follow them (some wanted, some less wanted). When that happens the new (recently underpopulated-) server starts to climb and as it does the influx of casual players rise with the climb in tiering.

 

So...then why don't the 3 gvg guilds transfer to the bottom 3 servers in wood league? if you are consistently locked in the bottom 2 in tier 4, you can fight all u want without worrying about scores and PPT. can gvg all day, no ppt stress.

 

 

[dynomite.5834]

> @"shiri.4257" said:

 

> So...then why don't the 3 gvg guilds transfer to the bottom 3 servers in wood league? if you are consistently locked in the bottom 2 in tier 4, you can fight all u want without worrying about scores and PPT. can gvg all day, no ppt stress.

>

>

Because like subversiontwo said - the fight guilds transfer to the bottom (BTW there are a lot more than 3). In turn a lot of people will follow them who enjoy fights but not specifically in those guilds. The population starts to rise and if the fight guilds are any good, they will start to float up the tiers. In turn PPT focused servers will get their feelings hurt and stay away. The fight server(s) continue to "win" which attracts more bandwagoneers and so on.

 

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @"Redseven.3985" said:

> > > My suggestion for now, is simply increase the gem cost to transfer. A significant increase will detour frequent transfers, but still allow for this to happen _occasionally_.

> >

> > If 1800 gems (over US$20, over 450 gold) doesn't slow people down, I doubt very much that a higher price will. Plus there are actually legit reasons that people transfer and this will hurt those people.

>

> We can't have nice things because of bad eggs. It is either we let the bad eggs burn the world or we burn the legit players. Is sad, which do you prefer?

> Alternatively, we can put multiplier on cost for every transfer they made with a cooldown of 6 months but that means additional programming which I doubt they will do since they are already working on revamp thus I believe transfer cost is the most realistic change that can be made now.

 

I don't accept the premises of the argument. WvW match ups have always been fraught with issues, bandwagoning is just one among them. It's not simply a question of watching the world burn; that already happened repeatedly & it won't be fixed by making it costlier without any other adjustments. In fact, back in the early days, they made it tougher to swap worlds and today, it not only cost 1800 gems to move to a full-not-closed world, but you lose out on rewards if you move often. That hasn't stopped people from moving.

 

A bigger problem is that ANet only used Glicko and there simply aren't enough match-ups for that system to work. It's a system designed to work with hundreds or thousands of competitors, many of whom rarely compete against each other. Whereas WvW has very few competitors, with tons of repeat match ups. Glicko assumes that competitors are mostly stable, but that's never ever been true for WvW: the number of players, the ability of the players, the hours spent, the expertise, the guilds... all of that changes regularly, so there's no guarantee of similarity between the JQ of week 5 and the JQ of week 10.

 

Even if that wasn't true, like any game or game mode, the numbers of people decline over time. It's impossible to completely counter that without massive investment of resources. ANet has never shown a willingness to find short-term mechanisms to keep WvW fresh, so as the matchups remained the same for months and months (for some servers), people played less, leaving a different mix of player styles.

 

Put more simply, there's almost no chance that there's a simple fix to the complex issue of WvW competitiveness. Raising transfer costs only addresses a tiny fraction of the issues, while raising new ones.

 

I have no great love for how ANet has handled WvW over the years. But I respect that it's always been tough to figure out how to make any changes to it without toppling the metaphorical house of cards upon which it was built.