Suggestion for curbing WvW server transferring, while retaining flexibility

[Handin.4032]

Could make it so every transfer around a relink progressively gets more and more expensive. If people want to transfer, its the same cost. If they want to transfer after the next relink, it costs a bit more, and then compounds. That would likely help prevent guilds from transferring over and over again to restack.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"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.

 

Tougher to swap the world? Since when it was tough to swap world? Gem to gold ratio wasn't even as high as today. Since when reward is important? One need to understand the mentality of the people who transfer, understand what's important to them and what's not important to them. It is why gem price increase is mentioned, money is major factor. A factor in which they have to take in real consideration. Nowadays, people bandwagon at a price of 500 or 1000 gems, not at the price of 1800 gems. People that did at 1800 gems is just the minority.

 

Basically you decided to watch the world continue be burn.

[shiri.4257]

> @"dynomite.5834" said:

> > @"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.

>

>

 

Oh really? Every time someone says "fight guild" another dies and reforms. Are you really carrying when your guild's life expectancy is 2months? Please stop trying to brand yourselves as Red Guard, you're just delusional beanie baby guilds. one and done chumps.