Quoted:"The golden rule should read, Servers should be EQUAL, then locked. That is and always has been the primary issue with WvW. There's a reason why sPvP matches are 5v5 and not 5v4, 5v3, 5v2, 5v1 or even 5v0. The equivalent of which happens in WvW." You're one of those people who thinks 50/50 balance with a human element is an achievable goal aren't you? Here's the truth: it is NOT an achievable goal. You can only ever get close enough. This isn't PvE where A.I. can be tailor made for specific skill sets. You chance of winning in WvW is proportional to your effort. It is not Arena Nets job to hand you wins, or scenarios you might win in. Earn them; like everybody else. To another point, the scenario can and WILL repeat. I've seen it before. A server's population isn't what's needed for this to happen, only the most dedicated players are required. In WvW you only every see about 20-25% of the population consistently. All this is doing is removing the random PUGS who filter in and help on occasion or add to the extra body to the Zerg. To summarize: 20-25% is more than enough. To your last point. No, they are not decoupled. In the current system your server's performance is based on the players with in it, unless there is some serious botting going on the needs Anets attention, your server doesn't play for you. Active players/guilds are on the higher tier servers. This doesn't change. If you play once a week for 3 hours, you get a world and opponents who do the same. Think of it as a mirror. What you do personally, as opposed to a group, is what you're going to be facing. Its just being applied at a lower level than before with more variables, hence the 'granular' terminology Anet used. This can be better or worse depending on who is in question. This also introduces the problem of player's caring about their individual metrics rather than that of the teams. So, expect people to leave guilds/alliances for underperformance based on that basis. This applies to guilds in relation to alliances too. While applicable now, the impact will be far more severe in the 'purposed' system. Quoted:"I really get tired of posts that amount to "people gamed/stacked servers before, this will just be more of the same.". And do you reasonably believe this 'new' mode can't? It's far easier to stack what is coming, than what is. Yes, the Titan Alliance did stack, but not in the context you supplied. The guild I was in at the time could not be placed on a server with another guild for various competitive reasons. This rule was honored through out to make sure fairness. We ensured that competition was to be had, as we also, like everybody else, wanted fair match ups. The server transfers are what allow bandwagoning to happen. This nullified the very thing the Alliance set out to avoid in the first place. The bandwagaoners were all the people/guilds who wanted easy wins, or hated losing. This was also in the tiering month after launch to determine what servers would end up where in a tier list. A tier list made with data; rendered inaccurate by Anet's own hands, and still in effect to this very day. SBI in particular at the end of this was placed in T1 shortly after a mass exodus from SBI and paid transfers being reinstated. We eventually settled in T4 before we could start winning again. All at the same pace it is now and without linking. For all the hate linking gets, it did save WvW for many servers. You probably don't know this, but once, Henge was in Blackgate's position, JQ was as well. Henge still hasn't recovered from the bandwagoners to this day. I doubt there are even players on Henge who even know this about their own server anymore. Most of the bottom tier servers, at launch, were not there. They were victimized by the bandwagoner's just as SBI, JQ, IOJ, and HoD were. This resulted in mass exodus' on those servers; resulting in a population imbalance to big to fix without merges. (See megaservers and linking). I understand people's frustration at what has happened. I truly do. But, there is a right way, and wrong way, to fix these things. Granted, no fix can ever restore what has been lost. The mode that Anet is making is akin to Battlefield, not a WvW game. If that is what people want, then so be it. But myself and others, will likely show ourselves the door when that time comes as it is not what we bought this game for in the first place. @"Strider Pj.2193"The point of locking servers is to prevent bandwagons/stacking from occurring in the first place. That is the point. Once the door is opened, in can't be shut. A "Pandora's Box" scenario if you will. The best solution will remain to merge the bottom tiers into new servers. If those servers were reconstructed based on the their WvW needs (PvE uses megaservers so it won't affect them), Reduces their issues in all areas, their guilds and communities take less of an blow, and it removes linking at the same time. Finally, shame on you Anet. This system is not 'purposed', you're looking to us to fill any gaps you missed before installing this mess. The fact it's posted in the forums means, likely, an Alpha version is already built or close to it. You know this could blow up and are looking to the players to minimize the risk and potential blame deflection in case it does. This FAQ is even further evidence of this. Call me a cynic, but something stinks.
