World Restructuring - Page 4 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

World Restructuring

1246747

Comments

  • Joey.2769Joey.2769 Member ✭✭

    this is perfect please please please make this happens

  • We've been Borlis Pass since Beta and planned to be loyal to our server for all time, won't be happy to be shoved onto a new world for sure... Also how about making it easier to earn Favor? How will this affect earning of Favor. What about bringing back the aspect of the old influence system where if guildies party up in PvE and do events etc together they also earn Favor? Awesome that WvW is getting some love but I forsee some pretty major issues if our guild doesn't declare itself as a WvW guild regardless of whether we are or are not WvWcentric?

  • hadi.5274hadi.5274 Member ✭✭

    do you want creat new maps? I left this game long time ago, because there is no reality update for WvW, its really boring.
    you just cut some hills, and change skills timer , that all :)
    its too late for thinking about WvW, but its better than nothing,
    bad work for wvw Arenanet.

  • Hawken.7932Hawken.7932 Member ✭✭
    edited February 1, 2018

    @Phlogistn.7893 said:
    I realize that many servers no longer feel they have an "identity". That is not, I feel, the case for Tarnished Coast and some other servers I know of. Some people have been on their server since day one, have friends across guilds and have a history. Although "something" needed to be done with WvW I am sad to think that all the people we play with here will be dispersed to the winds. Even stating they can be in an "alliance" with alliances changing from season to season, makes the continuity of community null. Baby, bathwater.....

    I feel the same way. I feel quite sad and demotivated by the thought of our world’s population being dispersed. I feel our world has quite a good community that I’ve come to know over a long period of time, and one of the things I find the most compelling about WvW is jumping in with familiar commanders on the field that I know and recognize.

    I get where this is coming from and that other world have balance and population issues, but this is a sad day for me as a WvW player.

    What this concept does is eliminate the pride we feel in our world, which for many of us, is literally the chief motivation to play.

  • Will you open the servers up before the introduction of the new system?

  • Cave Rock.4869Cave Rock.4869 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 1, 2018

    @McKenna Berdrow.2759 Instead of WvW it can soon either be called GvG, AvA or PvP. Although I like AvA, it has a nice ring to it. I'm excited, as recently I find myself more likely to SPvP because I get more consistent fights and rewards like gold/ascended gear etc. But my first preference of fighting is just small scale roaming with my guild mates in WvW.

    Goodluck, I will say if your going ahead with this it would be best to bring out new maps at the sametime for wow factor to lure back more players eager and keen to retry a fresh Guild Wars 2 WvW like experience.

    Also the participation mechanic needs a rework such as a cashout system etc. So large ques don't happen on the release of this new world restructuring creation or the new plan. People hate waiting for afkers to leave a map.

    Finally if reward chests are match based or seasonal, not sure how that will wor yet, is it possible to get a monetary reward like the SPvP chests? I ask because for me I can make vastly greater sums of gold from SPvP than WvW currently. It seems odd to me that a WvW player should be forced into SPvP to get gold so they can afford a new suit or gear for WvW faster. All this to feel like they can be competitive. Don't get me wrong though I like SPvP, but others might get salty about that and it could ruin SPvP players fun or ratings in ranked matches.

    People who play SPvP should be those wanting to be there, not just for gold, rewards or daily achieve achievements!

    Just as those who want to WvW should be those players wanting to participate and do well for their world that they take pride in or feel like they have a sense of belonging to over a long period of time. On that note I will miss Sanctum of Rall, but there isn't many of us left. So this change needs to happen and as soon as possible. Sometimes at the times I play NA nights maps are like ghost towns :(

    Marks are essentially the problem as they are so costly to craft. Harvesting nodes don't provide enough sustained revenue to even buy good food or utilities these days. Perhaps because the wood, cloth, ores etc are so cheap to buy and sell now. Anyways that is enough from me grumbling about the lack of gold or rewards for WvW.

    Just a thought... WvW players shouldn't feel like they are the forgotten ones, but your plans already are a step in the right direction.

  • A little risky, but we needed something new and fresh. I'm excited!
    I'm sad that we will not get a new Borderlands though. By the moment.

  • @McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:

    @Symmol.8639 said:
    Is the setting to be a WvW guild independant from the Guild Mission settings? I want to play WvW with my guild mates but still being able to do PvE missions with my other guild mates that don't play WvW.

    It is independent. It will be a new setting launching with the system.

    Nice thanks, that's a relief :D I'm so happy to see this change coming then!

  • I have made some of the GREATEST friendships here in Yaks Bend and I wont get to see them all the time now.... what about talking in Teamspeak and discord??? new people all the time... WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!

  • Jerry CCH.9816Jerry CCH.9816 Member ✭✭✭

    Thats bad
    Its better to do delete T3/T4 and have T1 & T2 only
    With random matchup B)

  • Endelon.1042Endelon.1042 Member ✭✭✭

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    @Karnasis.6892 said:
    My concern is honestly in transferring. It would have to be a harsher restriction than it currently is, simply for the fact that server transfers/world linking is what got us into this mess of imbalance in the first place. I get that there will be people impacted in the sense that their friend is on "Server A" and they are currently on "Server E", but give them a chance before the system goes live to decide if they want to play with that friend or guilds. I just feel that the overall impact of having no transfers will overall outweigh the cons of not being able to have one or two friends come play with you. But that's just my initial thoughts.

    We are planning to give the community some lead time before this goes live. Organizing yourselves will take time and we want to allow that to happen. Transfers are something we can monitor better with this system and respond to more quickly. Since worlds should be relatively even the amount of transferring to the higher population worlds before they become full will be less. This should prevent guilds and alliances trying to use transferring to stack servers more difficult. We're open to discussion about this though and the "fullness %s" are things be looking at and adjusting if needed until we find a good spot.

    Can you just unlock all the servers until this new system goes in then? It would be nice for people on JQ and BG to get friends over.

  • keelhaul.8039keelhaul.8039 Member ✭✭
    edited February 1, 2018

    Sounds good and fresh in so many ways and I'm looking forward to it, my only concerns are with how the community may use alliances to over stack especially if its anything like 500 - 1000 ppl. 200 - 400 would be more then enough.

    I also understand why some ppl are upset at losing their community but really a shake up is long over due.

  • TheProfessor.7012TheProfessor.7012 Member ✭✭
    edited February 1, 2018

    Rest in peace, Fort Aspenwood.
    I will always have fond memories of rolling over people with Shrouded Warband and The Legion of Charrs under your banner.
    Getting onto the actual changes that will be in place someday, these are interesting and while I can't say I know how this will actually play out given that none of this is actually set in stone yet: I am skeptical but also interested in seeing how it all goes down in the long run since this might be the jump start that the game mode needs to actually breathe some life back into it.

    [TLC] The Legion of Charr § Silver Scout § Fort Aspenwood

  • I like this idea. The only issue I see with it is people in multiple guilds because they play in different timezones will have a hard time choosing. My guild personally has a few players in an OCX guild,but our guild is mainly EST,although we have quite a few EU players now also. I enjoy running with that OCX guild when they are on,but feel they are more likely to want to ally with other OCX guilds as opposed to a group of EST guilds. At the same time based on the balancing maybe we would end up together regardless. Overall I think it will be good for the health of the game, a much better alternative then world linking. Which has basically just become linking fight guild transfer wars.

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 1, 2018

    @McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:

    @Symmol.8639 said:
    Is the setting to be a WvW guild independant from the Guild Mission settings? I want to play WvW with my guild mates but still being able to do PvE missions with my other guild mates that don't play WvW.

    It is independent. It will be a new setting launching with the system.

    So, why would a guild not be set as a "WvW guild" exactly? I don't see any benefits from not being a WvW guild at all. It actually seems disadvantageous for a guild to be set as a non WvW guild. As a guild leader I don't see why I would want my members not have that option to play in the same shard as eachother.

    Furthermore, as that will give access to the alliance system, no guild will think twice to hit that checkmark and form that alliance. Regardless of whether thats for WvW or for PvE.

    I feel like its going to run in alot of discussions based around "But thats not what this system is/was/will be made for."

  • I literally just transferred servers yesterday and this gets announced. Can people in my situation get their gem balances credited?

  • GvG Mode with this update?

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 1, 2018

    doublepost

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @keelhaul.8039 said:
    Sounds good and fresh in so many ways and I'm looking forward to it, my only concerns are with how the community may use alliances to over stack especially if its anything like 500 - 1000 ppl. 200 - 400 would be more then enough.

    Would be 500-1000 total for all members of an alliance, not 500-1000 online at a time (can be, sure, but there's still queues). I don't think you can stack much, in numbers at least. Quality, that's a different deal.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Can an alliance be big enough that they are effectively a world?

  • I would limit Alliance sizes to the maximum size of a Guild (500 players). That way the biggest guild can be contested with an alliance of smaller ones. Limit the alliance based on number of players, not number of guilds.

  • SloRules.3560SloRules.3560 Member ✭✭✭

    I'm all for it. I've been so bored of wvw lately i've only been coming to guild raids and omg the server, it's about time things change.

    I was honestly never expecting something so big. WHERE WERE YOU!??!?!

  • Missy.6803Missy.6803 Member
    edited February 1, 2018

    This is an amazing structure and vision. Please implement ASAP!
    It is a blow to the stomach as I just helped or fully paid for 30/43 members who transferred servers last month for server to be nullified, but the move helped my guild tremendously, so I can't complain too much! As an ex leader and organizer of TC and a representative of several guild circles, there are already cross server communities and camaraderie that allow each guild and individuals to interact with each other. This will not hinder communities growing no more than servers currently do. This is a smart move to improve the WvW experience, and I cannot wait!
    A member spoke up stating this will make members choose between two guilds if they are not allied together. While he is concerned, I believe this can be paralleled to moving servers -- members must choose. I do not think it will become a problem.

  • How will this work if for example, you have 4 guilds, where everyone is a member of all 4 guilds. These guilds have all been upgraded to allow for various types of claiming in WvW, so for example, 1 can hold 2 camps, 1 tower and 1 keep at the same time. Right now you can do this by swapping guilds. This brings up a couple questions.

    1.) Will this sort of activity be possible under the new proposed system?
    2.) If these 4 guilds, lets say a total of 200 unique players among them, are all a part of the same alliance, for the sake of alliance size, will the population of each guild be the only thing looked at, or the unique players in each guild, so if an alliance allows for say 500 players and I'm I'm a member of all 4 guilds in the alliance, do I count as 1 player or 4 players, furthermore given that the membership is shared across the guilds, would they even really count as 4 guilds in the alliance?

    Now just to make it clear, i think the idea is fantastic, but the proof is in the pudding, or in this case, how good the execution of the idea is done. Do it well and all will be good, do it poorly and it could bury WvW, or should that be AvA ;)

  • If you want to guarantee you continue to play with your WvW friends, it's very simple. For the people that don't want to be broken up from their WvW friends, make a WvW guild! And you can still be a part of other PvE guilds, and the people from those PvE guilds that want to WvW with you can also join your WvW guild. I don't see how it's going to be impossible to play with the same people you're playing with right now. Yes, you won't be Team Yak's Bend or Team Blackgate. But you can make a guild named Team Yak's Bend and still play together.

  • Yesssss. We need this!

  • I transfer to CD like 3 weeks ago, I want my gems back...

  • @fieraviolet.3160 said:
    I like this idea. The only issue I see with it is people in multiple guilds because they play in different timezones will have a hard time choosing. My guild personally has a few players in an OCX guild,but our guild is mainly EST,although we have quite a few EU players now also. I enjoy running with that OCX guild when they are on,but feel they are more likely to want to ally with other OCX guilds as opposed to a group of EST guilds. At the same time based on the balancing maybe we would end up together regardless. Overall I think it will be good for the health of the game, a much better alternative then world linking. Which has basically just become linking fight guild transfer wars.

    You seem to be misunderstood. Most of the OCX guilds have nothing but hatred or rivalry to ally with each other. Not a lot of us left. Why would we ally to decrease our fights.

  • Don't fear change.

    There are many easily foreseeable problems, but with an indefinite time scale and the fact that the WvW team is actually reaching out to us, the players, to gauge our feedback and take it into consideration, this is just what WvW needed.

    Also l o l that shade thrown at the CD bandwagon

    good lord i am absolute trash at this video game

  • This is pretty cool! Looking forward to seeing how this develops over time!

  • @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:
    We are planning to give the community some lead time before this goes live. Organizing yourselves will take time and we want to allow that to happen. Transfers are something we can monitor better with this system and respond to more quickly. Since worlds should be relatively even the amount of transferring to the higher population worlds before they become full will be less. This should prevent guilds and alliances trying to use transferring to stack servers more difficult. We're open to discussion about this though and the "fullness %s" are things be looking at and adjusting if needed until we find a good spot.

    Your wording indicates that this is largely finished and nearly ready to deploy. Also the willingness to discuss it with the community and having such concrete answers to questions.

    Will our next re-link at the end of February possibly be our last, or will we get one or two more after that? :astonished:

    Of course it won't be easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is.

  • Vova.2640Vova.2640 Member ✭✭✭

    Very interesting. Definitely did not expect to see any changes made in this mode at this point...
    It's nice to see thought.

    Just a few things I wanted to ask/suggest...

    My understanding is that...
    WORLD = (an alliance[or a few] +guilds[a few smaller ones?] + individuals[those who didn't declare a wvw guild??])
    In a world, is it random alliances that are matched together? And random guilds put in? and random individuals?

    Also if alliance size is large enough, would it be possible that...
    WORLD = (an alliance + individuals) or even just an alliance?
    Like, can an alliance be large enough to be its own small world? Then a few small worlds (that are primarily 1 alliance + individuals) can fight each other in a matchup?

    How much population is every world expected to have?
    For example, when compared what Blackgate has right now? I imagine (and really hope) it would be much lower.

    What about inactive players?
    A player comes back and wants to join his guild that is already part of an alliance/world. Can he just join them with ease?
    What about players who don't declare their 'wvw guild' but go into wvw? Are they assigned to a random world upon first entering the mode?

    What about scores? or rankings?
    Ideally, alliances or even just guilds within the alliance should have some sort of score or ranking system within them.

    Maybe this is a good time to introduce things like PPT/PPK/kills counters for guilds? (or something along those lines, I'm not sure)
    Every guild can have its statistics saved up. Like, how many players have been killed by members of a certain guild.
    These statistics should be easy access and watch.
    Also, these statistics can be used for ranking. Also there should be different rankings, like top kills, top PPT earned etc.
    Im not sure how to some of these, but yeah.....

    This remake has a lot of potential.
    Please do this right...

  • Seems pretty good so far, long as I don't land in nsp, cd, sbi, or yb :p.

  • Exciton.8942Exciton.8942 Member ✭✭✭

    I like the idea.

    This is essentially breaking down world into smaller identities while giving more freedom to move between them.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.