World Restructuring - Page 46 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

World Restructuring

14142434446

Comments

  • if you want good and fast data, why not run another WvW season like you bib back in 2013 or 2014?

  • this is becoming more of a band-aid patch to fix the declining wvw population.

  • DeWolfe.2174DeWolfe.2174 Member ✭✭✭

    Let's face it, they'd be better off resurrecting EotM. As the value of worlds was decimated, so were the weekly matches. The players that cared and played to win were lost for good. The only players left just want to log in, smash stuff, and log out, without any other concern. Alliances is just going to be a continued design failure because the people playing don't care about winning the week anymore. No matter if the teams are labeled Worlds, Guilds, Numbers, or Colors, a weekly match is the core issue. Short matches like EotM is likely to be the better design for today's players.

  • MartinTT.4123MartinTT.4123 Member
    edited November 3, 2018

    So WoW destroyed servers and everyone hates it.
    and ArenaNet told them self ..."let's do the same mistake!"???

    by destroying the servers you are destroying individuality of players.

    also competing for you server means much more than compete for some... blob of people, so much less players will play WvWvW. in other words, this is the worst idea that you could have.

    if this goes life, i quit gw2.

  • dynomite.5834dynomite.5834 Member ✭✭✭

    @MartinTT.4123 said:
    So WoW destroyed servers and everyone hates it.
    and ArenaNet told them self ..."let's do the same mistake!"???

    by destroying the servers you are destroying individuality of players.

    also competing for you server means much more than compete for some... blob of people, so much less players will play WvWvW. in other words, this is the worst idea that you could have.

    if this goes life, i quit gw2.

    That may be true for you, but based on the comments and results of polls, most players don't care about a "server" or "server identity". For them, it's closer to home - the guild they fight with/for and the friends they fight with/for. The "server" they're on doesn't matter at all.

  • Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭

    The big question is still: Will it come while there are players in WvW? Or just when all lights already shutdown.

  • Dear ArenaNet

    We fully support this idea to bring "server" pride into Alliance & Guild pride rather.

    Ignore the "few' naysayers and go-ahead.

    Its time the Guild* gets back into the wars. This game is not called "server" wars. Servers are boring to fight for. It is much more fun to build a guild and be part of it + choose your own alliance - not like servers where if you get a few Ds there, then you're stuck with them...

    Now, a system that resets every 8 weeks is awesome, and having an alliance that will be able to opt-in or out every 8 weeks is great and it will force "guilds" to be nice with each other and also make for good sport, rivals and that is fun!

    Players might start wearing their Guild Gear to rep their "alliance" and the Alliance can choose an emblem or Tabard or flags etc. It will also be harder for people to make alt accounts as they presently do on servers to "pull tactic leavers" with their alts, before they invade. It will be harder to "spy" on alliances, than servers. - You know it happens, idiots who tell enemy team where a squad is going to attack. Much harder to infiltrate - 1000s of alliances ;)

    Also, it will make guild pride more, it will forge a new dawn.

    Yes people are already proud of their guilds, however, "alliance" pride should be a thing. + leader boards and such. If there are top guilds/alliance, it should unlock a special Tier of Mistforge items that lights up or shows titles or emblems to pick from, as long as you are in the top.

    PS: Those who moan, just forge an alliance with your present server's guilds, call it your server name or w/e - problem solved. (If they don't want to ally, then start asking was it really then a "sever") - Roamers, join a roam Guild or make one, and join an alliance - stop complaining.

    With that said, go for it Anet! We stand by you!

    Adventure And Dragons [KING] Guild
    www.AdventureAndDragons.com

  • The Path Finder.3197The Path Finder.3197 Member ✭✭
    edited December 2, 2018

    @Redponey.8352 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    looking forward to the change. it will finally be guild wars. guild.vs guilds vs guilds.

    It..... really won't....

    because?

    I think that world restructuring as it has been presented wont work on long term.
    I explain: Many veterans players left the game due of lack of competition (vs servers , vs an reward ladder) and objectives, the fight (metabuild) and the overhelming DPS which create fully onesided fight for nearly most of all.

    The major issue is the reason why vet players have left? because of this. They got tired to be bench WvW have been left to dust many years and still now change remain far too long, no deadline, no planning. if anet doesnt bring new features which can keep vet in, WvW will just transform into EOTM 2.0 just loot.

    how can it be fun to be one or two shot by someone who press 1 or 2 skill ? check this https://youtu.be/n4cs_RdPdZk DPS is far too much (condi and power) or Def stats arenot enough except healing stat)? when i check GvG round before Hot it last in general for more than 2-3min easily but now it's more less than 1 min... often it's only 1 impact. Moreover all Expansion spec is far more stronger than a core build.

    Less damage (condi (duration/stacks?) and power) and less healing efficiency would be really nice. Moreover adding an leader board ingame with servers, WvW guilds (kills/cap etc? surely weighted by guild member?) would be really nice. Some and big part of players (in WVW) really like competition especially in WvW and Spvp. i know game is having fun but we had fun in defending our server, on epic and tremendous fight , grinding a ladder... but now all of this fun vanish no more reason to play... when you have unlock skin and loot..

    Before=> https://youtu.be/u5UQP8f0-Ks

    Now => https://youtu.be/2MuvMM4TBTk

    Fight # ARENT FUN anymore. Fight need more teamplay and rythm. major healing should not remain on 1 support class but on synergy of class (water +blast?)

    I'm not a hardcore player but more like a casual but regular in WvW and i like tryhard.

    I really think WvW devs may directly talk with vet WvW players (casual, hardcore, regular) in game, it could bring some nice idea, features for WvW and FIX SOME MAJOR ISSUE as soon as possible.

    The problem is not of 1 & 2 button XD

    But I do agree, the 100 red circles, one spot bam dead, is a bit meh - if there's a way to balance it perhaps longer cooldowns... more siege or more counters, great - but in real war... if a guy nukes you, you can't go ./cry... he used a nuke on you not a small army...

    (but what you really want) might be a debuff - that stacks the bigger a squad gets... that way various types of squad formations and fight styles or combos can develop? The "mark/spam AOE" blobs... can get a debuff could weaken the AOE? More GS battles eh!? Like the warriors on the load screen - yush!

    If your squad leader and his sub commanders, sort the squad correctly, marks the FBs, etc. Your blob will survive. Having guilds/alliance will allow for better player management especially teaching new players and monitoring their progress and helping them get into the right builds or find their "path" be it roaming, havoc or zergs.

    Condi spams can be countered... there's tactics for each type of defence and attacks. - Coordination is much better in guilds+alliances than a "random" server website - where someone decided to call them self boss of server.

    Let smaller pools of players(guilds) organise themselves into alliances, which then can formulate their own strat, etc.

    Getting a bunch of joe randoms - who are just duelling the whole day at their "spots" instead of actually doing something, to join up to guilds is a pain and they waste server que. Alliances should be able to "ally" with a roam guild, if that guild is doing actual scouting and killing off reinforcements on their way to a squad. But these gentle-men duels should really go to a separate map, and there is one... there should be a LFG for it + a point system, so roamers can also earn some stuff or status.

    I love roamers, I love Havocs and I love blobs, have a toons for each. I feel that "you" as a player should be able to choose your "server aka alliance" culture, and people you WANT to be with.

    There should be a fair system, that lures veterans, casuals and new players. - There should be match ups Tiers, that you can select, "mixed" = hardcore guilds+some public players+some casual guilds which makes up a "server" for those 8 weeks. The hardcore guilds/alliances can cary it... it will reward more pips or something, than say,

    Pure hardcore only servers, or casual servers or new player friendly server "match ups" - However, being in a hardcore match-up - your alliance, will unlock you the path to earn a temp "title" + unlock skins, that only activate in this system.

    The mixed system, will give rewards like there is now, armour, mistforgred stuff, back item, etc. The hardcore match up (that your alliance signs up to) can then earn stuff, that display when they top of the leader board. They will also earn some permanent stuff if they won the final round.

    Your alliance should not be able to join a newby match up, if there's too many "vets" in your alliance, then it will need to join a "mixed" or "hardcore" match up.

    Just like you choose guild missions for the guild, same concept. This will just be the "alliance's" mission.

    This will also make advertisement better, as players will then want to either join, new, mixed or hardcore... or casual!

    Give the Hardcores their carrots on their sticks, they deserve it!

    Just my 2 cents - Rough idea, but its something.

  • Tiny Doom.4380Tiny Doom.4380 Member ✭✭✭

    @dynomite.5834 said:

    @MartinTT.4123 said:
    So WoW destroyed servers and everyone hates it.
    and ArenaNet told them self ..."let's do the same mistake!"???

    by destroying the servers you are destroying individuality of players.

    also competing for you server means much more than compete for some... blob of people, so much less players will play WvWvW. in other words, this is the worst idea that you could have.

    if this goes life, i quit gw2.

    That may be true for you, but based on the comments and results of polls, most players don't care about a "server" or "server identity". For them, it's closer to home - the guild they fight with/for and the friends they fight with/for. The "server" they're on doesn't matter at all.

    This is true, for the simple reason that most people who played for their server left WvW long ago. For several years the mode was all about server pride but successive design changes put an end to that. Now most of what's left is people who just want to fight for the sake of fighting which, as is frequently mentioned, represents a small fraction of the population the game mode once had. Whether ANet now decide to cater for the players they still have or try to attract new ones is a different question...

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2, 2018

    It is never the design that push people off their server pride. It is human nature. The design changes only accelerate it.

    It is normal for people to just want to achieve certain goals in the fastest and easiest manner.
    Look at pve raid, people only want to play with exp players, so that they can complete their raid. Same thing for fractal or dungeon or whatever.
    WvW is not a exception. People only want exp players so they will not lose fights or end up with a one sided losing fights. That is why stacking exist, to stack only exp players. That is a never changing nature of normal players.

    While server pride do exist but it really only for the minority. The majority never once care about server pride, not at launch, not now. Many often abused the sympathy for server pride inorder to protect what they have, basically their current server's strength. It is almost always about winning and benefits.

    The game mode has been going about its self destructive path since launch. People keep bandwagoning, keep stacking. It just keep driving people away, people still do it anyway. When servers die, they complain about (while mixing in with voice of others) and demand anet to fix it. Lol.

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • DeadlySynz.3471DeadlySynz.3471 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    It is never the design that push people off their server pride. It is human nature. The design changes only accelerate it.

    It is normal for people to just want to achieve certain goals in the fastest and easiest manner.
    Look at pve raid, people only want to play with exp players, so that they can complete their raid. Same thing for fractal or dungeon or whatever.
    WvW is not a exception. People only want exp players so they will not lose fights or end up with a one sided losing fights. That is why stacking exist, to stack only exp players. That is a never changing nature of normal players.

    While server pride do exist but it really only for the minority. The majority never once care about server pride, not at launch, not now. Many often abused the sympathy for server pride inorder to protect what they have, basically their current server's strength. It is almost always about winning and benefits.

    The game mode has been going about its self destructive path since launch. People keep bandwagoning, keep stacking. It just keep driving people away, people still do it anyway. When servers die, they complain about (while mixing in with voice of others) and demand anet to fix it. Lol.

    This is very true, and it's the very nature of many players (not all) is the reason server pride died long ago. Many players (and we see this now with a couple servers) only want lop-sided fights and have no interest in engaging even remotely evenly. Ironically, these servers have become so bad at fighting, they lose even when they literally double their enemy.

    It's these players that are causing the issue, and these players causing the acceleration of the declining population in WvW. These players will still exist in alliances, and will still continue to be a bane on the game mode. We can applaud Anet for at least trying to do something with the game mode to even things out even though there is no set date yet.

    I've suggested this a few times before, a simple implementation until alliances are ready, cap the maps at 20-25 players max. There is no need to have 70-80 per map when nearly all servers can't field those numbers. First start out by allowing only 20 players per map, then IF all maps have 20 players, increase the map cap to 25, and 25 remains the max a map can have. This would end blobbing and would be a direct blow to the stacking behavior of these players. This would also be a lot easier on their servers and provide relief for many whose computers crash during large battles. Even after alliances start, keep the map cap to 20-25 players only.

  • This whole idea seems very nice for the very big WvW only guilds but for a guild that is PvX and loves to go around to all types of content such as raids, fractals, open world events, or wvw, this change sounds like a living hell. I dont know if there have been changes made since there are almost 50 pages of comments but it sounds to me if this goes through that player will be forced to play with 1 guild or another for WvW and be unable to play with their main guild that isnt very focused on wvw but still enjoyes it from time to time.
    IE my guild has been SBI for 6 years now and we of course there are those of us who wvw more than others and are in a separate guild for more intense wvw sessions, but we currently have the ability to play together without trying to get into an alliance who doesn't want us simply because we don't wvw as much as a whole will make trying to play with each other a nightmare.
    Ive heard nothing but excitement from my friends who ONLY wvw and ONLY play with their wvw guilds but it does not seem like the right path for the majority of the playerbase who likes to just occasionally dip into wvw with some friends when those friends are in guilds that require players to wvw a certain amount or alliances that will be against a guild joining that only a handful of players are heavily into wvw.

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 27, 2019

    @Tuna Bandit.3786 said:
    That changes are needed is obvious. but I feel this has not been thought through well enough.

    Snip - 8<

    This is giving Guilds way, WAY too much power to control who can or cannot join. That should be prevented.

    Snip - 8<

    By all means, go destroy WvW and give that much power to Guilds and forget about the casual player and small Guilds.


    I get what you're trying to say...

    Hope you can find comfort in knowing that this shared insight which over time has been proven true by saying to others...

    "Told you so"

    Alliance Linking will continue to repeat the same mistake of suppressing the Long-Term population growth that Server Linking mechanically & systematically does now...imho

    There's still a better alternative based on my perspective.

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    Credibility requires critical insight & time.

  • Redponey.8352Redponey.8352 Member ✭✭✭

    @Tuna Bandit.3786 said:
    That changes are needed is obvious. but I feel this has not been thought through well enough.

    Servers want to win, Guilds want to win. Currently, when someone new and inexperienced dives into WvW, they can. Nobody can deny them access because of their experience, fighting skills, level etc.

    Aliances will throw that upside down. New players likely won't get into the WvW Guilds unless they have skills to show, meaning they CAN be denied access to WvW maps they want to play in, and end up in, call it a "beginners" maps with players spit out by Guilds for not running the right equipment, skills, class etc.

    This is giving Guilds way, WAY too much power to control who can or cannot join. That should be prevented.

    I am member of a very small Guild, and enjoy playing WvW with them. I am not the best player and already have to deal with higher ping times in order to be able to play with my friends, due to the rediculous seperation of EU and US servers. Now you are going to make that even harder?

    By all means, go destroy WvW and give that much power to Guilds and forget about the casual player and small Guilds.

    I totally agree with you.

  • @Tuna Bandit.3786 said:
    That changes are needed is obvious. but I feel this has not been thought through well enough.

    Servers want to win, Guilds want to win. Currently, when someone new and inexperienced dives into WvW, they can. Nobody can deny them access because of their experience, fighting skills, level etc.

    Aliances will throw that upside down. New players likely won't get into the WvW Guilds unless they have skills to show, meaning they CAN be denied access to WvW maps they want to play in, and end up in, call it a "beginners" maps with players spit out by Guilds for not running the right equipment, skills, class etc.

    This is giving Guilds way, WAY too much power to control who can or cannot join. That should be prevented.

    As far aas i know you wont need a guild to join wvw at all - the new server willl be made of one or two alliances a few random guilds and single players. If I remember anets concept correctly your whole point is invalid. Only if you want to get into the more competitive wvvw scene you will need to get gear, skill etc, which I would assume is allready a present requirement.

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

    @Tuna Bandit.3786 said:
    That changes are needed is obvious. but I feel this has not been thought through well enough.

    Servers want to win, Guilds want to win. Currently, when someone new and inexperienced dives into WvW, they can. Nobody can deny them access because of their experience, fighting skills, level etc.

    Aliances will throw that upside down. New players likely won't get into the WvW Guilds unless they have skills to show, meaning they CAN be denied access to WvW maps they want to play in, and end up in, call it a "beginners" maps with players spit out by Guilds for not running the right equipment, skills, class etc.

    This is giving Guilds way, WAY too much power to control who can or cannot join. That should be prevented.

    I am member of a very small Guild, and enjoy playing WvW with them. I am not the best player and already have to deal with higher ping times in order to be able to play with my friends, due to the rediculous seperation of EU and US servers. Now you are going to make that even harder?

    By all means, go destroy WvW and give that much power to Guilds and forget about the casual player and small Guilds.

    Your small guild won’t want to be together?

    Mine runs mostly 6-10 at our busiest in WvW, but we have maybe 30 active.

    Most of us will select our guild as a WvW guild, but not join an alliance.

    Soooo, we will always play together and kind of get a new shuffle every 8-12 weeks.

    If we find an alliance we like, and that likes us, we might join them if it can be worked out. But our guildies will determine that.

  • kimtingen.6472kimtingen.6472 Member ✭✭
    edited June 1, 2019

    This world idea of yours going to mess things up. I say.. Just forget about the Worlds completely, remove the World vs. World completely from the game and instead call it "Guild Wars". A league where single guilds, or alliences of up to 4 guilds can fight for supremecy in their ranks. Make the season 10 weeks, 8 weeks of combat with 2 weeks of "Off season" time where guilds can make new alliences and get new players into the Guild War ranks of the guild (players that had joined them during the combat part of the season.) IMO the guilds shouldn't have the option to mark themselves as a "WvW guild", it should rather be all guilds having an option to create a "Guild War" army within itself where members that want to play the "Guild Wars can join, but only during the 2 week "Off Season" time.
    This would require a ranking system so that newer guilds wont be able to ally themselves with guilds that have been doing "Guild Wars" for a while, or meet guilds that are ranked higher in combat.
    I'm pretty sure this 8 weeks world idea of yours will just screw it up more than it is now with the open servers for the rest of the game and restricted servers for WvW that we have now.

  • enkidu.5937enkidu.5937 Member ✭✭✭

    @Tuna Bandit.3786 said:
    Aliances will throw that upside down. New players likely won't get into the WvW Guilds unless they have skills to show, meaning they CAN be denied access to WvW maps they want to play in, and end up in, call it a "beginners" maps with players spit out by Guilds for not running the right equipment, skills, class etc.

    This is giving Guilds way, WAY too much power to control who can or cannot join. That should be prevented.

    And I already know what map is going to be that "beginners and casual map".

    Alliance A: "Lets make a 50+ Zerg tomorrow at 6pm on Blue BL."
    Alliance B: "OK, then we will go to Green BL."
    Alliance C: "OK, then we will go to EBG."
    The Rest: "Uhmm, 3 queues. Hello Desert BL :# "

    And if you manage to get on one of the other maps, you are just not part of the "team".

    @Tuna Bandit.3786 said:
    By all means, go destroy WvW and give that much power to Guilds and forget about the casual player and small Guilds.

    They just have to make 2 seperate modi with 2 seperate matchmakings: "competitive WvW" and "casual WvW". Otherwise, the "I dont want to play with XY, because of reasons." problem will get even worse and make it even harder to get together enough ppl to play with, even if every world then is well-populated.

  • Hitman.5829Hitman.5829 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Can you increase the number of guilds that you can join?
    I have 3 guilds that I made just to store materials and items in them.
    This leaves me with 2 possible choices for the WvW guild.

    Charr Warrior Master Race!
    Black Gate Beast Roamer chicken chaser!

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

    @Hitman.5829 said:
    Can you increase the number of guilds that you can join?
    I have 3 guilds that I made just to store materials and items in them.
    This leaves me with 2 possible choices for the WvW guild.

    Maybe stop hoarding?

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Nice thread necro, kimtingen.6472.

    Necro. Never knowingly blasting combo fields since 2012.

  • Woop S.7851Woop S.7851 Member ✭✭

    @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
    A message from McKenna Berdrow:
    The goals of the World Restructuring system are:

    • Create great matches
    • Handle population fluctuations
    • Balance teams
    • Diversify WvW experiences

    Below is an "analysis" of GW1 Alliance Battles versus GW2 WvW, please note this post is only an analytical approach in order to address the above 4 items mentioned. GW1 Alliance Battles (even though small in scope compared to WvW) had elements that worked in the long-run, and possibly could inspire direction/creativity, it's always good to challenge our own opinions in order to remove blind-spots that can cost us dearly; is it really the Server links that is the issue? Is it the design? Mechanics? Player behavior? Why are Commanders always competing on the same side or in voice? Why is blobbing the main trend? in PvP mode (5v5), similar skills/traits are used, but at an smaller scale, could what's done there be carried over to balance a 10 v 20 fight?10v100 fight? (Scenario analysis needed from Big Data) Why is the WvW party search window always empty? In no way do I claim what is right or wrong, but only offer an perspective below. GW2 WvW has tons of potential! the scope of WvW is very big, it is my hope this post might inspire "Constructive Feedback" that could help the developers to improve this Game-mode in the long-run, with the reality of limited resources, to re-develop servers of this magnitude is no easy feat, something to keep in mind. Constructive comments welcomed! :)

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 5, 2019

    This "comparative analysis" falls flat on its face since WvW is a continous 24/7 mode. They arent comparable.

    By this logic, two 50 man zergs raiding against each other is exactly as balanced as entire GW1 alliances... for the duration of the raid. WvW is much larger than that.

    Also the "anomaly" in the very last part is players not posting squads in wvw lfg. Its not a bug or anything. Its players. Commanders dont "compete" for players either unless they want to. And then its up to other players.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • SexyMofo.8923SexyMofo.8923 Member ✭✭✭

    2 years later....

  • Woop S.7851Woop S.7851 Member ✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    This "comparative analysis" falls flat on its face since WvW is a continous 24/7 mode. They arent comparable.

    So what would be an good comparison that won’t fall flat on its face with checks and balances or strict rules to the “24/7” Game mode? Would EOTM be comparable as it has 3 hour point resets? It used to be populated until rewards were removed..

    By this logic, two 50 man zergs raiding against each other is exactly as balanced as entire GW1 alliances... for the duration of the raid. WvW is much larger than that.

    Hmm, couldn’t find that part in the image where it says the 2 are exactly balanced or same, and no GW1 AB does not equal GW2 WvW, but the 4man teams from GW1 had a clear purpose and was enforced (core design mechanic) to avoid unbalanced blobs, what would be the reasoning behind WvW zergs with 1 spawn point, 1 tag screaming at people in voice and an empty LFG window? Any approach to enhance it?

    Also the "anomaly" in the very last part is players not posting squads in wvw lfg. Its not a bug or anything. Its players. Commanders dont "compete" for players either unless they want to. And then its up to other players.

    Hence “players” has to take initiative to post it, yet new players are thrown into battle right away, no set rule is present or alerts them on “how to lfg”, “no guides”. And yes commanders do compete (check voice during reset, it gets real nasty in there)... unless they want to.. be nice. The competition comes from “numbers”, bigger the blob, better chance to win? So the rules are set then, why overhaul servers and this huge thread? :D

  • Vegeta.2563Vegeta.2563 Member ✭✭✭

    I hope when Alliances actually come, server stability is improved. Tonight's reset skill lag was horrible. By the 20th time I hit my button for 1 skill it finally went off. Literally unplayable.

  • JTGuevara.9018JTGuevara.9018 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 8, 2019

    I'm cautiously optimistic about this. It can work or it can backfire depending on how it's implemented. The current wvw system is flawed and easily exploited by guild shenanigans: server stacking and timezones. Tier and server doesn't even matter, if it ever did. Timezones and population mattered. That's why I'm not for this mythical "server" pride, I'm not sure it even existed. I know guild pride was always there. I remember the early wvw days, the "Titan Alliance", the tournaments, those were fun times. It seemed like people cared back then. Still, I don't think they saw the flaws of the system yet. Eventually they did. Tiers, tournaments and servers never really mattered because regardless of all that, you were at the mercy of timezones and server stacking.

    Then came the server consolidation. Servers were stacked to the brim, guilds got fatter. We went from 24 servers down to 12. Blackgate ran roughshod over the gamemode because, honestly, I think people then realized the system was flawed and pointless and stopped caring. People stopped this farce of a competition because it just didn't matter...you were at the mercy of your timezone and your tier.

    I will say, I like the idea of this alliance system. People finally have a choice of who they want to play with. People are not at the mercy of servers and tiers. However, it's crucial that the new system must, MUST take into account timezones. Someone else said this, the timezone could be a loophole. Timezone stacking 'could' be an exploit guilds and alliances use to dodge matches. Say, if there's a certain alliance they don't want to face at a certain time of the day... Still, at the end of the day, in a realm vs realm system, you never really know or can fully predict with certainty how many people will play at any given time of the day.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    anet can experiment a monthly experience to see if people like it, and then change change alter to make the experience better for players, since it's players who help them earn their keep and money irl. why not set up a yearly sched to do the adjustment like a catholic building their church. it may take more than 100 years but it's getting there piece by piece. to ensure the change is what the players want, make players vote for at most 3 choices to alter the state of wvw, then do that - check the reaction and feedback for a month, then again, make a 3 choice survey, then do that. always focussing on the 3 most important concerns to date but are more related to the changes.

    tournaments, to me is the top need. followed by new maps. followed by wvw queue system ala pvp. you can test it in one map in wvw - i.e. red bl. or eotm or in 1 normal bl.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Looks like it may help off hours player a bit.
    Just wish wvw paid close to the same as pve, I hate pve. Buying and making stacks of seage and food and hero banners is a huge drain.

  • slasc.3260slasc.3260 Member ✭✭

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    @Kovu.7560 said:
    Wow. That's something.
    It was good knowing you, Fort Aspenwood.

    Still, a complete overhall is the only way to rebalance the population, so I can't really complain.
    Glad you guys have been hard at work designing this new system.

    ~ Kovu

    The evolution of this post was amazing <3

    It was like watching realization creep in writing.

  • shiri.4257shiri.4257 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 10, 2019

    @FromFallen.4801 said:
    This whole idea seems very nice for the very big WvW only guilds but for a guild that is PvX and loves to go around to all types of content such as raids, fractals, open world events, or wvw, this change sounds like a living hell. I dont know if there have been changes made since there are almost 50 pages of comments but it sounds to me if this goes through that player will be forced to play with 1 guild or another for WvW and be unable to play with their main guild that isnt very focused on wvw but still enjoyes it from time to time.
    IE my guild has been SBI for 6 years now and we of course there are those of us who wvw more than others and are in a separate guild for more intense wvw sessions, but we currently have the ability to play together without trying to get into an alliance who doesn't want us simply because we don't wvw as much as a whole will make trying to play with each other a nightmare.
    Ive heard nothing but excitement from my friends who ONLY wvw and ONLY play with their wvw guilds but it does not seem like the right path for the majority of the playerbase who likes to just occasionally dip into wvw with some friends when those friends are in guilds that require players to wvw a certain amount or alliances that will be against a guild joining that only a handful of players are heavily into wvw.

    What makes you think your pvx guild is the main guild? depending on the parameters, pvx guilds are probably larger than wvw. not all wvw guilds will be looking to group up with other wvw guilds. there will be options to build an alliance as each sees fit. at the every least, it will add some administrative capabilities.

    Spectre [VII] - Wood League Champion. Making "fight guilds" stack on higher tiers since 2013.
    Michelin rated WvW guild since 2015. The gold standard. Never transferred, never reformed, adapting and reloading with or without Anet.

  • Trakarg.2095Trakarg.2095 Member ✭✭

    So is this ever kitten happening?

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 14, 2019

    Hmm...

    It's kind of ironic that we're still waiting for an answer...

    When the original person who posted this article is gone...and the "game director" that provided the vision behind this World Restructuring is also gone.

    Over the years on the old & this new forum...

    I've predicted many things that have come to pass...long story short...I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

    Just enjoy what this game already has to offer...or learn to move on with life...imho

    It's ok to do both...if this helps you.

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    Credibility requires critical insight & time.

  • Kylden Ar.3724Kylden Ar.3724 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Trakarg.2095 said:
    So is this ever kitten happening?

    Not until they figure out how to charge gems for it as often as they get from Bandwagoners.

    How many times we gotta tell you GRIND IS NOT CONTENT there ANet?

    Leader of Tyrian Adventure Corp [TACO], [RaW][TACO] Alliance, Kaineng.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I hope they bring back wvw tournaments after world restructuring settles.

    you don't know till you know, ya know.

  • @Woop S.7851 said:

    @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
    A message from McKenna Berdrow:
    The goals of the World Restructuring system are:

    • Create great matches
    • Handle population fluctuations
    • Balance teams
    • Diversify WvW experiences

    Below is an "analysis" of GW1 Alliance Battles versus GW2 WvW, please note this post is only an analytical approach in order to address the above 4 items mentioned. GW1 Alliance Battles (even though small in scope compared to WvW) had elements that worked in the long-run, and possibly could inspire direction/creativity, it's always good to challenge our own opinions in order to remove blind-spots that can cost us dearly; is it really the Server links that is the issue? Is it the design? Mechanics? Player behavior? Why are Commanders always competing on the same side or in voice? Why is blobbing the main trend? in PvP mode (5v5), similar skills/traits are used, but at an smaller scale, could what's done there be carried over to balance a 10 v 20 fight?10v100 fight? (Scenario analysis needed from Big Data) Why is the WvW party search window always empty? In no way do I claim what is right or wrong, but only offer an perspective below. GW2 WvW has tons of potential! the scope of WvW is very big, it is my hope this post might inspire "Constructive Feedback" that could help the developers to improve this Game-mode in the long-run, with the reality of limited resources, to re-develop servers of this magnitude is no easy feat, something to keep in mind. Constructive comments welcomed! :)

    I loved gw1 alliance battles. It was so much fun. Was very disappointed in wvw but couldnt go back to ab it was dead.

    Fort Aspenwood is weak

  • Everybody was so excited when gaile made this thread lol and now here everybody saying its not happening and telling anet to ..... and nobody has any hope anymore. @arenanet you sure know how to destroy your own game.

    Fort Aspenwood is weak

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    so... any tldr update?

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • JTGuevara.9018JTGuevara.9018 Member ✭✭✭

    I saw that gw1 and gw2 comparison and although I never played gw1 alliance battles, I can tell right off the bat that it's superior on all categories. It really punishes player shenanigans. Build diversity in gw1, as with everything else in it, BLOWS gw2 out of the water. In gw2, all you get are FB/Scourge/Scrapper zerg trains. It's stupid.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @JTGuevara.9018 said:
    I saw that gw1 and gw2 comparison and although I never played gw1 alliance battles, I can tell right off the bat that it's superior on all categories. It really punishes player shenanigans. Build diversity in gw1, as with everything else in it, BLOWS gw2 out of the water. In gw2, all you get are FB/Scourge/Scrapper zerg trains. It's stupid.

    fb scourge rev scrapper zerg trains =)

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Rod.6581Rod.6581 Member ✭✭

    When was the last update on this?

  • Dediggefedde.4961Dediggefedde.4961 Member ✭✭✭

    For me, none of the points listed about gw2 appears to be true.
    But maybe it's about toxic commanders on difficult servers.

    I still haven't given up on the alliance system, either. ^^

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Rod.6581 said:
    When was the last update on this?

    You're reading it
    Lol

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Hello friends,

    Are we there yet?

  • Jaruselka.5943Jaruselka.5943 Member ✭✭✭

    Can’t wait to play alliances in my fusion powered flying car!

  • acdspydar.8920acdspydar.8920 Member ✭✭
    edited June 22, 2019

    It's just been announcement it will be released August 28, 2045! I can't wait to play it in the retirement home!

    t'was a joke... Lol 😔

  • It looks like ANet shelved this.

©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.