World Restructuring - Page 56 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

World Restructuring

15152535456

Comments

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

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

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

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

    @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?

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • @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.

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

    hope anet allows us to betatest asap

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

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

    @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?

    Because most guilds aren't alliance sized. And alliances will only be a small part of the world.

    I think it will be a slightly better way to balance population, though coverage has a high potential to be borked.

    I don't think it will be a bad change (as I did initially) but I am not sure it's going to be a tremendous change that many feel it will be.

  • Just look at current pseudo alliances of kain, sor, and possibly ar. How has that turned out so far? Just a new way to stack....

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Part of the problem of the new alliances forming in the current system is they're doing it in between relinks, and so we have to wait almost two months before things get reorganized, plus the imbalance of pugs on every server especially those affected by the mass transfers. In the new system no one is going to form an alliance in the middle of the season, then move in between worlds because that will happen for them automatically and for free at the end of the season. There's also no real reason to have anything lower than 1800 gem cost to transfer, so that should also help hold mass transfers until the system does it at the end of the season.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    Maguuma: Free ppt, come and get it!

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The idea that wvw that support alliance is that it will significantly reduce imbalance while giving people freedom to play with people they want to.

    However, the same risk still apply which is guild can still stack on the alliance like how they stack on server now. Thus, whether it really significantly reduce imbalance is yet to be seen.

    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

  • Will probably come down to how finite the size of an alliance is as well. Not holding out hope if it is as large as the # that grouped on kain or sor.

  • Marcel.1857Marcel.1857 Member ✭✭
    edited August 18, 2018

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Marcel.1857 said:
    E.g. you have 1k players but only 200 can join the wvw since of the map caps ( 50 ea map for e.g.). So there would be 2 positive affects first the map of the enemy could be filled the same way since 50 ppl is way lower then the actual one and also helps to reduce the lags occurring if 3 server smash each other e.g. in stone mist.

    That makes absolutely no sense. Whether you have two 500 man alliances or one 1000 man alliances, you still dumped the same amount of people into WvW. What you suggest only reduce the caps, letting less players play - which goes against the point you're trying to make, to get more people to play together.

    Will alliances make guilds to clean the rooster? Maybe. Is that so bad? If you have 15 active players in your 84 man guilds maybe it's about time. Lots of guilds have inactive players, that's fine. But it's not like you need someone that hasnt logged on for like 2 years. I'm sure you can loose some of those 69 players. Send them a mail, thank them for their time, encourage them to look you up if they ever start playing the game again cause you can always reinvite them.

    Or you could bypass the inactive "fat" completely simply by making a specific alliance guild. In theory, if it works like we suspect and if WvW rep is seperate from guild rep it should be incredibly simple.

    Create a new guild, invite the 15 active players. Set that guild as your WvW guild and/or join an alliance with that guild. Never rep it, only rep the old guild. Boom done deal. You now have an alliance guild that only take 15/500 slots.

    The idee behind is that if they get back to play they would need to wait 2 month till you can play together again, what i would be pissed of if i would be them. Amt there is no problem about that since you play on one server and the full state is determinate by play hours of the active player in wvw .

    And i see no problem in decreasing the cap because i never seen a guild with more then 50 ppl raiding together. Only public leads but a lower cap would mean the other bl need to be played to since on my server the red bl is nearly death and the public commander don´t want to play on it so there will be a need if the other bl would be full. And smaller guilds would have more chances to contest the enemy blobs since 25 vs 80 is no way to kill with the actuall meta so 25 vs 50 would be more interesting and rise the chance to compete. And the 1000 alliance player won´t be a problem since i wont thonk there would be more than 200 on the same time. At least if you want to rise in the server ranking you need 24h per day player so it would be 200 player on the maps * 4 6h shifts = 800 Player considering there would be some playing less so i would need 1k players to have 24h players. But yeah you are right actual it is 320players can play the same time wvw and if you play it yourself you exatly know how bad anets server perform if you have a 80x80x80 fight. And atm it´s lokal servers like all play the same time with the new system you can choose the players yourself and which o clock thy would play so you can build a 24h shift on that but well you would need players.

  • BlueMelody.6398BlueMelody.6398 Member ✭✭✭

    @Liston.9708 said:
    Will probably come down to how finite the size of an alliance is as well. Not holding out hope if it is as large as the # that grouped on kain or sor.

    I don't know about Kain, but I'd be shocked if the massive SoR bandwagon that took a link server and skyrocketed it to the top of Tier 1 isn't significantly larger than a single alliance can hold.

    If one single 500-man alliance (one-fifth of a world) can dominate the entire state of NA wvw, then we have far too many worlds for the number of people playing.

  • Eloc Freidon.5692Eloc Freidon.5692 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'm in Crystal Desert so it makes sense now why we were getting Outnumbered so often when I played. That was the only reason getting pip completion was reasonable. From 30 unreasonable hours to 16 barely okay hours a week.

  • Marcel.1857Marcel.1857 Member ✭✭
    edited September 2, 2018

    Well > @BlueMelody.6398 said:

    @Liston.9708 said:
    Will probably come down to how finite the size of an alliance is as well. Not holding out hope if it is as large as the # that grouped on kain or sor.

    I don't know about Kain, but I'd be shocked if the massive SoR bandwagon that took a link server and skyrocketed it to the top of Tier 1 isn't significantly larger than a single alliance can hold.

    If one single 500-man alliance (one-fifth of a world) can dominate the entire state of NA wvw, then we have far too many worlds for the number of people playing.

    To be honest i think it was told that the world will consist of such an alliance estimate 500player max and player anet puts there too so. But yeah if you got 500 hardcore player playing 12h per day i guess they would be able to dorminate the server rank but only if there would be no world with the same ppl ^^.

    But in this point there will it be just like now linked server vs unlinked server.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    With how small WvW is becoming. You don't need hardcore players, even 500 experienced old players that play couple hours per day would make a huge impact. I am sure anet has statistic on how many active and experienced players are out there but I believe they think such scenario would not occur. Much like how people think that people will stop stacking if they realise is boring, well, people still stack. You can't change a human nature of wanting to win at all cost.

    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

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Part of the problem of the new alliances forming in the current system is they're doing it in between relinks, and so we have to wait almost two months before things get reorganized, plus the imbalance of pugs on every server especially those affected by the mass transfers. In the new system no one is going to form an alliance in the middle of the season, then move in between worlds because that will happen for them automatically and for free at the end of the season. There's also no real reason to have anything lower than 1800 gem cost to transfer, so that should also help hold mass transfers until the system does it at the end of the season.

    We'll eventually see how players game the ability to pay to transfer but yeah all transfers in the new system should be 1800 gems, no exceptions.

  • I think it is a good idea. Nevertheless I'e like to ask you if yoy have considered the language issue:
    Current worlds + entering on WvW is the only way spanish players can find & meet other spanish players on a guaranteed way, and if you blow up our world, dont know how spanish guild could recrute more new spanish players.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    With how small WvW is becoming. You don't need hardcore players, even 500 experienced old players that play couple hours per day would make a huge impact. I am sure anet has statistic on how many active and experienced players are out there but I believe they think such scenario would not occur. Much like how people think that people will stop stacking if they realise is boring, well, people still stack. You can't change a human nature of wanting to win at all cost.

    This is no longer just a possible scenario but one that is becoming a reality. Anet need to consider skill balance otherwise the restructure will just fall apart within first 6 months of its release.

    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

  • @eduminator.7845 said:
    I think it is a good idea. Nevertheless I'e like to ask you if yoy have considered the language issue:
    Current worlds + entering on WvW is the only way spanish players can find & meet other spanish players on a guaranteed way, and if you blow up our world, dont know how spanish guild could recrute more new spanish players.

    They have already said that preferred language will be a factor in grouping players onto worlds.

  • It would be cool if we could have up to 5 different alliances like how we can be in 5 different guilds including chats for each one as well. What I mean by this is a guild can make an alliance either by being the leader of the alliance or joining into one. 1 full alliance would be at most 10 guilds (or whatever anet thinks is best). Every guild can create an alliance emblem which will be represented when they are the leader of an alliance. This way you have a little bit more freedom with who you want to be allied with instead of being trapped in one alliance with 1 guild you like and the rest of the guilds having problems between each other. I remember that happening in gw1 when we were apart of the top luxon alliance where drama started between some of the guilds in it which spoils the fun lol. All I'm getting at is this way makes it so you can choose exactly who you want to be allied with instead of being stuck in one that not everyone gets along with each other.

    Example on what I'm trying to say:
    possible guild tag: [BOOM] (picture your tribe)

    Alliance 1: (A1 chat)
    Alliance Leader: [BOOM] (your tribe) (Represents [BOOM]'s alliance emblem)
    Allies:
    1. [BOMB]

    Alliance 2: (A2 chat)
    Alliance Leader: [FROG] (Represents [FROG]'s alliance emblem)
    Allies:
    1. {BOOM] (your tribe)
    2. [DIP]
    3. [TACO]
    4. [BAT]
    5. [SOUL]
    6. [BAM]
    7. [DASH]
    8. [ZOOM]
    9. [ZIP]
    10. [DIVE]

    Alliance 3: (A3 chat)
    Alliance Leader: [BOOM] (your tribe) (Represents [BOOM]'s alliance emblem)
    1. [TACO] (same from alliance 2)
    2. [TAPE]
    3. [SUN]
    4. [MOON]
    5. [DISH]

    Alliance 4: (A4 chat)
    Alliance Leader: [SEEK] (Represents [SEEK]'s alliance emblem)
    1. [BOOM] (your tribe)
    2. [SOUR]

    Alliance 5: (A5 chat)
    Alliance Leader: [BOOM] (your tribe) (Represents [BOOM]'s alliance emblem)
    1. [NAIL]
    2. [STAR]
    3. [BOLT]

  • Wrong subforum and just no.

    Golemancer Tixx - Far Shiverpeaks (EU). Achievement Hunter (+34k) ~850 on the AP Leaderboards.

  • JDub.1530JDub.1530 Member ✭✭✭

    Alliances are for assigning matchups for WvW. Multiple alliances don't make sense. I also doubt they will create the concept of an alliance leader. That has the potential of all sorts of bad blood as one guild sees itself as superior.

  • Linken.6345Linken.6345 Member ✭✭✭✭

    if you want a diffrent alliance Im sure you will be able to switch and the switch take affect after the current match

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

    they can always make a poll.

    can you read english? y or n.

    if you can read, you can write.

    also, if majority of players can read and write english then there.should be no issue.

    this way, you have a basis. =)

    do the poll in game.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • @Sovereign.1093 said:
    they can always make a poll.

    can you read english? y or n.

    if you can read, you can write.

    also, if majority of players can read and write english then there.should be no issue.

    this way, you have a basis. =)

    do the poll in game.

    I think in NA there no issue but in EU , on many national server people dont understand and talk at all english.

  • Ooo ok ya I'm sure whatever Anet comes out with concerning alliances will be great. I was just putting an Idea out there relating back to past experiences I have had. I just don't like drama and try to avoid it if I can lol. I think that idea of not having an alliance leader is neat because it makes it more like a group of guilds working together which is fine with me lol. I'm just SUPER EXCITED we're getting alliances because they're a blast I lived in Alliance Battles in GW1 lol. You guys don't see it but I'm doing a happy dance lol.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 9, 2018

    I totally support 5 alliances, this is matter of consistency principle. Why can players be part of 5 different guilds' chats while can't be part of 5 different alliances' chats?

    PS: Gw2 players sure are super casual and inconsistent. Also, since when alliance chat is a thing?

    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

  • Blodeuyn.2751Blodeuyn.2751 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 9, 2018

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    I totally support 5 alliances, this is matter of consistency principle. Why can players be part of 5 different guilds while can't be part of 5 different alliances of different guilds?

    PS: Gw2 players sure are super casual and inconsistent.

    Because under the new system it wouldn't make sense to have more than one alliance. Each link will bring a new mix of alliances and the whole purpose is to use this to make balanced matches. Having more than one alliance per person would skew the metric for balance.

    Blodeuyn Tylwyth
    Quaggan OP [QOP], League of Extraordinary Siegers [LEXS]

  • Kaiser.9873Kaiser.9873 Member ✭✭✭

    That's the whole point of being in an alliance though. To support your alliance, and to play in that alliance. I don't like the idea of 5 guilds. I SUPER don't like the idea of being in 5 alliances. Talk about making matchmaking problematic.

  • I must have missed the betas. I didn't know there was a limit. Can I join your alliances?

  • Alliances are groups of guilds not individuals like guilds. I highly doubt, and hope not, that there will be the ability to be in multiple alliances... that simply makes no sense.

    Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

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

    if a guild can have 500 members and alliance cap is 500, will there be a change in guild population?

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • maybe if there is a cap how many guilds can join an alliance

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

    @wanya.1697 said:
    maybe if there is a cap how many guilds can join an alliance

    as far as i know, by this illustration, the world will work like this:

    (world(alliance -multiple until 500 is capped (guilds within the alliance (guilds not in the alliance (pugs)))))

    we may have a world that is 1k or 2k in size?

    if we queu up all maps and divide per matchup tick which is 2 hours. it be about

    80 players x 4 maps x 12 hours. 3840 players for a full q if all players play 2 hours round the clock at max. this could be the working cap.

    but in average, a player plays roughly 4 hours or less, and the carreer wvw does 6 hours or so.

    maybe soft cap of 3840? then adjust every 2 months? gather some data and decide.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Ubi.4136Ubi.4136 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    if a guild can have 500 members and alliance cap is 500, will there be a change in guild population?

    They said no. Only members that declared that guild as their wvw guild would count towards the alliance anyway, so no guild population changes really needed or expected. The problem is that the game tries to "sort" people when placing them in maps. People are already trying to figure out how to exploit this. Because the game sorts where to put you based on guild/server, which means that people can claim an alt guild as their wvw guild, and then most likely get "sorted" in to the same world as the main wvw guild and their alliance, the same way that when you load in to Lions Arch or another map with multiple instances, the game "sorts" you to be with guildies. So, you have an alliance cap that is almost certainly meaningless, unless they do some serious changes to the way the sorting already works.

    Carnished Toast (Yum)
    Lost in the Maguuma (TC)

  • Too bad you can't make these week long matches work. 4 hour matches could work if they would balance populations after every match and give some rewards that would actually motivate players to play game mode right way.

    Low quality trolling since launch
    Seafarer's Rest EotM Hero

  • @Strider Pj.2193 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?

    Because most guilds aren't alliance sized. And alliances will only be a small part of the world.

    I think it will be a slightly better way to balance population, though coverage has a high potential to be borked.

    I don't think it will be a bad change (as I did initially) but I am not sure it's going to be a tremendous change that many feel it will be.

    Pretty much this. Alliances are mostly a tool set for ANET to create more competitive matches across all time zones. The server system isn't working. If ANET does this properly then it could eventually lead to other things like tournaments. But in reality, not much is going to change in the short term, except player distribution across servers. The game mode is the same and PvD is still king.

    And even though alliances haven't been released yet they are already having a positive effect. Players are starting to self organize, some players came back, etc. The idea of Alliances is a good one and it gives players hope that ANET isn't ignoring the game mode.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 10, 2018

    @Blodeuyn.2751 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    I totally support 5 alliances, this is matter of consistency principle. Why can players be part of 5 different guilds while can't be part of 5 different alliances of different guilds?

    PS: Gw2 players sure are super casual and inconsistent.

    Because under the new system it wouldn't make sense to have more than one alliance. Each link will bring a new mix of alliances and the whole purpose is to use this to make balanced matches. Having more than one alliance per person would skew the metric for balance.

    I actually find it hard to converse my thoughts for this subject in concise manner.
    Anyway, if you think a unique alliance is important for competitiveness, then why does the game allow players to join 5 guilds? Since just like alliance a unique guild should be important for competitiveness. There is a fundamental inconsistent game design here. It is this kind of inconsistency that make it logically hard to justify why we shouldn't have 5 alliances. This is also against the rule of change principle for system designs.

    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

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

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Blodeuyn.2751 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    I totally support 5 alliances, this is matter of consistency principle. Why can players be part of 5 different guilds while can't be part of 5 different alliances of different guilds?

    PS: Gw2 players sure are super casual and inconsistent.

    Because under the new system it wouldn't make sense to have more than one alliance. Each link will bring a new mix of alliances and the whole purpose is to use this to make balanced matches. Having more than one alliance per person would skew the metric for balance.

    I actually find it hard to converse my thoughts for this subject in concise manner.
    Anyway, if you think a unique alliance is important for competitiveness, then why does the game allow players to join 5 guilds? Since just like alliance a unique guild should be important for competitiveness. There is a fundamental inconsistent game design here. It is this kind of inconsistency that make it logically hard to justify why we shouldn't have 5 alliances. This is also against the rule of change principle for system designs.

    The system will only allow you to have 1 WvW guild for each season.

    So, while you may have more than one guild, only one of them can be designated as a WvW guild for the purpose of world assignment.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Blodeuyn.2751 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    I totally support 5 alliances, this is matter of consistency principle. Why can players be part of 5 different guilds while can't be part of 5 different alliances of different guilds?

    PS: Gw2 players sure are super casual and inconsistent.

    Because under the new system it wouldn't make sense to have more than one alliance. Each link will bring a new mix of alliances and the whole purpose is to use this to make balanced matches. Having more than one alliance per person would skew the metric for balance.

    I actually find it hard to converse my thoughts for this subject in concise manner.
    Anyway, if you think a unique alliance is important for competitiveness, then why does the game allow players to join 5 guilds? Since just like alliance a unique guild should be important for competitiveness. There is a fundamental inconsistent game design here. It is this kind of inconsistency that make it logically hard to justify why we shouldn't have 5 alliances. This is also against the rule of change principle for system designs.

    The system will only allow you to have 1 WvW guild for each season.

    So, while you may have more than one guild, only one of them can be designated as a WvW guild for the purpose of world assignment.

    Therefore, by this argument, isn't his request for 5 alliances even more justifiable since you can always have the guild represent one alliance per season.

    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

  • Etria.3642Etria.3642 Member ✭✭✭

    Being in five alliances would be like being in five servers.

©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.