World Restructuring - Page 57 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

World Restructuring

1515253545557>

Comments

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

    there maybe a rebooting of guilds and population as a whole.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 11, 2018

    @Etria.3642 said:
    Being in five alliances would be like being in five servers.

    And then imagine if those servers meet in a matchup and you just choose which you fight as depending what you feel like (ie the server winning).

    No, that does not create competition. An alliance is like a server, yes. The alliance that contain the guild you have designated as WvW is your server and you only get one.

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭
    edited September 11, 2018

    Sorry, this World Restructuring does not adequately address the 3 fundamental issues that have been with this game mode since launch:

    1) Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups...while using it in a positive way
    2) Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds...even from enemy Worlds
    3) Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves...through International cooperation

    Also, how does this World Restructuring help to address the following:

    Stable Population Growth of Local & International Long-Term Communities tied to Real World Countries that have huge differences in:

    a) Language
    b) Time Zone...aka...Geographic Location
    c) Ethnic Culture

    The above needs to be fixed & properly addressed...while encouraging a more competitive & healthy game mode...that engages the player to be part of a Larger Nation...far bigger than any Player controlled Guild or Alliance can provide...imho.

    Motto: For God, Country, and Family.

    Where fighting has deeper meaning...in a game that is supposedly meaningless.

    Think about it for a second. :)

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    p.s.
    See some of my past posts...please vote Helpful or Thumbs up if you agree.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 11, 2018

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Etria.3642 said:
    Being in five alliances would be like being in five servers.

    And then imagine if those servers meet in a matchup and you just choose which you fight as depending what you feel like (ie the server winning).

    No, that does not create competition. An alliance is like a server, yes. The alliance that contain the guild you have designated as WvW is your server and you only get one.

    But if the guild can only represent one alliance like how player can represent one guild? Furthermore, base on the announcement, you can't switch designation on ongoing season thus your point of guilds able to jump between alliances or servers in this case doesn't sound logically right.

    PS: I am not saying I support the notion but logically speaking, your argument is flawed.

    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

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Diku.2546 said:
    Sorry, this World Restructuring does not adequately address the 3 fundamental issues that have been with this game mode since launch:

    1) Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups...while using it in a positive way
    2) Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds...even from enemy Worlds
    3) Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves...through International cooperation

    Except that it does.
    1) It cuts behemoth 2500+ player chunks that cant be balanced into 1-500 player chunks that can be put together like Lego, reducing server stacking.
    2) It allow you to join any WvW guild and then after 8 weeks you will join their world, even if they are currently on an another world. Friends and family play in same guild, that's how together and the concept of guilds work. Why on earth they would play "together" on different worlds that are enemies to each other is beyond me, unless you want encourage exploiting and match manipulation and that's what you call "friends and family".
    3) This is not a fundamental issue in any way. Nightcapping remain a thing even when already addressed and much improved by the skirmish system redesign.

  • I'd like to know whether alliances will be able to share guild missions, not just in WvW, but also PvP and PvE ones. It would allow small guilds to do harder missions by allying with other guilds, without having to join the other guilds or merge.

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭
    edited September 12, 2018

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Except that it does.
    1) It cuts behemoth 2500+ player chunks that cant be balanced into 1-500 player chunks that can be put together like Lego, reducing server stacking.
    2) It allow you to join any WvW guild and then after 8 weeks you will join their world, even if they are currently on an another world. Friends and family play in same guild, that's how together and the concept of guilds work. Why on earth they would play "together" on different worlds that are enemies to each other is beyond me, unless you want encourage exploiting and match manipulation and that's what you call "friends and family".
    3) This is not a fundamental issue in any way. Nightcapping remain a thing even when already addressed and much improved by the skirmish system redesign.


    I'll have to disagree with you, but to each his own.

    1) Population - Why use buckets to manage the flow of a river? Wouldn't it be better to take advantage of the natural physics of water & re-design something that effortlessly powers our Match-Ups in a positive way? You can't stop players wanting to stack for the win, but you can re-engineer the Match-Up design to take advantage of this aspect.

    Focus should be put on re-designing the Match-Up mechanics & not re-building the Team Creation Process that provides the raw source of power...aka...rushing water...or in terms of the WvW perspective...Squads, Guilds, Alliances, etc.

    There needs to be consequences on being the Number 1 Ranked WvW behemoth - Over-stacked servers can expect to have longer wait queues to enter their map...much like how customers to any popular restaurant have to wait to find a seat or a table to open up for them to dine at.

    2) The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Fighting on a shared enemy BL with an enemy "Friend" is based on mutual trust to fight against a bigger enemy.

    3) Coverage - Off-Peak Capping (it's daytime somewhere) is an issue because of how our Fixed 3 Way Match-Up restricts fighting between 3 Servers...we should get rid of this restriction & allow International cooperation between All Servers. See NATO for a real world example of this concept - Attack on one is an attack on ALL. Alliances are Player inspired & Player maintained...until player drama prevails. Creating an Alliance can be as simple as a verbal agreement in chat.

    Re-design Match-Up mechanics to extend Coverage - It's critical that we remove this restriction that a Server can only attack 2 other specific Servers in this Fixed 3 Way Match-Up design. We need to let your International enemy "Friend" server to be able to retaliate attack the BL of any enemy server that attacks your Home BL to extend your coverage.


    Don't forget we need a Long-Term plan to support Population Growth of Local & International Communities in a sustainable way that are different in:

    a) Language
    b) Time Zone...aka...Geographic Location
    c) Ethnic Culture

    WvW really needs to engage players in such a way that their fighting has deeper meaning. Repeatable content...that makes players want to come back to play...time and time again.

    Using player based Alliances to build the WvW Foundation upon - has inherent risks - Guilds are subject to player drama in the Long-Term & things may backfire if things go wrong between players...not sure how to insulate the WvW game mode from this exposure.


    Boils down to a decision to Re-design Match-Up Mechanics or Re-build Team Creation Process

    It's more effective that we choose to re-design the Match-Up mechanics instead of re-building the WvW Team Creation Process...in order to encourage in the Long-Term...a self-sustaining & healthy competitive game mode...imho

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    p.s.
    See some of my past posts...please vote Helpful or Thumbs up if you agree.

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

    aside from 3 way like pvp queu, i think its not possible to address the coverage issue nor the population. it can only be rebalanced every 8 weeks.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 12, 2018

    @Diku.2546
    You can't fix unbalance without blowing up servers, afterall the source of the unbalance is the servers itself.
    Using your analogy. Some source are bigger, some source are smaller therefore the flow of river is proportional to the size of the source. They are not managing the river, they are building connectors across all sources to equalize them so the river will flow equally as well. The rivers are managed by the players themselves.

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Diku.2546 said:
    Sorry, this World Restructuring does not adequately address the 3 fundamental issues that have been with this game mode since launch:

    1) Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups...while using it in a positive way
    2) Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds...even from enemy Worlds
    3) Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves...through International cooperation

    Except that it does.
    1) It cuts behemoth 2500+ player chunks that cant be balanced into 1-500 player chunks that can be put together like Lego, reducing server stacking.
    2) It allow you to join any WvW guild and then after 8 weeks you will join their world, even if they are currently on an another world. Friends and family play in same guild, that's how together and the concept of guilds work. Why on earth they would play "together" on different worlds that are enemies to each other is beyond me, unless you want encourage exploiting and match manipulation and that's what you call "friends and family".
    3) This is not a fundamental issue in any way. Nightcapping remain a thing even when already addressed and much improved by the skirmish system redesign.

    Point 2 challenge the multi guilds system. So you saying multi guilds in some ways is encouraging exploiting and match manipulation?

    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

  • I really don't like this idear.
    Just like race issues, each server has a different history and rules.
    Forcing the merger of two servers creates a lot of problems.

    We can learn PVP
    Create a WVW system. Cancel the mechanism of server VS server.
    Break the gap between server and server.

  • 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.

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭
    edited November 4, 2018

    At least you can say...

    "Told you so"

    I agree with you...we've thrown away the one thing that made this game mode endearing & unique.

    But then again...we can say....

    "Told you so"

    Those that argue that server identity doesn't exist....we warned you that Server Linking would continue to destroy server identity (heart & soul of WvW) that is supposedly "non-existant". Changing the game mode mechanics to satisfy veteran players demand for big blob fights was a wrong decision. We continue to dump our immature small fry players from guest servers into the host servers big tank where they're "toxicly" challenged to survive by the veteran sharks...so it nice to say...

    "Told you so"

    When Alliance Linking kicks in...just saying we can not depend on transient Guilds within an Alliance to provide a stable base for the WvW game mode to build a strong & self-sustaining Long Term community without the toxic culture that is made possible when players are involved with who stays & goes...so it's nice to say once again...

    "Told you so"

    There's a better alternative...imho.

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    p.s.
    See some of my past posts...please vote Helpful or Thumbs up if you agree.

  • @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

  • @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.

©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.