World Restructuring Update 1 - Page 7 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

World Restructuring Update 1

1234579

Comments

  • @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Redponey.8352 said:
    Step by Step we should find an solution.

    This implies no steps have been taken.

    Linking was the first step and alliances is just one small step further by capping links to 500 players and linking 5-x+ via an automated population algorithm instead of 2-3 manually.

    Thats the solution.

    As we all saw linking server was a huge mistake , it increased a lot issues that we already have (bandwagon, stacking) and server doesnt mean anything. => no reason to fight for it.

    As you mention alliance but alliance is a part of the whole "WvW restructuration" it's a whole WvW restructuration and it's not step , it's a leap and we could easily get in the gap.
    Alliance isnt only capping links to 500 players it's just an getting an more organised EOTM. Instead of gathering players to one entity and organisation (server), it would split them all and giving them less will to interact each other. It would be like an anarchic system, no organisation , no fun , more toxicity between players => vicious circle

    I'm not saying alliance is bad , i'm saying that the whole restructuration with alliance is not a real good idea. However alliance system in server system would be nice.

    Alliance would be more attractive than an lonely guild and it would promote new players in it because there is always player to play with (connected in game).
    I'have no clue about more what they will give to alliance but it would be nice to have some features that permit regular and vet players to help new and casual players to get in this gamemode.

    Moreover this restructuration as it has been presented is like having an developpers team ( alliance) with works with others devs (alliance/guilds/Pugs) and then after 8 weeks , they completly change. Now explain me how could you create healthy environment and long term project if you doesnt know with who you will be linked.

    Alliance players will remain closed on themselves because they wont up any effort in a thing that is temporary.

  • Miko.4158Miko.4158 Member ✭✭✭

    The bit I don;t get is the 5 guilds. Surely it should be based on size like 5 small one or one big one.
    The incentive is for bigger guilds and bigger links to increase regular blob masses.
    Which in turn stagnates the match ups.
    We already have some guilds fixing match ups as they are larger than host servers.

    Overall I like the idea, but I think balance could get worse

  • BlueMelody.6398BlueMelody.6398 Member ✭✭✭

    @Redponey.8352 said:
    At least, before restructuration , they should try to stop linking systme and do a fall WvW tournament.

    Oh, this is a great idea. Let's unlink servers (thereby drastically exacerbating the already-problematic world balance issue) and then on top of that throw in a tournament that will only serve to make the problem even worse as people rapidly bandwagon to the few top servers.

    This is precisely the opposite of what needs to happen. All these "solutions" looking for ways to keep current servers intact are avoiding the issue -- the very existence of permanent entire-world populations is what is at the very root of the population imbalance now that makes the game uncompetitive in the first place.

    The large servers must be broken up. You cannot keep 2500 people in a permanent world and expect any kind of competitive environment for all wvw'ers. Some talk about how they will quit if they cannot continue to play with all 2499 of their current friends (lol, I bet you don't really know 5% of your current server-mates to any extent beyond seeing their name in chat every so often). Yet there are tons of the rest of us who put the competitiveness of the game mode above having to be on the same team as "that guy that tagged up once when I was home sick".

    Yes, there will be some guilds/alliances that try to stack with hardcore players. Guess what -- there are lots of guilds that already do this. And just as there are also guilds that do not reject the non-elites, there will be alliances that do not reject the non-elites. The cries of "casuals will have no place" are patently false. Casuals will have plenty of options. The people who seem most concerned are the ones who insist on being part of an elite guild/alliance but who feel that they are too "casual" to be accepted. Isn't that the very definition of wanting to be carried? If a hardcore wvw guild/alliance doesn't want you because you're "not good enough", why would you want to be in their guild except to be carried? Unless you are part of a 50-man guild where the other 49 are hardcore and you alone are not (which means they are already carrying you), then you will have other casual friends at your level who will ally with you.

    The extreme "sky is falling" histrionics about servers being broken up and how the game mode will die if this goes through just really leave me smh.

  • Victory.2879Victory.2879 Member ✭✭✭

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    @ImperialWL.7138 said:
    When you say "player hours" am I right in assuming this is strictly WvW playtime and not overall account playtime? It may seem obvious but you didn't clarify it. Just want to make sure that it is actually WvW playtime.

    Yes WvW play time

    Will that 'play time' also include the numerous players standing around afk waiting for their participation decay and clocking up rewards before they log out or pop out of town to refresh?

    Some servers are more infested with these people than others which will screw up the figures.

  • @BlueMelody.6398 said:
    Oh, this is a great idea. Let's unlink servers (thereby drastically exacerbating the already-problematic world balance issue) and then on top of that throw in a tournament that will only serve to make the problem even worse as people rapidly bandwagon to the few top servers.

    This is precisely the opposite of what needs to happen. All these "solutions" looking for ways to keep current servers intact are avoiding the issue -- the very existence of permanent entire-world populations is what is at the very root of the population imbalance now that makes the game uncompetitive in the first place.

    This is quite funny because 3 years ago, we had not this major issue of the population imbalance. major isssues were the nightcap and PPT whereas kills (if u doesnt finish ennemy) didn't give any points. Over this last 3 years population imbalance started to be a major issues and it just continue to increase a lot.

    Population imbalance started to be a real issue when they announced that there is no more tournament (3 leagues).
    "It's like a race , each people are different(servers) and they run differently. If you trained to prepare race and then finally they told you , there is no more race would you still continue to train in vain? No, no more objectives."
    Then players started to stack more than before because they only found fun in fight ( mostly in top tier servers) because general population decrease with this announced. At this point, anet saw there is great imbalance then they searched a solution to re balance this (linking system) However it only increases imbalance as overstack tier 1 server (full) became link with mid-low server population.
    After this many guilds and players left their own server to stack on linked server to tier 1 (bandwagon). As low-mid tier server gets linked to huge one they lost their "identity" and their community to become just a temporary side server which enable you to stack on top tier server. After this announced and linking system many players left this game, which greatly increase imbalance.

    All Anet did to try balance just increase the imbalance. As i said mistakes have been made but it provides many information about what it needs to focus on and which mistakes should not be redone.

    As you think that population imbalanced now makes the game uncompetitive, can you explain where is the competition? and what are you fighting for ?
    Actually i think, you reversed the issue and its origin. regular players in WvW played for their server and fight as anet remove tournament, server identity(linking system) and fun in fight ( expansion specialization >>all and insane damage output) (fight last no more than 15secs) , Players started to massively leave and stack on top tier server to try to find fun.

    @BlueMelody.6398 said:

    The large servers must be broken up. You cannot keep 2500 people in a permanent world and expect any kind of competitive environment for all wvw'ers. Some talk about how they will quit if they cannot continue to play with all 2499 of their current friends (lol, I bet you don't really know 5% of your current server-mates to any extent beyond seeing their name in chat every so often). Yet there are tons of the rest of us who put the competitiveness of the game mode above having to be on the same team as "that guy that tagged up once when I was home sick".

    Yes, there will be some guilds/alliances that try to stack with hardcore players. Guess what -- there are lots of guilds that already do this. And just as there are also guilds that do not reject the non-elites, there will be alliances that do not reject the non-elites. The cries of "casuals will have no place" are patently false. Casuals will have plenty of options. The people who seem most concerned are the ones who insist on being part of an elite guild/alliance but who feel that they are too "casual" to be accepted. Isn't that the very definition of wanting to be carried? If a hardcore wvw guild/alliance doesn't want you because you're "not good enough", why would you want to be in their guild except to be carried? Unless you are part of a 50-man guild where the other 49 are hardcore and you alone are not (which means they are already carrying you), then you will have other casual friends at your level who will ally with you.

    The extreme "sky is falling" histrionics about servers being broken up and how the game mode will die if this goes through just really leave me smh.

    As i said stoping linking server will limit bandwagon on top tier servers as top tier will be full (which is their current state) and players could not stack on it. Moreover making a tournament will bring back competition between server, players will have objectives and some fun with it. they will create organization to make their best in this tournament.
    However before putting this up, maybe a free transfer should be given to mid-low population server and put more high server transfer than now (gold could be easily farmed..) or allow x transfer each y months.

    As i said in previous post , alliance system will just create an unhealthy environment, as alliance is made by mostly regular WvW players , as you think many casual wont get involved in these structures as they already have an PvX guild which does everything.
    I took my guild as exemple we were all regular and some ex-hardcore WvW player but we put any rules, we accepted casual and extreme casual gamers but few of them join us even if i used to lead a lot in PUG. casual wont get involve , they just want to participate so alliance isnt make for them as they will be aside of it.

    Alliance system will put you temporary with some people (8weeks). It's really really nice to not knowing what will happen in few weeks :anguished: (would you like to have a team to work with for 8 weeks and then having new teammates ?) no because its not a sustainable system as it need to be stable.

    ** This gamemode will always be imbalance but it's the degree of imbalance that matter**. Players are all different, some will tryhard some will chill out , they have all different skill level, you cannot try to balance population by "merge players as unit " to have the same amount of players on each side that doesn't work (linking system is a good example ). Competition will be always imbalance since each player is different (look at Soccer/Football competition).

    **The really issue is the reason of why people are leaving this game and gamemode and why players are stacking on top tier server? **

    Because there NO MORE FUN (no more server competition, no fun in fight)

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭

    @Redponey.8352 said:
    This is quite funny because 3 years ago, we had not this major issue of the population imbalance. major isssues were the nightcap and PPT whereas kills (if u doesnt finish ennemy) didn't give any points. Over this last 3 years population imbalance started to be a major issues and it just continue to increase a lot.

    Population imbalance started to be a real issue when they announced that there is no more tournament (3 leagues).
    "It's like a race , each people are different(servers) and they run differently. If you trained to prepare race and then finally they told you , there is no more race would you still continue to train in vain? No, no more objectives."

    Its been said many many times by both players and anet themselves that seasons were the direct cause of many burning out and leaving the mode. Imbalance was less of an issue because the overall population was much larger.

  • Redponey.8352Redponey.8352 Member ✭✭
    edited July 18, 2018

    @morrolan.9608 said:

    @Redponey.8352 said:
    This is quite funny because 3 years ago, we had not this major issue of the population imbalance. major isssues were the nightcap and PPT whereas kills (if u doesnt finish ennemy) didn't give any points. Over this last 3 years population imbalance started to be a major issues and it just continue to increase a lot.

    Population imbalance started to be a real issue when they announced that there is no more tournament (3 leagues).
    "It's like a race , each people are different(servers) and they run differently. If you trained to prepare race and then finally they told you , there is no more race would you still continue to train in vain? No, no more objectives."

    Its been said many many times by both players and anet themselves that seasons were the direct cause of many burning out and leaving the mode. Imbalance was less of an issue because the overall population was much larger.

    I agreed that in tournament some people had burning out because of many hours marathon and that was the main reason that lead anet to stop that but it also remove competition between server.
    That the design of WvW which create burning out as the off peak hours has the same weight as prime peak hours. However this not the major reason why many people left this gamemode because of imbalance of tournament. People left because there no more competition between servers in massive pvp gamemode.

    Many players waited in hope to have one day a new competitive event between server but when they announced this many people left because it will become like an EOTM maps.

    I remember that just after HoT release before announced the end of WvW tournament and Linking server (and before update loot in WvW), We were able to making more than 50 pple queue on a single map. Now (with links and no more tournament) it's max 20 pple in queue, less than 40 pple on your tag and less on audio... => we are drifting to an EOTM game-mode. We also see that they reduce the number of servers 2 times.

    Any PvP games has some issues but you cannot try to balance by account people as few variables , each players doesn't have the same weight (lead, regular players , followers , roamers, scouts, casual gamer.) Actually, matchup isnt very fun because its up and down, each 2 weeks it's nearly the same matchup. People get bored because it has become a routine.
    Before i used to enjoy putting my tag up and coming on audio, talking with people, teach and learn together with players but now it has become awful and more like a chore. Even if i want to tag up, i know it will make me mad/sad because its more horrible to lead an EOTM map.

    WvW tournament were a huge part of core of WvW. Nevertheless if alliance system is out as its has been presented. They should rename WvW into AvA AlliancesvAlliances
    because worlds would mean nothing.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 18, 2018

    @BlueMelody.6398 said:

    @Redponey.8352 said:
    At least, before restructuration , they should try to stop linking systme and do a fall WvW tournament.

    Oh, this is a great idea. Let's unlink servers (thereby drastically exacerbating the already-problematic world balance issue) and then on top of that throw in a tournament that will only serve to make the problem even worse as people rapidly bandwagon to the few top servers.

    This is precisely the opposite of what needs to happen. All these "solutions" looking for ways to keep current servers intact are avoiding the issue -- the very existence of permanent entire-world populations is what is at the very root of the population imbalance now that makes the game uncompetitive in the first place.

    Correct.

    The large servers must be broken up. You cannot keep 2500 people in a permanent world and expect any kind of competitive environment for all wvw'ers. Some talk about how they will quit if they cannot continue to play with all 2499 of their current friends (lol, I bet you don't really know 5% of your current server-mates to any extent beyond seeing their name in chat every so often). Yet there are tons of the rest of us who put the competitiveness of the game mode above having to be on the same team as "that guy that tagged up once when I was home sick".

    Correct.

    Yes, there will be some guilds/alliances that try to stack with hardcore players. Guess what -- there are lots of guilds that already do this. And just as there are also guilds that do not reject the non-elites, there will be alliances that do not reject the non-elites.

    Correct.

    The cries of "casuals will have no place" are patently false. Casuals will have plenty of options. The people who seem most concerned are the ones who insist on being part of an elite guild/alliance but who feel that they are too "casual" to be accepted. Isn't that the very definition of wanting to be carried? If a hardcore wvw guild/alliance doesn't want you because you're "not good enough", why would you want to be in their guild except to be carried? Unless you are part of a 50-man guild where the other 49 are hardcore and you alone are not (which means they are already carrying you), then you will have other casual friends at your level who will ally with you.

    You are again, correct.
    Yet here I am, hardcore player, saying there will not be a place for many casuals.

    Most players who lead raids aren't "casual". Managing an alliance isn't super casual. Yet most casuals still want commanders to be able to join and follow. Most casuals still want leaders. Most casuals; even more than hardcore players; need people to guide them. And this isn't something other casual players do much.

    There are plenty of casuals who will find a place, especially if they put some effort into it. But the amount of casuals and the amount of casuals willing to put in the effort required to make good, fun groups to play with is way out of proportion. It is already out of proportion now; and this only increases.

    The truth is the quality of play casual players in WvW are used to was based on the ability to join better players who show them the ropes whenever they desire. Having many active groups playing on different levels, and being able to join various groups at any time. This is what they demand; and could do many times in the past because we had the veteran population to support it. Now we don't, and I doubt we'll ever return to it.

    As a result, the demands which were in the past reasonable aren't nowadays. I don't think there are enough "casual oriented" comms or raidleads in the game for the amount of players that want them. The casuals are getting more casual over time too; what used to be acceptable is now too much effort.

    Joining a guild? Talking to other players? Playing with your own group? That isn't casual. Casual is "log whatever spec you desire, join whatever map you desire and expect a group where you can do what you please, how you please to be there and ready". It's genuinely quite close to that. Nobody has time for talking to other players and being part of guilds or communities - they won't even if you beg them. And these players? Goodluck have fun ;)

    The gamemode is dying and will continue to die. Not in terms of not having players quite yet. But it certainly has most of its dedicated population, which had huge negative effects on the enjoyability of the gamemode - now overrun mostly by loothungry players with no real interest in the enjoyment WvW can offer - which will accelerate its death.

    I think anyone who's willing to put in "basic effort" will be able to find a place in a group, guild or community. Even for casual players. But I do think there will be a shortage of groups who can meet the demands of the casual players; probably because these demands are out of proportion.

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭

    @Redponey.8352 said:
    I agreed that in tournament some people had burning out because of many hours marathon and that was the main reason that lead anet to stop that but it also remove competition between server.
    That the design of WvW which create burning out as the off peak hours has the same weight as prime peak hours. However this not the major reason why many people left this gamemode because of imbalance of tournament. People left because there no more competition between servers in massive pvp gamemode.

    OK then prove it.

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

    @Redponey.8352 said:

    Because there NO MORE FUN (no more server competition, no fun in fight)

    Peoples most common argument on why WvW is dead is because there is no competiton and server loyalty, and servers are just filled with filthy PPTers so thats why "fight guilds" constantly move around as opposed to regular WvWers.

    Using this argument against alliances is disingenious as its one of the main arguments for alliances having little to no impact on this aspect.

  • Crazy.6029Crazy.6029 Member ✭✭✭

    Sounds like there is a lot of work going on for the upcoming alliance system. Thank you for the update. Regarding the rewards/tourney/leaderboards information, I can understand the hesitation on a tourney and I get that everything would have to be up and running and balanced before any sort of rewards could be in place. However, there should already be a leader board in place. Seeing your guild, alliance and personal contributions to a given match would be rewarding itself, things like tracking KDR, caps, etc would go a long way in balancing the alliances in any case. I can't see the long term logic in saying it is a big " if ". Everything else sounds cool. Again, thank you for the update :) very much appreciated.

  • Meetshield.1756Meetshield.1756 Member ✭✭✭

    Okay to summarize:

    1. Not everyone thinks alliances will be better.
    2. Some people would like a return of more competitive rewards / chests / tournaments in WvW.
    3. Linking has killed the server identity of many smalle rpopulation servers.
    4. All the problems seem to be tied to players stacking and being able to transfer off server, entire guilds.

    I feel that some sort of balancing needs to happen to boost the smaller servers, and that guilds should be kept in tact. So the Alliance system is a way to rebalance and keep guilds in tact. The players have already started to build alliances even if ANET hasn't finished making the final version of it known. Most of Mag moved to FA. Most of JQ moved to SOR etc... So Again I offer that you let the players rebalance over some period of time before ANET has to step in. If we have 6 strong alliances and 6 high pop servers that will be strong even if guilds leave, then we have mostly what we need to make 4 competitive tiers for the players.

    Just give everyone a 6th guild slot for the Server alliance and rebalance the ones that don't select their server.

  • gemstore items for WvW. Claim a tower for your guild and it gets skin that you or one of your guildies bought. SM or keeps too. Skins for dolyaks, siege skins. Why is this not already a thing?

  • @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    I ask, because I'm a pretty casual WvW player, honestly, and I'm currently on a T1 world. Everyone else at that level is way more serious than I ever expect to be, so I'm a bit of both an easy target, and inclined to feel like a bit of a hinderance -- even if I play competently with the groups, I'm likely to make unwise decisions because I just don't have the same commitment they do.

    Ideally you can find a guild that has a similar play style and approach to WvW that you do and join them. That way you have a group that plays like you'd like.

    what about solo players who still play wvw for fun and only log in daily for the social aspect of their server... we can all just uninstall? because you will be shuffling players around every so often? if all our friends are being placed on different servers we just have to wait several months before we can play together again?
    Fixing wvw is easy... create solid leaderboards and remove expansionbuilds from the gamemode... wvw gone downhill since HoT

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

    @TheMagician.9238 said:

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    I ask, because I'm a pretty casual WvW player, honestly, and I'm currently on a T1 world. Everyone else at that level is way more serious than I ever expect to be, so I'm a bit of both an easy target, and inclined to feel like a bit of a hinderance -- even if I play competently with the groups, I'm likely to make unwise decisions because I just don't have the same commitment they do.

    Ideally you can find a guild that has a similar play style and approach to WvW that you do and join them. That way you have a group that plays like you'd like.

    what about solo players who still play wvw for fun and only log in daily for the social aspect of their server... we can all just uninstall? because you will be shuffling players around every so often? if all our friends are being placed on different servers we just have to wait several months before we can play together again?
    Fixing wvw is easy... create solid leaderboards and remove expansionbuilds from the gamemode... wvw gone downhill since HoT

    That's why we have guilds.

    Look at the bright side - now you can be friends with literally everyone in WvW after enough rotations.

  • The V.8759The V.8759 Member ✭✭

    Hey!

    I've recently came back to the game and I'm happy to read this post (and initial post about restructuring). This leaves me with a few questions however regarding the mechanics of Guilds and world transfers.

    The post mentions, when there is capacity between 90 and 99%, you can join if you are in the respective WvW guild. Now, my question is, how is WvW guild defined? My guess would be through the preferences of your guild missions, but how about PvX guilds? Or a PvP guild that likes to do WvW every now and then as a guild event. Could anyone clarify this?

    Aside from that, I've been playing with someone I met in game for years now. We always PvP'd together and we wanted to roam together in WvW aswell. I'm on Far Shiverpeaks and we decided for him to transfer to my server. I even paid half of the gold to support him. Problem however was that the server was full. Which shouldn't be a big problem since people come and go on servers, and a spot will be free some times. However, to my shock, there is no que system! You just have to be lucky when pressing the transfering button! Is that something that can be changed? Something like this:

    • 100%: Can't join and player gets in a que. Players who are in a WvW guild from that server get prioritized in the que.

    Lastly, how does account inactivity work with servers? I imagine there are accounts that haven't been active for months on full servers. Can such an account be untied from servers, opening a spot for people who want to join a server? Or is there already such a system? If so, where is the line?

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 28, 2018

    @The V.8759 said:
    Hey!

    I've recently came back to the game and I'm happy to read this post (and initial post about restructuring). This leaves me with a few questions however regarding the mechanics of Guilds and world transfers.

    The post mentions, when there is capacity between 90 and 99%, you can join if you are in the respective WvW guild. Now, my question is, how is WvW guild defined? My guess would be through the preferences of your guild missions, but how about PvX guilds? Or a PvP guild that likes to do WvW every now and then as a guild event. Could anyone clarify this?

    Aside from that, I've been playing with someone I met in game for years now. We always PvP'd together and we wanted to roam together in WvW aswell. I'm on Far Shiverpeaks and we decided for him to transfer to my server. I even paid half of the gold to support him. Problem however was that the server was full. Which shouldn't be a big problem since people come and go on servers, and a spot will be free some times. However, to my shock, there is no que system! You just have to be lucky when pressing the transfering button! Is that something that can be changed? Something like this:

    • 100%: Can't join and player gets in a que. Players who are in a WvW guild from that server get prioritized in the que.

    Have to disagree with the guild members getting priority. If they aren't on that world to begin with for 8 weeks they wait. They would be included in the next world grouping if they are part of the alliance and the guild as part of the WvW guild.

    The only way it wouldn't is if that alliance is at 500 members. And if it is, they either need to kick someone else, or you would need to wait.

    The alliance cap is there for a reason.

    Lastly, how does account inactivity work with servers? I imagine there are accounts that haven't been active for months on full servers. Can such an account be untied from servers, opening a spot for people who want to join a server? Or is there already such a system? If so, where is the line?

    Inactivity affects the numbers for both relink and world status currently, not number of accounts. There could be 3,000,000 accounts on let's say JQ, but if play hours are only at (as a random hypothetical) 1/3 of a full server the world will open.

    As far as alliances? The alliance and guild leaders can kick people from the alliance/guild. But if someone is inactive, then they would likely need to be kicked from their alliance / guild prior to the next world creation season in order to open up a space

  • Stormscar.5489Stormscar.5489 Member ✭✭
    edited August 3, 2018

    what about solo players who still play wvw for fun and only log in daily for the social aspect of their server... we can all just uninstall? because you will be shuffling players around every so often? if all our friends are being placed on different servers we just have to wait several months before we can play together again?
    Fixing wvw is easy... create solid leaderboards and remove expansionbuilds from the gamemode... wvw gone downhill since HoT

    This should be a game first of all, and a social outlet second. Why should detrimental decisions to the gamemode be made so that you can fulfill your social needs? If you want to be social, either form a guild with those players, or maybe go out and make friends. I see these kitten arguments and way of playing the game, where people spend half or more of their playing time talking to people. I really don't get it. I like to talk to my guildies too, but above all I like to play a kitten game.

    So actually yes. Please uninstall. So your 'playtime' stops getting counted towards servers' population.

  • Marcel.1857Marcel.1857 Member ✭✭
    edited August 15, 2018

    @Raymond Lukes.6305
    Is there an update you can share about the state of the reconstruction?
    I have the feeling that is only a excuse of anets wvw team so player keep playing the unbalanced unique wvw mode only GW2 has in such a scale.
    Maybe i my feeling is wrong but that is what i and my guild think since there is no real updating and transparently of the state what y do atm., what is done and what have to be done as next. I wish for a bit more like we "plan on doing it till 2030 or doing it in GW3" or at least update the post regually.

  • I hope we'll see changes to veteran creatures in WvW. These mobs are just an easy PvE content which only serves as a daily filler.

  • Is there anything in the works to deal with map/alliance population imbalances? Giant Blobs steamrolling smaller ones makes WvW wholly futile.

  • Loosmaster.8263Loosmaster.8263 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @trixantea.1230 said:
    I hope we'll see changes to veteran creatures in WvW. These mobs are just an easy PvE content which only serves as a daily filler.

    Could make them into Legendaries and need a full squad and 15 minutes to kill it with a Break bar and Timer, lol

    Fàther (TK)
    Tactical Killers
    Server(DR)

  • BlueMelody.6398BlueMelody.6398 Member ✭✭✭

    @trixantea.1230 said:
    I hope we'll see changes to veteran creatures in WvW. These mobs are just an easy PvE content which only serves as a daily filler.

    While this has nothing to do with the thread, I'd prefer those who are in WvW just for easy dailies be able to get those quickly and leave. The more time-consuming you make those dailies, the longer people will take up a spot that might be better used by someone wanting to do serious wvw.

  • trixantea.1230trixantea.1230 Member ✭✭
    edited August 22, 2018

    @BlueMelody.6398 said:

    @trixantea.1230 said:
    I hope we'll see changes to veteran creatures in WvW. These mobs are just an easy PvE content which only serves as a daily filler.

    While this has nothing to do with the thread, I'd prefer those who are in WvW just for easy dailies be able to get those quickly and leave. The more time-consuming you make those dailies, the longer people will take up a spot that might be better used by someone wanting to do serious wvw.

    Last time I checked, this thread was about a rework to WvW and as far as I know, the veteran creatures are part of this game mode.

    Anyway, while some serious WvWers are waiting in the queue, there are 3-5 PvE players at each veteran waiting 10min for the respawn. These veteran creatures only encourage more casual PvE inside a competitive environment.

    The veteran daily could be easily changed to something easier like "Big spender" or "Master of monuments".

  • BlueMelody.6398BlueMelody.6398 Member ✭✭✭

    @trixantea.1230 said:

    @BlueMelody.6398 said:

    @trixantea.1230 said:
    I hope we'll see changes to veteran creatures in WvW. These mobs are just an easy PvE content which only serves as a daily filler.

    While this has nothing to do with the thread, I'd prefer those who are in WvW just for easy dailies be able to get those quickly and leave. The more time-consuming you make those dailies, the longer people will take up a spot that might be better used by someone wanting to do serious wvw.

    Last time I checked, this thread was about a rework to WvW and as far as I know, the veteran creatures are part of this game mode.

    Negative. This thread is explicitly about the world restructure system to address population imbalances. It has nothing to do with other aspects of wvw.

    Not going to derail with further replies on unrelated wvw topics.

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

    The thread and system is about reworking the population, not the game play.
    Start a new thread for that.

    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!

  • Anvil Pants.3426Anvil Pants.3426 Member
    edited August 26, 2018

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:
    We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500.
    This is technically easier
    we already support groups of this size (guilds)

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    Does anyone else see the hole in that logic?

    Yes.

    Alliances are guilds. The other changes are irrelevant to that technical fact, as those changes apply to worlds (servers). The real change in player grouping is that the world component is now an involuntary grouping, and two guilds of >= 251 members are not allowed to ally.

    Maximum roster WvW guilds aren't a trend now, which is good for this plan in a technical sense. This plan would have killed 2012-2015 WvW even faster than the 2012-2015 plans killed it.

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

    @Anvil Pants.3426 said:

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:
    We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500.
    This is technically easier
    we already support groups of this size (guilds)

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    Does anyone else see the hole in that logic?

    Yes.

    Alliances are guilds. The other changes are irrelevant to that technical fact, as those changes apply to worlds (servers). The real change in player grouping is that the world component is now an involuntary grouping, and two guilds of >= 251 members are not allowed to ally.

    Maximum roster WvW guilds aren't a trend now, which is good for this plan in a technical sense. This plan would have killed 2012-2015 WvW even faster than the 2012-2015 plans killed it.

    WvW guilds was not really larger in the past compared to know - there where just so many more of them with more active players. Even community guilds (ie the 250-500 man behemoths) is a later idea that was only really made viable after the 2014 september changes .

    Not "allowing" them to ally shouldnt be an issue, guilds always brag left and right about how they are in it for fights against other guilds.

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

    @trixantea.1230 said:

    Anyway, while some serious WvWers are waiting in the queue, there are 3-5 PvE players at each veteran waiting 10min for the respawn. These veteran creatures only encourage more casual PvE inside a competitive environment.

    Or lower the timer to 5 mins.

    Leader of PvE/WvW Havoc Guild - Tyrian Adventure Corporation [TACO] - Kaineng since the start, and till KN is no more.

    Do not fear simplification of the game, there is elegance in simplicity that allows more time for playing and less time building.

  • Wow sad and happy at the same time to be reading this....
    Alliance and Guilds were so important and a core part of Guild Wars, hell it's in the name!!
    Crazy to see this still being talked about in 2018 coming from Arena Net...
    Oh, how times have changed...or I should say generation and employees.
    I miss the old Arena Net.

  • Gav.1425Gav.1425 Member ✭✭

    What is that you say? All servers will be merged into 3 mega links leaving only 1 tier?

    Confirmed.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 3, 2018

    in a small scale, maybe it is time for players to consider joining wvw guilds or make their own and stick together.

    a healthy guild of 5 to 15 active players can work. when you have these players, and the mindset that they can enjoy the game with their nos, we really wouldn't have any issues every 8 weeks.

    you get placed in a dif world? is ok, you are with your friends.

    but if you plan alliances, then that should be fine too. but atleast for the new players, casuals, etc. it may be time to choose a side. or go solo and enjoy what every 8 weeks bring or transfer etc.

    gut feel though, anything without a when, even an estimate, may never happen at all.

    so... hoping anet will let us know when.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • We are a PvX guild on SFR with 35 members on the roster. Some of them have been AWOL for many months, others have zero interest in WvW. A handful of us, 3-5 at most, play WvW. 1 of those 3 is on Desolation and is also part of a much larger WvW guild. We've been looking forward to Alliances so that we could WvW with our friend.

    If the overall guild size factors into WvW Alliances, how will it take into account guilds where only a fraction of the players are active in WvW?

    I wanted to mark our guild as WvW because we have the majority of the Guild Hall WvW upgrades completed, but based on the information I've read so far, I'm not so sure I should. We want to continue rep'ing our own guild in WvW and use our guild WvW items -can we do that, without tagging ourselves as an alliance, and still WvW with our friend (rather than against which is how it is now) so long as he is also rep'ing our guild?

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 12, 2018

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:
    I wanted to mark our guild as WvW because we have the majority of the Guild Hall WvW upgrades completed, but based on the information I've read so far, I'm not so sure I should. We want to continue rep'ing our own guild in WvW and use our guild WvW items -can we do that, without tagging ourselves as an alliance, and still WvW with our friend (rather than against which is how it is now) so long as he is also rep'ing our guild?

    From what Anet had said, guild rep is separate from your WvW guild. So you can rep whatever you want.

    But on the question "should I make my guild a WvW guild", thats hard to say until we know the limitations of alliances.

    Unless you want to go solo with the guild only and under the assumption there is a guild count limit, small guilds setting themselves as WvW and joining alliances is very ineffective. So in this case, the 5 man in your guild should probably also be in a 100+ "dummy WvW guild" thats part of an alliance even if you rep your main guild 24/7.

    If there is no such limitation or if it goes by player counts instead of guild count, then its another matter and your small guild could easily be an alliance member without taking up important slots.

    Hopefully Anet does it good but we just dont know.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 12, 2018

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:
    We are a PvX guild on SFR with 35 members on the roster. Some of them have been AWOL for many months, others have zero interest in WvW. A handful of us, 3-5 at most, play WvW. 1 of those 3 is on Desolation and is also part of a much larger WvW guild. We've been looking forward to Alliances so that we could WvW with our friend.

    If the overall guild size factors into WvW Alliances, how will it take into account guilds where only a fraction of the players are active in WvW?

    I wanted to mark our guild as WvW because we have the majority of the Guild Hall WvW upgrades completed, but based on the information I've read so far, I'm not so sure I should. We want to continue rep'ing our own guild in WvW and use our guild WvW items -can we do that, without tagging ourselves as an alliance, and still WvW with our friend (rather than against which is how it is now) so long as he is also rep'ing our guild?

    1. Alliances are a party of guilds used for the purpose of creating the new wvw worlds.
    2. You mark your guild as the wvw one, and others in your guild need to do the same and mark that same guild as their wvw guild, so that you all can be placed in the same world at the time of creation.
    3. If any member does not mark that guild as the wvw one, or are away from the game for that period, they will be randomly placed in the worlds, chance it may be in the same as the guild, chance it may not. (They can still rep your guild at any time, this is not affected at all.)
    4. During the 8 week period of the new worlds anyone can change the guild they want marked as their wvw guild, at the end of the 8 weeks when the worlds are recreated again, players who chose the same guilds, and guilds in the same alliance, will be placed in the same world. Transfers will also still be available if you need to move during a season, but we do not know with what restrictions.
    5. Everything you can do currently with guilds stays the same, you can rep whomever in wvw after creation, none of that changes. Again the alliance factor only comes into effect when the worlds are created and are trying to place guilds in alliances in the same world, beyond that wvw plays exactly as we have it today. To simplify it's the same thing as placing your party in the same instance of a pve zone, only it's doing it for guilds in wvw world creation, if I wasn't in your party there's a chance wouldn't zone into the same zone your party is in due to other factors.

    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!

  • @Meetshield.1756 said:
    The dev's have painted a WvW nirvana that is not going to happen. The best thing you can hope for in WvW is to be apart of a good guild, play with your friends, and enjoy the hours you have together on whatever server your on. The problems with WvW have more to do with the class balances than they do with the server balances.

    The best thing that can happen is that timezones are finally not an issue. For instance, the german servers all face the issue of player shortage, at certain times.
    When the evening turns into late night and even dedicated WvWers have to go to sleep, the french servers remain strong, likely because enough Quebec players like to play on EU servers and can pick up where the metropolitáine has had to leave.
    This is even more noticeable with the spanish speakers, though I guess most of the american spanish speakers play on the NA servers, (and we might be getting reinforcements from german-brazilians? )

    But with a system, that ensures timezones with largely equal activity get matched against one another, this would go a long way to prevent you from going to bed with the entire map red, only to come back the next morning to a green map, because all the defenders had to sleep, while the attackers came out of their bed.

  • Klypto.1703Klypto.1703 Member ✭✭✭

    The heavy loot bag, exotic champ bags from lords, and rank up chests all need a redo. As well there needs to be events when defending or going on the offense that scale up so that when the battles are over there is a way to reward players based on that instead of the current system where they throw 20 silver at you for playing for an hour. Also be able to upgrade guilds for smaller havoc sized ones and even large ones based off WvW accomplishments. The last thing I would suggest is changing those skirmish rewards to tabs based on WvW rank so you can give more rewards without destroying the economy and more incentive for those to go ranking up in eotm. Especially since the current system does not even pay for half of siege costs or the food costs.

    As they say you gotta go pve to support your wvw habit.

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

    @Klypto.1703 said:
    The heavy loot bag, exotic champ bags from lords, and rank up chests all need a redo. As well there needs to be events when defending or going on the offense that scale up so that when the battles are over there is a way to reward players based on that instead of the current system where they throw 20 silver at you for playing for an hour. Also be able to upgrade guilds for smaller havoc sized ones and even large ones based off WvW accomplishments. The last thing I would suggest is changing those skirmish rewards to tabs based on WvW rank so you can give more rewards without destroying the economy and more incentive for those to go ranking up in eotm. Especially since the current system does not even pay for half of siege costs or the food costs.

    As they say you gotta go pve to support your wvw habit.

    Which is all fine and well, but totally outside the discussion of this thread.

  • Silver.2076Silver.2076 Member ✭✭✭

    We are slowly moving into the period for which many expected the new alliance system. So far nothing new comes from you after an intermediate update. that worries me, honestly. Especially because I'm constantly listening to reddit and speculations about GW3 and I'm beginning to think that there won't be a major change to gw2 anymore, even less to a seemingly unpopular system like the wvw. it would be really nice if you'd play more open cards for me, because honestly, I'm slowly getting out.

  • Tiawal.2351Tiawal.2351 Member ✭✭✭

    Too much living story, very slow work on everything WvW related...

    In the meanwhile please give us at least a Guild vs. Guild system, based on the sPvP that you already have; just for teams of 10-15 instead of 5, and without the infamous "capture point" focus, but Death Match or King of the Hill, on any empty map (so "no valid path to target" won't exist).

    The WvW in current state is more PvE than PvP, cap this and that... just like that, no reason why to cap at all, sometimes to get in a better matchup where no longer is needed to cap things... That makes sense? This WvW has nothing worth fighting for anymore. Do you think is healthy to keep it in this state for so long?

    Anyone at management cares for this game mode? Yes, this is the most stupid question. It's not like it isn't obvious, but from down here, player level, it isn't. Any streaming sessions where we can see the WvW team hard at work, like some other companies do? Not that I want to watch it, but at this point even the existence of any WvW team seems a myth, or they are working on something else?
    No pressure though. It's not like we aren't having fun sometimes, just "lately" the fun part is extremely rare.

©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.