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

World Restructuring Update 2

2

Comments

  • May I ask what would the alliance solve? not to mention that it is taking so much time that by the time that it is ready, maybe the reasons behind it no longer exists.

    And I will be honest, you can't control the population, you can't force people to play as some may be less interested, some might be busy with real life things, or grinding for shinnies or something.

    linking system in my opinion was good in a way .. but you kept changing servers etc and allow people transfer and sometimes locking servers for looooong time where they actually needed people to transfer to them, now what?

    I have been in server where even in tournament I knew where we will be placed which was 9th place, I didn't transfer and not thinking of transferring even, and glad to have people around me that we stay to have fun in wvw "we even went to eotm and had fun" kodans power!.

    And I have had people who transferred to win and said they will be back after "which they didn't come back" and actually even left the game.

    I think what you really need to do is to go through the suffering that some servers do go through sometimes. some servers can see that they will be suffering and always be in outnumbered fights (I know that some of us don't mind outnumbered fights), but sometimes it reaches a point where it is not really playable. And sadly we knew that this would continue for 2 months due to you keep following this "link system" two month thing, guess what? MANY people left the server. Then even if you have your data on things, they are not even close to being accurate. =/

    As for the server relinking every two months, I do handle the wvw insults that happens, aka throwing sieges etc on players or jumping on corpses (sometimes I over react a bit and might take or try to take revenge), but due to this, now what do you think would happen if you linked us with these people? I myself starting to think that perhaps it is good idea to block these people and when you get linked to them to ignore them if they die or need help, but then there is that part where I start thinking "we are team now".

    And don't get me wrong, I do appreciate that developers etc replying and giving "honest" updates and sharing some of the wvw funny things, but these things happens once in blue moon it seems.

    Sorry for long post and I will be posting the question again.
    May I ask what would the alliance solve? not to mention that it is taking so much time that by the time that it is ready, maybe the reasons behind it no longer exists. don't let it be like human female stretching and dirt kicking animation "bug" that got buried and now everyone forgot about and some doesn't even know about xD

    Thank you! have a good day.

  • Please don't do this. Sure, there's some imbalance when it comes to WvW population, however I enjoy seeing the same people every day. It gives a sense of community. I don't want to start seeing randoms that I'll never see again. I like where the server system is; the only thing I could think of changing is balancing out the stats similar to PvP. Or, alternatively, make it where gear matters yet even a level 10 has access to all abilities similar to PvP. As WvW is an endgame piece of the game, I think gear should be something to shoot for.

  • @Defias.1892 said:
    People should stop jumping down the devs throat just because they want to see changes now. They need to make sure they get it right before they release it to the public.

    I don't really know if people are upset because 'they want to see changes now.' I think a lot of the salt is because they want to see change at all. I feel it is pretty safe to say that of the 3 gamemodes, WvW gets the least care by far. If you look at all 3 gamemodes, WvW definitely draws the short end of the stick. If you compare WvW to PvP you will definitely see a major difference. PvP has much better rewards and incentive than WvW. It literally has automated tournaments. I don't think I even need to compare it to PvE (which is fair because PvE should be a much larger focus); but WvW is literally to the point where it costs me more gold to play it than I make from doing it. WvW is at such a low point right now and it is very frustrating to see things like Dog Whistles and gemstore lounges when WvW gets next to nothing. WvW is so bad right now that there literally isn't even any incentive to winning a matchup. As far as this update goes, it is appreciated and it is also better than no update; but you have to understand why WvW players would be upset to see an update that doesn't actually update anything. It probably would have been better to not even announce that the alliance system was coming out until it was at a closer point to being released. I am worried that by the time it is finished (if it is finished) that it will be far too late. But I obviously don't speak for everyone. shrug

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Omnistride.4286 said:
    Please don't do this. Sure, there's some imbalance when it comes to WvW population, however I enjoy seeing the same people every day. It gives a sense of community. I don't want to start seeing randoms that I'll never see again. I like where the server system is; the only thing I could think of changing is balancing out the stats similar to PvP. Or, alternatively, make it where gear matters yet even a level 10 has access to all abilities similar to PvP. As WvW is an endgame piece of the game, I think gear should be something to shoot for.

    You'll still see the same people for the most part. If you're not in a guild you might get assigned to a certain group, but it wouldn't be any different than having a new link every 8 weeks, where you may go somewhere else.

    Logging out forever.

  • @Nebilim.5127 said:

    @Arbiter.1794 said:

    @Nebilim.5127 said:

    That's the point, there isn't, but there is an unofficial. And with this update, we won't have none i'm guessing.

    In PvE servers don't exist anymore anyway, it is all one mega server with sharding. Or do you mean RPing in WvW? then you can join a RP alliance.

    It does exist, shards attempt to pair people while picking them from the same server first, then they add more to fill the rest through the megaserver system when they can't. With servers fumbling and changing, this won't happen anymore. Yes megaservers killed this a bit, but it is still there.

    I can see roleplay all the time in divinity reach since i'm from Tarnished coast. If you aren't there, then try going to DR and check yourself so you can see any or not.

    This is a change to WvW; it has nothing to do with PvE. It will have no impact on how roleplaying works now in PvE. It will arguably be easier to roleplay in WvW, because all you'd need to do is belong to the same guild, whereas currently you'd have to be part of the same world which might or might not be locked.

    "With great power comes not-so-great utility bills."

  • misterman.1530misterman.1530 Member ✭✭✭

    Sorry...maybe someone already asked this...not sure: If I am in one guild, can I be put into a team that includes none, or very few, of my guild mates?

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

    @misterman.1530 said:
    Sorry...maybe someone already asked this...not sure: If I am in one guild, can I be put into a team that includes none, or very few, of my guild mates?

    If you do not select your guild as a ‘WvW guild’ it would appear that the probablility is high you would be placed elsewhere.

    Also, if there are players you enjoy running with, selecting them as your WvW guild (or maybe forming a small guild group to choose as your WvW guild) would ensure you go with those you DO enjoy playing WvW with.

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Defias.1892 said:
    People should stop jumping down the devs throat just because they want to see changes now. They need to make sure they get it right before they release it to the public.

    I don't really know if people are upset because 'they want to see changes now.' I think a lot of the salt is because they want to see change at all. I feel it is pretty safe to say that of the 3 gamemodes, WvW gets the least care by far. If you look at all 3 gamemodes, WvW definitely draws the short end of the stick. If you compare WvW to PvP you will definitely see a major difference. PvP has much better rewards and incentive than WvW. It literally has automated tournaments. I don't think I even need to compare it to PvE (which is fair because PvE should be a much larger focus); but WvW is literally to the point where it costs me more gold to play it than I make from doing it. WvW is at such a low point right now and it is very frustrating to see things like Dog Whistles and gemstore lounges when WvW gets next to nothing. WvW is so bad right now that there literally isn't even any incentive to winning a matchup. As far as this update goes, it is appreciated and it is also better than no update; but you have to understand why WvW players would be upset to see an update that doesn't actually update anything. It probably would have been better to not even announce that the alliance system was coming out until it was at a closer point to being released. I am worried that by the time it is finished (if it is finished) that it will be far too late. But I obviously don't speak for everyone. shrug

    PvP is also a hell of lot less complex then WvW though. We are talking about 5vs5 on a simple conquest map.

  • Klypto.1703Klypto.1703 Member ✭✭✭

    I'm pretty sure the last step before firing someone at anet is being put on the wvw team. Also that its so severe of a punishment that the computers they work on are powered by spin bicycle things. So if one person wears out everything they were working on is gone and they have to have to start all over again. Is why that one change with the marked thing was done that way because it was the quickest way to appease the zerglings before one of them had a heart attack. So when they go see the doctor for their checkup they are like oh wvw team way to go you are even healthier than last year. So you gotta respect that they even got on the bike long enough to give that update and hope things turn around for them.

  • cobbah.3102cobbah.3102 Member ✭✭✭

    Oh Well time for retirement ,wait the next update will be on the 12th of never ,gnite.

  • aspirine.6852aspirine.6852 Member ✭✭✭

    @Shagaliscious.6281 said:
    Sounds like I made the right choice of buying ESO when it was on sale.

    Hmm so how is it?

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @clone wars.9568 said:
    "Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations."

    This on its own guarantee this new structuring will be a failure. You should NEVER base calc of server pops based on old player hours, it should be based on wvw population regardless of how much they play. Your failed system has already been proven to not work. 100vs100vs100 not 50vs100v70. Peoples play times will go up and down based on the time of year and personal/work life changes. It should be based on EQUAL numbers only. This is one of the KEY reasons wvw is dying on its feet. WvW needs BALANCE. That mean REAL effort to get FAIR numbers per side. REAL skill and pro balance. Fixing the bugs that have been reported for years.

    Ally system failed in GW1 because one guild falls apart normally means all ally will fail apart, add that to this game mode and lock people into worlds for 3 months = even worse for the player base when an ally falls apart. Do people have to wait 3 months to reorganize anew ally? For these reasons alone your ideas are not going to help wvw, they're going to finally kill the game more complete.

    All that was needed was ppl really working on wvw skill balancing and bottom tier servers deleted and players added to the other servers to get fairer numbers on each server. Instead as always anet have taken the more complex idea that has already been proven not to work hype it up and keep us waiting for years.

    Waiting for the new system that I already am well aware will kill this game mode is like waiting for the grim reaper....

    There will be population caps for Alliances, as noted...

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring

    “Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon.”

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/45856/world-restructuring-update-1
    “Alliance size
    We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.”

    This..."Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations.".. is for matchmaking purposes.

    "It's that sorta mentality that prevents progress from actually being made and the game from being fun for everyone and not the minority." -TexZero

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/9804/idea-wvw-only-movement-skills

  • TheMaskedGamer.5708TheMaskedGamer.5708 Member ✭✭
    edited December 2, 2018

    I have one big question that I'm not sure you'll answer given that it's still early, but I feel it's better to ask now than later.

    The one question I have is if the option to turn your Guild into a WvW Guild for the system is an option you can toggle on and off?

    Reason I ask is that I have a PvX Guild, a guild dedicated to playing anything in the game. Now it wouldn't be much a surprise to see my guild dabble in WvW, but I'm curious as to how the "turn your guild into a WvW Guild" works and if this is a permanent change to your guild?

    The way I'm interpreting this information is that this action is a permanent one. And my worry is that if I come to that decision to do so, what effect will if have with your systems? Especially if I sign up for something that may not be an exact priority for my guild.

  • @Shagaliscious.6281 said:
    Sounds like I made the right choice of buying ESO when it was on sale.

    ew I herd its an auto proc nightmare

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

    My initial estimate was 6-12 months, I am now revising this to 12-36 months.
    See you all at the next wvw investor update in 6 months!

    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!

  • They have 1 guy working on it over the weekends... I've grown bored with WvW as it is and feel like I've abandoned my guild but it's the same thing night in and night out. I honestly don't think these changes will ever come, they're just trying to get us to hang around to pad their numbers.

    Z

  • @Raymond Lukes.6305
    Raymond, this comes from a guild master of a wvw oriented guild. We struggle with the current system as a community, often we find ourselves trying to create fun instances within the game for our members, we love wvw, yet the imbalances on population, whether they benefit our realm or not, have made the experience stale, forcing us to adopt a style of play that doesn't reinforce our internal sense of community. What can we expect as a guild that will make the experience better for us? We were eager to hear about the alliance system because it shifts the focus towards the guild, but even if that is long ahead on the horizon, how can we fight against the current that brings players towards bigger and less personalized wvw guilds (serverwide guilds oriented to zerg fighting) and stay a cohesive community of fighters having fun?
    Guild missions often mean not fighting, stopping what we are doing, and going to do some menial task, forcing us to create our own "missions" and objectives, trying to fight enemies at a disadvantage, or taking a difficult objective. But without meaningful rewards associated.
    Most of the game's population does not play wvw, making it hard to recruit new members, specially because even if this players want some of the rewards obtained there, they dont need to join a guild to acquire them. Is there anything for us in the future?

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2, 2018

    @Heartpains.7312 said:
    May I ask what would the alliance solve?

    The wildly varying population on servers

    Yes, it's really that simple to answer your question. You can look at the WvW population like a curve now - it's low in the low tier and very high in the high tier. The purpose of the alliances is to take the top off of the high tier and put it at the low tier, thus creating a flat line instead. It's not going to be perfect. It's not going to take into account skill or anything. But splitting it up into smaller chunks allow you to flatten the curve. Links work in exactly the same way, except it's larger chunks - higher resolution allows for flatter curve.

    Since most players are greedy kittens that only think about their own loot they end up only increasing the distance between high and low tier. Anet needs to step in and reshuffle at a couple of months interval to solve that.

  • clone wars.9568clone wars.9568 Member ✭✭
    edited December 2, 2018

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @clone wars.9568 said:
    "Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations."

    This on its own guarantee this new structuring will be a failure. You should NEVER base calc of server pops based on old player hours, it should be based on wvw population regardless of how much they play. Your failed system has already been proven to not work. 100vs100vs100 not 50vs100v70. Peoples play times will go up and down based on the time of year and personal/work life changes. It should be based on EQUAL numbers only. This is one of the KEY reasons wvw is dying on its feet. WvW needs BALANCE. That mean REAL effort to get FAIR numbers per side. REAL skill and pro balance. Fixing the bugs that have been reported for years.

    Ally system failed in GW1 because one guild falls apart normally means all ally will fail apart, add that to this game mode and lock people into worlds for 3 months = even worse for the player base when an ally falls apart. Do people have to wait 3 months to reorganize anew ally? For these reasons alone your ideas are not going to help wvw, they're going to finally kill the game more complete.

    All that was needed was ppl really working on wvw skill balancing and bottom tier servers deleted and players added to the other servers to get fairer numbers on each server. Instead as always anet have taken the more complex idea that has already been proven not to work hype it up and keep us waiting for years.

    Waiting for the new system that I already am well aware will kill this game mode is like waiting for the grim reaper....

    There will be population caps for Alliances, as noted...

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring

    “Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon.”

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/45856/world-restructuring-update-1
    “Alliance size
    We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.”

    This..."Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations.".. is for matchmaking purposes.

    You missed the point. Alliance number cap has nothing to do with WORLD caps which ARE based on playing hours. A world will not only have people in an alliance it will also include people who are not part of any wvw guild or ally so an Ally cap is irrelevant to the point.

    So the point is anet will be basing when to cap a world's population based on players playing hours. Meaning there'll be zero balance and worlds will have a completely different amount of players and world caps.

    When we have a system that will cap a worlds pop to 2k players and another capped at 4k players who play less the system is already broken and unbalanced. So I say again unless there are REAL changes to the issue of balance then anet is just bringing the same unbalance to the new system and thus it has 100% chance to be a failure.

    Mez You Up/ NightHawk - Blackgate - WvW Diamond Legend on 3 Accounts. Haters I have many & I didn't even vote for Trump, SAD.

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

    @Nebilim.5127 said:
    What about the roleplaying servers? Will anything be done about keeping the already shambled community together now that there won't be any official RP server?

    There was never an official roleplaying server.

    You guys have options, they've been around for years.

    You will still be placed in instances with friends, guild mates, groups, squad.

    Sit in lion's arch, create a squad, list it on looking for group, people join, port in, leave, leave the squad open and listed, you now have an instance filled with rpers until everyone leaves and it closes. Players already use this method for every meta event in the game.

    Create a guild, it can hold 500 players, use guild halls.

    Alliances will link guilds together.

    The only limitations is how lazy people want to be about this.

    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!

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2, 2018

    @clone wars.9568 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @clone wars.9568 said:
    "Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations."

    This on its own guarantee this new structuring will be a failure. You should NEVER base calc of server pops based on old player hours, it should be based on wvw population regardless of how much they play. Your failed system has already been proven to not work. 100vs100vs100 not 50vs100v70. Peoples play times will go up and down based on the time of year and personal/work life changes. It should be based on EQUAL numbers only. This is one of the KEY reasons wvw is dying on its feet. WvW needs BALANCE. That mean REAL effort to get FAIR numbers per side. REAL skill and pro balance. Fixing the bugs that have been reported for years.

    Ally system failed in GW1 because one guild falls apart normally means all ally will fail apart, add that to this game mode and lock people into worlds for 3 months = even worse for the player base when an ally falls apart. Do people have to wait 3 months to reorganize anew ally? For these reasons alone your ideas are not going to help wvw, they're going to finally kill the game more complete.

    All that was needed was ppl really working on wvw skill balancing and bottom tier servers deleted and players added to the other servers to get fairer numbers on each server. Instead as always anet have taken the more complex idea that has already been proven not to work hype it up and keep us waiting for years.

    Waiting for the new system that I already am well aware will kill this game mode is like waiting for the grim reaper....

    There will be population caps for Alliances, as noted...

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring

    “Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon.”

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/45856/world-restructuring-update-1
    “Alliance size
    We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.”

    This..."Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations.".. is for matchmaking purposes.

    You missed the point. Alliance number cap has nothing to do with WORLD caps which ARE based on playing hours. A world will not only have people in an alliance it will also include people who are not part of any wvw guild or ally so an Ally cap is irrelevant to the point.

    So the point is anet will be basing when to cap a world's population based on players playing hours. Meaning there'll be zero balance and worlds will have a completely different amount of players and world caps.

    When we have a system that will cap a worlds pop to 2k players and another capped at 4k players who play less the system is already broken and unbalanced. So I say again unless there are REAL changes to the issue of balance then anet is just bringing the same unbalance to the new system and thus it has 100% chance to be a failure.

    The devs are going to make populations closer to equal for each match up. The system is going to sort teams as equal as possible. There will be caps in place so match ups can be made closer to equal. There will be restrictions in place so the dev team can get closer and closer to having more balanced numbers. The amount of worlds will change, but always divisible by 3, at the 2 month reset mark to balance out the numbers as much as possible.

    "It's that sorta mentality that prevents progress from actually being made and the game from being fun for everyone and not the minority." -TexZero

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/9804/idea-wvw-only-movement-skills

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 2, 2018

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:
    @Raymond Lukes.6305, my only comment is :
    Why keep "World Transfers"? With the new system it doesn't make any sense, and honestly that's the reason why this is needed. Keeping world transfers is anathema to this whole system.
    Changing "Worlds" with the new system is supposed to be as easy as changing guilds, or is that not wrong? I mean, what's the deal?

    I kind of agree although in the alliance system they could prevent it being abused by say making it prohibitively expensive to move.

    @zealex.9410 said:
    Big yikes. This basically sounds like a 1 man project, id expect more attention to what is a core pillar of gw2, esp since anet is seemingly doing better income wise.

    Its been a long time since WvW was a core pillar. I agree it should be though.

    @clone wars.9568 said:
    "Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations."

    This on its own guarantee this new structuring will be a failure. You should NEVER base calc of server pops based on old player hours, it should be based on wvw population regardless of how much they play.

    They used to base it on that and it was a failure.

  • Forget world restructure, whens the next major skill balance coming?

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2, 2018

    @morrolan.9608 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:
    @Raymond Lukes.6305, my only comment is :
    Why keep "World Transfers"? With the new system it doesn't make any sense, and honestly that's the reason why this is needed. Keeping world transfers is anathema to this whole system.
    Changing "Worlds" with the new system is supposed to be as easy as changing guilds, or is that not wrong? I mean, what's the deal?

    I kind of agree although in the alliance system they could prevent it being abused by say making it prohibitively expensive to move.

    Still, it makes no sense to retain it, unless it's only for the money. Which then just kind of proves those people saying that Server transfer is P2W somewhat right. And lays down low the image that it's used only as a deterrent.

    @zealex.9410 said:
    Big yikes. This basically sounds like a 1 man project, id expect more attention to what is a core pillar of gw2, esp since anet is seemingly doing better income wise.

    Its been a long time since WvW was a core pillar. I agree it should be though.

    I don't think it's a one-man project. @Raymond Lukes.6305 is probably stitching up stuff other people worked on into a coherent thing. Don't forget that WvW and sPvP are now part of the "systems" team, there's no more dedicated PVP teams.

    @clone wars.9568 said:
    "Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations."

    This on its own guarantee this new structuring will be a failure. You should NEVER base calc of server pops based on old player hours, it should be based on wvw population regardless of how much they play.

    They used to base it on that and it was a failure.

    Agreed, it makes more sense to balance it based on overall hours. I mean Base population says nothing. It's like a factory, or anything else, really... You don't measure work/performance in number of employees per item produced, you measure it in terms of man-hours per item.

    This is more or less the same thing, saying that 3000 players played in WvW on Server X vs 5000 on Server Y is meaningless. Saying that you have 24 000 player hours on Server X vs 20 000 on Server Y. That makes a distinction.

    On the other hand, i kind of understand what @clone wars.9568 is going for, i think. Although its measured in player hours, the queue system and the map limits are still based on population. So it might make it awkward to get into WvW for some servers if they don't do it exactly right. Especially since they're not taking into account the time-slots people play on.
    Imagine they set-up a world with people that all play on the same time slot... It will be barren in the rest of the day, and people will be locked out of maps during that particular time slot.
    Disregarding that can be costly.

  • So we will see what comes out first World restructuring or CU. Expecting a thrilling race =)

  • Thanks for the update. For anyone not involved in software development, don't underestimate the work and effort that has been put in so far. The complexity of this must be huge, and that there are so many parts working at all sounds great.
    UI stuff is important, but is a drop in the ocean in time and effort compared to the work being done on the backend for this.

    Of course there's expectation management going on, but this sounds far closer to being done than a lot of you are giving credit for. Fingers crossed for something in the Spring.

    I'm personally waiting for this before dropping back into the game, so please do keep up the good work!

  • @adammantium.8031 said:
    Thanks for the update. For anyone not involved in software development, don't underestimate the work and effort that has been put in so far. The complexity of this must be huge, and that there are so many parts working at all sounds great.
    UI stuff is important, but is a drop in the ocean in time and effort compared to the work being done on the backend for this.

    Of course there's expectation management going on, but this sounds far closer to being done than a lot of you are giving credit for. Fingers crossed for something in the Spring.

    I'm personally waiting for this before dropping back into the game, so please do keep up the good work!

    Have you paid for saying this? There is nothing at all, just try something ... if they continue like this the game will not give more than

  • @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:
    Hey everyone,

    ......................
    We had 3 announcements on this subject, first on the 31.Jan.2018 / the second in July 2018 / the third being the actual post 29.Nov.2018.

    After one year we know now that the goals of the World Restructuring system are: "Create great matches / Handle population fluctuations / Balance teams / Diversify WvW experiences" - according to McKenna Berdrow: 31 Jan 2108. With other words, the goals of the current planned change are exactly the same as the goals of the current World division, working atm. GREAT!!

    Shortly, the Restructuring plans to remove the Worlds _ existing in this moment and to replace them with entities named _Worlds!! EXCELLENT!! GREAT IDEA!.

    Let's see how this Worlds were supposed to work - bellow is McKenna's statement:
    "World Creation builds teams so they have similar predicted participation, skill, coverage, and language. Team assignment moves players onto teams by calculating the contribution value of a player and using that calculation to distribute players fairly. We plan to track stats like play hours in WvW, commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels."

    Let's see the actual status - according to Raymond (the July update)
    "We subsequently have decided to, at least at the start, use only play hours and not adjust using other metrics."

    Let's translate:

    • the Worlds will be replaced with Worlds
    • In the old system taking into consideration only the play hours was not so good and this was one of the reason of the actual WvW state. Instead of this:
    • In the new system we will take into consideration only the play hours. WOAAAA !!!! What a change !!

    And so on. This "Restructuring" is a copy-paste of the actual system, in many cases keeping even the names. That ANet likes copy-paste, please look at the following two statements - first in July 2018 / the other from the Nov 2018:

    1. This will allow us to compare apples to apples so to speak once the system is in place. - July 2018, Raymond
    2. We want to compare apples to apples to give us the clearest information. - Nov 2018, Raymond

    As a note - this shows that Raymond played the personal story as a Order of Whispers member and he started to like apples =) But even so, a little bit of change is not hurting. Raymond, we all know that the devs. have not much time. But please don't use copy-paste anymore. Even if you like what you wrote before.

    In my opinion, this "change" is something changing only the amount of money entering to ANet pocket. Something like the rune change. And, the only reason it is not released yet is the fact that they still don;t know how to do this without generating a strong reaction from the players.

    Still, being an incurable optimist I hope in my heart that the change will be a positive one. I have few questions:

    • it is stated that the Worlds will be formed first (with random names) and then the worlds will be populated by Aliances/guilds/players - How many worlds will be created? If too few then we will have queues of tens or hundreds of players. If too many, then we will have no queues but also we will have no enemy to fight in WvW.
    • If the Worlds will be created every 8 weeks what is the purpose of the "transfer" ? The world you choose will not exist anymore. If a guild is spread on more than one world, then even the criteria of "play hours" will be ignored. You can pay to go to the world your guild is. HOW can you know that a World is full if you first create the world and then you fill that word with guilds/players? Pay to be with your guild. After 8 weeks you may be put in the situation to pay again. And again after 8 weeks. HM ?

    In my humble opinion you can make the best World Restructuring by using the EoTM model:

    • Keep the actual number of Worlds (server)
    • Every 8 weeks (or 6 or 4 or even 2) assign to each server a color (red / blue / green). Randomly - or according to the rules you want to use for the "World Restructuring" you are working in this moment.
    • Assign one of the borderline maps to each color - as the current WvW
    • Let the system to create as many instances of a map as necessary to house all the players willing to play on that map.
    • End.

    The result of the fights on a map is not influencing in any way the servers. In the past we had some buffs from this but in this moment winning or loosing a WvW match is not influencing your world in any way.

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

    @Cristalyan.5728 said:
    In my humble opinion

    Well the devs in their opinion will go with alliances. Unless you want them to cancel it all and spend another 3+ years to implement some player suggested system that probably wont work any better than alliances, which in my opinion would be pointless.

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭
    edited December 3, 2018

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Well the devs in their opinion will go with alliances. Unless you want them to cancel it all and spend another 3+ years to implement some player suggested system that probably wont work any better than alliances, which in my opinion would be pointless.


    What would you fix - Match-Up Mechanics or Team Creation?


    It's pointless if the end result does not improve the game-mode...which has been a proven trend with trying to Balance Teams through World Linking.

    Alliance Linking will more than likely repeat this end result...as it focuses on Balancing Teams.

    Trying to fix things In-directly through Balancing Teams...is very in-effective & continues to have Long-Term negative impacts to the game-mode (suppression of guest-server communities).

    Most folks don't continue walking down a road that looks & feels bad.

    Instead...please cancel this Alliance Team creation project & spend the next year implementing a system that directly fixes our WvW horrible Match-Ups...

    Please re-design WvW & allow players to create their own Match-Ups with weekly limitations instead.

    We need to make decisions that allow Long-Term communities to thrive...Allowing players to decide who can play in their Winning Alliance...will only lead to toxic behavior in the Long-Term...imho.

    Even made a haiku that provides a solution:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/5m7950/newgamemodewvgworldvsglobes

    The mechanic for making this happens already works & is already being used in-game & just needs to be re-purposed for WvW...It's called Server Guesting:


    Your truly,
    Diku

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

  • Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 3, 2018

    @TheMaskedGamer.5708 said:
    I have one big question that I'm not sure you'll answer given that it's still early, but I feel it's better to ask now than later.

    The one question I have is if the option to turn your Guild into a WvW Guild for the system is an option you can toggle on and off?

    Reason I ask is that I have a PvX Guild, a guild dedicated to playing anything in the game. Now it wouldn't be much a surprise to see my guild dabble in WvW, but I'm curious as to how the "turn your guild into a WvW Guild" works and if this is a permanent change to your guild?

    The way I'm interpreting this information is that this action is a permanent one. And my worry is that if I come to that decision to do so, what effect will if have with your systems? Especially if I sign up for something that may not be an exact priority for my guild.

    I am not sure, if this is a guild option or a person option.

    I think it is a person option: "This guild is my WvW-guild" (additional and similar to todays "this guild I am representing")
    All people that do that with the same guild will be linked to the same WvW-Server/Team.

    For your guild is the option: "my guild should join an alliance", if you join an alliance then all people that have any of the alliance-gilds as WvW-Guild should be linked to the same WvW-Server/Team. If you leave the alliance, then this has no immediate effect, but on next relinking your guildies (that have you as their WvW-Guild) are likely linked somewhere else.

  • I love GW2 and WvW but this is getting ridiculous. WvW is an overpopulated pay to win because of the alliances announcement, server swapping and stacking. The fights are just based on numbers now not skill. Mobs with the larger numbers win, go figure. I feel these alliance announcements are money grabs to get people to pay to switch worlds thinking stacking and winning. It has only served to kill guilds and servers/worlds and make WvW less populated but it made some money for anet which is what dying games do to their population in the end, milk them for whatevers left... sad day

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 3, 2018

    @Roxory.9854 said:
    I love GW2 and WvW but this is getting ridiculous. WvW is an overpopulated pay to win because of the alliances announcement, server swapping and stacking. The fights are just based on numbers now not skill. Mobs with the larger numbers win, go figure. I feel these alliance announcements are money grabs to get people to pay to switch worlds thinking stacking and winning. It has only served to kill guilds and servers/worlds and make WvW less populated but it made some money for anet which is what dying games do to their population in the end, milk them for whatevers left... sad day

    That doesn't even make sense. People have been bandwagoning since forever. How is the announcement that the system is changing doing anything to promote that? People don't even get anything for winning, they only kill the fun but gain nothing from it.

    Logging out forever.

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭
    edited December 5, 2018

    @Heartpains.7312 said:
    May I ask what would the alliance solve? not to mention that it is taking so much time that by the time that it is ready, maybe the reasons behind it no longer exists.

    Essentially it changes two things:
    1. It gives Anet smaller building blocks to piece together "servers" with every 8 weeks (focused around guilds and alliances with limited player control).
    2. It gives you the option to change your "WvW guild" every 8 weeks to get to a new server rather than paying 200g+/gems for it.
    So it adresses the most recent development of world-linking and the transfer circus in which guilds/commanders are paying to get away from stacking anonymous players to get a chance to play togther with their friends and how that affects stacking and content. No one is using it for balance or (semi-) lasting server-wide organisation anymore. I may need to explain it in depth later but for now just assume that it rolls back the past year or two to how things worked when world-linking first got introduced (so it adresses issues that have appeared with linking in the past 2 years, not the full 7-ish years).

    It will more or less take them the same amount of time to build that it has taken the most recent issues to appear :s .

    Given the recent updates from Raymond we know that they are keeping the option to pay 200g+/gems for it and to switch regions (NA/EU) you still need to pay 200+g/gems for it. For god knows what reason since those two things are what is meowing up WvW to begin with. So they decided to spend a year on designing a new core, have not come further than a core and have decided to keep the rotten core of the old system. Thanks to the latest update we are now also, more than before, lead to believe that this is a skeleton crewed project with few others than Raymond working on it. That about sums it up.

    We are now entering the 7th year of GW2 and the core issues of WvW remain the same: Population imbalance (most importantly off-hour population imbalance) makes any form of performance rewards pointless and splits the community into two extremes of PPT (for non-existant rewards) and open field fights (because no rewards and no way to keep off-region off-hour/night crews from resetting everything you worked for during your game/spare time when you should be sleeping or working/studying makes tending to objectives, and by extension winning matchups, pointless beyond controlling who you get matched up with next week). Then you can add all other unadressed/festering/underdeveloped issues under it.

    So, in summary, with the recent updates we know that what they have been working on for the past year has an expressed, supposed long-term goal of adressing a core issue but they have decided to keep two key things that causes that very same issue. Not only does that miss the mark of the supposed goal but also handicaps the work they have done so far on this system. A system that at first was received as just okay and now admittedly aims at being just okay. They are somehow trying to adress the issue in further undisclosed ways, developed by other undisclosed employees that have managed to update us zero times on their work over a year while Raymond has managed a hefty :3 three. At least 7-year veteran cash cows still has a no-milk opt-out to avoid the night-crews others still will have to pay to win.

    It took about 15 edits to create this post, every time it got longer and more negative. Let's end on a lighter but fitting note:

  • Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 3, 2018

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:
    developed by other undisclosed employees that have managed to update us zero times

    I fear everyone of them has informed us about everything they are doing.
    Problem is just: They don't exist, so they didn't do anything, and had nothing to inform us about. :(

  • coro.3176coro.3176 Member ✭✭✭

    Sigh... Sorry devs (or maybe dev? singular?) . I know you're trying. It's just taking SO LONG.

    Can we just .. I dunno, sort people based on their currently repped wvw guild? I don't know what your backend looks like, but maybe some combination of

    • a set date/time where your currently repped guild will become your WvW guild, announced well in advance (1 month?) via website + in game mail so all WvW players know about it.
    • guild leaders send mail with their requested alliances. (alliance requests must be reciprocal Eg. Both Guild Leader A and B have to request each other and not exceed some limit)
    • have someone manually go through the requests and make sure the numbers check out. Look, how many hundred guilds are there? Surely it wouldn't take THAT long. The player base isn't that large, is it? Let's say a day or two of person-time?
    • randomly sort the rest of the players until the servers are balanced in population.

    .. and try that? I'd volunteer to do it myself, but I don't work for ANET.

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @coro.3176 said:
    Sigh... Sorry devs (or maybe dev? singular?) . I know you're trying. It's just taking SO LONG.

    Can we just .. I dunno, sort people based on their currently repped wvw guild? I don't know what your backend looks like, but maybe some combination of

    • a set date/time where your currently repped guild will become your WvW guild, announced well in advance (1 month?) via website + in game mail so all WvW players know about it.
    • guild leaders send mail with their requested alliances. (alliance requests must be reciprocal Eg. Both Guild Leader A and B have to request each other and not exceed some limit)
    • have someone manually go through the requests and make sure the numbers check out. Look, how many hundred guilds are there? Surely it wouldn't take THAT long. The player base isn't that large, is it? Let's say a day or two of person-time?
    • randomly sort the rest of the players until the servers are balanced in population.

    .. and try that? I'd volunteer to do it myself, but I don't work for ANET.

    What would that accomplish? And why would you prefer that over the system they are working on?

    Logging out forever.

  • coro.3176coro.3176 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 3, 2018

    @Blocki.4931 said:

    @coro.3176 said:
    Sigh... Sorry devs (or maybe dev? singular?) . I know you're trying. It's just taking SO LONG.

    Can we just .. I dunno, sort people based on their currently repped wvw guild? I don't know what your backend looks like, but maybe some combination of

    • a set date/time where your currently repped guild will become your WvW guild, announced well in advance (1 month?) via website + in game mail so all WvW players know about it.
    • guild leaders send mail with their requested alliances. (alliance requests must be reciprocal Eg. Both Guild Leader A and B have to request each other and not exceed some limit)
    • have someone manually go through the requests and make sure the numbers check out. Look, how many hundred guilds are there? Surely it wouldn't take THAT long. The player base isn't that large, is it? Let's say a day or two of person-time?
    • randomly sort the rest of the players until the servers are balanced in population.

    .. and try that? I'd volunteer to do it myself, but I don't work for ANET.

    What would that accomplish? And why would you prefer that over the system they are working on?

    It would be a barebones version of what they're working on, but with players sorted by hand and with preferences specified by guild leaders sending in-game mail until the necessary tech exists to do it automatically.

    I would prefer it because it could be done now. That is, it could be ready in weeks or a month rather than the year we're probably looking at.

    Perfect is the enemy of good...

2
©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.