World Restructuring Update 2 - Page 3 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

World Restructuring Update 2

13>

Comments

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 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.

    At this point they might as well do that, considering that Raymond just told us that they are not doing 2 out of the 3 things that was Alliances saving grace.
    1. Stopping others from overstacking what you organize (still gems)
    2. Giving players some wider control over access to night crews (still gems)
    3. Letting you join friends without paying gems every 8 weeks

    We are literally a "changing WvW guild now cost gems"-update away from this entire project being 100% pointless.

    Nevermind that the system was outdated from conception or didn't directly affect population imbalances. Now it doesn't even do what it set out to do.

    They could just cap server score between 5pm and midnight and still have a better impact on population imbalance now and then build something more considerate from there. That's like two clicks in a spreadsheet and they can spend the next year working on an improvement (/inclusion) to that instead.

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

    @coro.3176 said:
    players sorted by hand

    Completely unrealistic and unviable.

    I am also curious what you would do at capacity. No really, I want to hear how you would sort them since you offered to do it. 5 guilds want to be in the same alliance. Only 4 guilds can fit. Do you decide which guild is going to get thrown out? Is it going to be some sort of contest to determine which 4 guilds are are cool and which of them... well, just isnt worthy of the alliance? Or would you just go by gut feeling on which guild has the worst name?

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

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @coro.3176 said:
    players sorted by hand

    Completely unrealistic and unviable.

    Time consuming and tedious, perhaps, but much faster than waiting 2 years for it to finally be released - even if all I had were a list of player names and their preferred wvw guild. There aren't that many players that care about WvW.

    I am also curious what you would do at capacity. No really, I want to hear how you would sort them since you offered to do it. 5 guilds want to be in the same alliance. Only 4 guilds can fit. Do you decide which guild is going to get thrown out? Is it going to be some sort of contest to determine which 4 guilds are are cool and which of them... well, just isnt worthy of the alliance? Or would you just go by gut feeling on which guild has the worst name?

    Simple. Announce the limit on the total # of players in an alliance. Then if any requested alliances are over that limit, the alliance is void and the guilds are distributed randomly among the servers instead of being kept together. The guilds are responsible for making sure their alliances are under the limit.

  • anet overthinks this update so hard...just go back to the roots

    -delete desertborder (to much PvE, Runnin-simulator)

    -STOP RELINKING SERVERS (put the low-pop Servers together and let it be or create new Servers at all and everyone can choose a new one for free...like the battles under the Servers made wvw that great...cuz u wanted to teach the people and organize ur server so ur Servers is gettin better...but now everyone gives a kitten...wvw-guilds are only lookin for fights...public/open raids gettin pretty rare cuz why you should be passioned to train people FOR WHAT?!?!? to get relinked again?!??!?! people dont define themselfs with the Servers anymore, they define themselfs with the guild... so they only care about the guild...''oh we lost t3 hills, who cares, we won a fight 10v25'' and i think new players who come to wvw have it rly hard nowadays...WvW is pointelss at the moment

    -dont try to get more PvE players in to WvW with PvE content, WvW is something u like or u dont...THATS OK...THERE IS NOTHING TO CHANGE TO MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE...and dont listen to people who say ,,I play wvw twice a week but i would play it more if there would be a BIG FAT DRAGON WHO GIVES ME A BUNCH OF LOOT'' This mode were perfect in the beginning and anet made some small good decisions but the big decisions were terrible

    as more anet changes things and trys to control population and stuff its gettin worse...cuz the community has to do it by itself AND they did in the early days...it wasnt perfect for everyone but it worked generally cuz the balance came over time AND ALLIANCES WILL MAKE NOTHING BETTER! it will be about blobing, killing eachother and not about capin objects like now

    imagine WvW would be a PvP-match where some ppl are in the middle of the map tryin to kill eachother off-point while some are capturing Points for the daily reward and gettin loot THATS WvW TODAY

    u ruined WvW, FIX IT,

    peace out

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

    @Towlie.9168 said:
    anet overthinks this update so hard...just go back to the roots

    -delete desertborder (to much PvE, Runnin-simulator)

    Wouldn't fix anything but make the people who enjoy the map angry. This is a very petty complaint.

    -STOP RELINKING SERVERS (put the low-pop Servers together and let it be or create new Servers at all and everyone can choose a new one for free...like the battles under the Servers made wvw that great...cuz u wanted to teach the people and organize ur server so ur Servers is gettin better...but now everyone gives a kitten...wvw-guilds are only lookin for fights...public/open raids gettin pretty rare cuz why you should be passioned to train people FOR WHAT?!?!? to get relinked again?!??!?! people dont define themselfs with the Servers anymore, they define themselfs with the guild... so they only care about the guild...''oh we lost t3 hills, who cares, we won a fight 10v25'' and i think new players who come to wvw have it rly hard nowadays...WvW is pointelss at the moment

    Yeah, put the low pop servers into one giant inactive server to get rid of them. Brilliant.

    -dont try to get more PvE players in to WvW with PvE content, WvW is something u like or u dont...THATS OK...THERE IS NOTHING TO CHANGE TO MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE...and dont listen to people who say ,,I play wvw twice a week but i would play it more if there would be a BIG FAT DRAGON WHO GIVES ME A BUNCH OF LOOT'' This mode were perfect in the beginning and anet made some small good decisions but the big decisions were terrible

    So you want the same people play the game forever, I get it. Like it or not, new people will have to come into the mode and start playing it, that's how game populations work. People will leave sooner or later and if you don't try to get in fresh blood your mode will die out faster than if you catered to the already established audience's every whim.

    as more anet changes things and trys to control population and stuff its gettin worse...cuz the community has to do it by itself AND they did in the early days...it wasnt perfect for everyone but it worked generally cuz the balance came over time AND ALLIANCES WILL MAKE NOTHING BETTER! it will be about blobing, killing eachother and not about capin objects like now

    They're not changing the gamemode, they're changing how populations are made up. Of course it's not going to fix issues with the mode, that's what balance changes are for. However, it will help creating better matchups in the future and once live they will be able to gather better data on what works and what doesn't and will have an easier time finetuning that.

    imagine WvW would be a PvP-match where some ppl are in the middle of the map tryin to kill eachother off-point while some are capturing Points for the daily reward and gettin loot THATS WvW TODAY

    Yeah, imagine that not everybody works in a hivemind or prefers to be casual. Imagine thinking that somebody capturing camps all the time is any less valuable of a player than the guy clashing with 15 other guys all day every day, thinking he's accomplished anything but stroke his own ego. It's a team game, but some people like to play on their own terms so they create their own rules and play by them. Ever wóndered why open tags have become rare and people don't want to play anymore? Because that type of attitude has split the community and they can do very well without the toxicity of playing their way.

    u ruined WvW, FIX IT,

    They can't simply undo the stupidity of the users, but the system is a good first step to it.

    -this post was made by DBL gang

    /meme

    It's literally called "World Restructuring" not "Gamemode Revision" and people seem to forget that entirely.

    Logging out forever.

  • borgs.6103borgs.6103 Member ✭✭✭

    Thanks for the update. Just hoping this won't come out EOTM-late.

    Hi.

  • @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.

    Well, the devs have no opinion. They go with nothing. Do you want proofs? Let's analyze all the statements the devs (?) made on this topic.
    First, the statement of intention:

    @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
    A message from McKenna Berdrow:

    I want to update everyone on the design we currently are investigating to help achieve population balance between worlds, and the goals we hope this new World Restructuring system can achieve.

    The goals of the World Restructuring system are:

    - Create great matches
    Handle population fluctuations

    > Balance teams

    Diversify WvW experiences

    As I said before, these are the goals of the actual system working atm. So, if we eliminate the non relevant words, we have only the intention of "Balance teams" remaining. The rest is a marketing promo. The devs are technical persons. A technical statement is something like: "We will try to improve.... In this case is only marketing.

    Still, we have the intention of balancing the teams - this was for a long time the only complain of the players. The teams are not balanced. I think that McKenna Berdrow is a true dev. because he understood that the actual system of balancing the teams is the real cause for the WvW state and he said:

    @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
    A message from McKenna Berdrow:

    World Creation

    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. The exact stats have yet to be determined and we are open to suggestions of other stats to use in this system. **This new system will expand upon the current calculation that uses play hours for linking.

    If a player has played WvW before, we will be able to use the statistics from their account to sort them into a new world.

    Too bad. The next statement on this topic (July 2018) brings the things back to the old system. Look at what Raymond said:

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    July 2018 Update

    In the original post and discussion, we talked about using player hours (the current method we use for calculating world sizes for links and “full” status) and then adjusting those hours by other metrics like command hours, etc. We subsequently have decided to, at least at the start, **use only play hours and not adjust using other metrics. **

    >
    So, the old (imperfect) method will be used. That means the "balance team" statement from the initial statement of intention is no more.

  • So, what we have from the initial statement of intention? NOTHING.

    That this nothing is the real (technical) goal of this change is proved by the:

    @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
    A message from McKenna Berdrow:

    If the reception is not great for this system, then the other alternative is most likely to continue World Linking. Even though making a choice between the two systems might seem like too drastic a change for some people, we have been exploring other designs to deal with WvW populations for years and we believe that World Restructuring or World Linking are the only solutions that meet our requirements. Simply "blowing up" worlds or removing people from the worlds on which they currently play is high risk (which is why we have avoided it for so long), and the only reason we are considering World Restructuring now is because it allows players to maintain and continue to build some of the communities they've created through the years.

    With other words, you will accept this (new?) system or you will remain with the old system. No other variants. That means that the statement:

    @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
    A message from McKenna Berdrow:
    We appreciate any feedback on this system. Your opinions of this system, as well as the community's response, will be an important part of how we tackle this project.

    is only a polite way to advise us that the old "the devs knows better than you what is good for you" is back.

    In conclusion:
    This is a marketing move, bringing nothing new from a technical point of view, with the purpose to sell in a more profitable manner the "right" to move between worlds. They intent to spent no resources in this "change. The status after one year is: "we are taking things into consideration / we worked a lot but we are still far from an end / we use the same metrics (the tools are already developed) etc.

    So, I think we can try to help them by offering them our opinions - if I was wrong and the statement "We appreciate any feedback on this system. Your opinions of this system, as well as the community's response, will be an important part of how we tackle this project" is truly honest.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 4, 2018

    @Cristalyan.5728 said:
    Well, the devs have no opinion.

    Well thats just your opinion just as this is mine. Those of us that understand the scope and intent of alliances hold our opinion on whether it will do good or bad in the long run, but ultimately its just smaller links and everybody is a link. We got that concept in the first update. We are stuck with WvW mostly as it is. Changing it alot is called developing a new game. I have dreams and hopes for GW3 sure but for now, I just want to play WvW without tier locks due to static population

  • Its good to know that they're still progressing on the plan and haven't abandoned it. That s the good news. The bad news, to me, is that it give the impression of being a year or more away. If true, that's a bummer.

  • i disagree strongly in the part of either linking or reconstructing. Dont be afraid to make changes, it is not going to get any worse. I trust you have some knowledge in developing or making games, so put that in use.

  • Will we be given a rough time line of implementation before restructuring goes live? I ask because currently I do not play WvW like i used to but I want to get back into it once restructuring takes place. Right now I'm with a casual guild for WvW because that is what I want to be apart of for the current match-ups. However, before restructuring takes place I want to be a member of a serious guild once I ramp up my playtime again. I would like to have time to prepare, and not show up one day to find I was too late on joining a serious WvW guild and now I have to run with my casual guild because I wasnt given time to ramp back into my old play hours.

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

    @Irbis.4932 said:
    So we will see what comes out first World restructuring or CU. Expecting a thrilling race =)

    Anticipate from experience WvW, CU and Crowfall to all release simultaneously.
    Question is which one jumps first and when. With backers still funding their kickstarters it may be a while yet

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Thanks for the update.

  • I feel updated now.

  • @jqjazz.4097 said:
    so nothing new actually changing in wvw yet again :( Raymond Lukes.6305 said "we have made some really good and exciting progress, we are still a ways out from the launch of World Restructuring and Alliances." meaning if we wait as long as we have since the very 1st announcement wvw will be pretty much a dead zone and gw3 maybe on the horizon! oh happy days for us wvw'ers, wrap it in a xmas box and put it under the tree for 2020

    Nothing new for WvW again!!

13>
©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.