Jump to content
  • Sign Up

World Restructuring FAQ


Raymond Lukes.6305

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@"Roxanne.6140" said:Will we be informed of when the evaluation will be done? I mean the evaluation for which world we will be assigned to according to our guild or friends list. For example, notice to say evaluation be done on which date etc.No I am certain they will just drop it 18:00 a random tuesday without listing it in the patch notes and 18:01 say "oh no one has signed up for WvW guilds the restructure failed and now we are shutting down WvW".

Of course they are going to tell us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Roxanne.6140" said:Will we be informed of when the evaluation will be done? I mean the evaluation for which world we will be assigned to according to our guild or friends list. For example, notice to say evaluation be done on which date etc.No I am certain they will just drop it 18:00 a random tuesday without listing it in the patch notes and 18:01 say "oh no one has signed up for WvW guilds the restructure failed and now we are shutting down WvW".

Of course they are going to tell us.

I don't think that was the question, I think (correct me if I am wrong) Roxanne was asking at what point before each season would we be notified which world we as individuals would be assigned to.

I'm not sure they will notify us ahead of time, any more than they told us who was going to be in each matchup prior to reset during the Glicko days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Euryon.9248 said:

@"Roxanne.6140" said:Will we be informed of when the evaluation will be done? I mean the evaluation for which world we will be assigned to according to our guild or friends list. For example, notice to say evaluation be done on which date etc.No I am certain they will just drop it 18:00 a random tuesday without listing it in the patch notes and 18:01 say "oh no one has signed up for WvW guilds the restructure failed and now we are shutting down WvW".

Of course they are going to tell us.

I don't think that was the question, I think (correct me if I am wrong) Roxanne was asking at what point before each season would we be notified which world we as individuals would be assigned to.

I'm not sure they will notify us ahead of time, any more than they told us who was going to be in each matchup prior to reset during the Glicko days.

I meant if they will tell us when exactly will we be evaluated based on our contacts etc which world will we be assigned to, beforehand. yea, agree with you that there is no need to tell us from gameplay perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who is in the EU but plays in NA and recently picked up wvw I was curious about playtimes, are you going to balance it around the clock or are we still going to have the downtimes where a handful are on and we're swarmed? I know you mentioned the metrics of timing but I am curious how you plan to balance that kind of timing? Also will there be bonuses for the people who aren't into the skirmishing but enjoy the building/fixing/strategy aspect of it? I do NOT like straight pvp, I don't care if I can 1v1 anyone and I'm not interested in having KDA even utilized. I'm interested in the other aspects, fort building/holding/maintaining. Scouting and keeping an eye on the various things built by myself or others.

I like doing the supportive work in the game and while I didn't always have a high pip score as a result it was often more fulfilling for me. I want to know if perhaps that kind of work can be rewarded as much as those who run around in squads? I don't mind being in a zerg on occasion but sometimes I want to go scout ahead or check out the rear or go check on the sieges at various bases to make sure they are there in case we need them.

I was wondering if there will be some way for that kind of behavior to be rewarded as well...

I'm worried that it will become a zerg fest and I have no interest in that kind of play.

I'm not sure if what I do is considered roaming since it goes between scouting out areas, checking to see where the enemies are at and their numbers, being backline and supporting or helping bring up downed players. Repairs etc... But I want to know if I will still have a place in this newer version or if it's going to become an all out fight fest. I'm not interested in an all out constant fight-fest.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, will there be rewards/etc for this kind of play style?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:We wanted to create a new post that is a FAQ to the world restructuring post, and clarify a few points that some have found confusing. Please feel free to continue to comment on the world restructuring post (McKenna and I are still working through all the questions), or on this post with feedback. I just wanted these topics to be easier to find for everyone, and figured a new post would be a good way to do this.

Raymond,

To say I'm concerned about the fact you aren't addressing coverage and time zones in this FAQ is an understatement.

Coverage has been probably the biggest bugbear in the history of WvW - it should be at the CORE of your solution and yet it isn't mentioned here.

I'm not being dramatic when I say you potentially risk killing the game for your South East Asian/Oceanic population if you do not address this.

In the past we have addressed this ourselves by manually migrating to accounts where we could get SEA timezone fights.

You are now removing our time zone migration controls - so your balancing algorithm MUST address this and it must address it as a priority in balancing, not as an afterthought.

As there is no "server pride" anymore you can't leave this up to alliances to self-balance as most alliance leaders won't care at all what happens outside of their time zone.

If a server with heavy SEA ends up playing against a server with no SEA for 8 weeks can you imagine how boring that would get and how many players would just quit the game?

PvD every night is NOT fun - we'll just quit the game instead.

You have to be very careful here that your solution addresses timezones/coverage as a priority.

Your algorithm can easily categorise a player based on historical hours as either: "NA primary", "SEA primary", "EU primary" or "OCX primary".

e.g., something like this: [sorry for pseudocode]

NA_hour_count = count_hours(NA_timezone_start, NA_timezone_end, player_season_history);SEA_hour_count = count_hours(SEA_timezone_start, SEA_timezone_end, player_season_history);OCX_hour_count = count_hours(OCX_timezone_start, OCX_timezone_end, player_season_history);EU_hour_count = count_hours(EU_timezone_start, EU_timezone_end, player_season_history);

PrimaryTimezone playerTZ = get_primary_timezone(NA_hour_count, SEA_hour_count, OCX_hour_count, EU_hour_count);

NA_players = count_players(PrimaryTimezone.NA, guild_register);SEA_players = count_players(PrimaryTimezone.SEA, guild_register);OCX_players = count_players(PrimaryTimezone.OCX, guild_register);EU_players = count_players(PrimaryTimezone.EU, guild_register);

PrimaryTimezone guildTZ = get_primary_timezone(NA_players, SEA_players, OCX_players, EU_players);

Doing this calculation would enable you to classify non-aligned guilds and non-aligned players as NA, SEA, EU or OCX.

I imagine your match up/balancing algorithm will have three phases:

  • Phase 1: Selecting core alliances
  • Phase 2: Back filling with non-aligned guilds
  • Phase 3: Back filling with non-aligned players

Phase 1 is too hard to balance coverage because with 500 players, you don't have the granularity.

So I'm suggesting during Phase 2 and 3 where you do have granularity that you need to examine the Time Zone make up of your Phase 1 alliances and back fill with non-aligned guilds and non-aligned players from the appropriate time zones to even up the coverage.

So for example let's say your system does primary allocation of 4 alliances (server A) vs 4 alliances (server B ) and then sees that server B has 50 less SEA players than server A, your algorithm can then stack in SEA guilds and SEA individuals so server B has 50 more SEA players. If it then notices server B's OCX has 15 more players it will allocate 1 small OCX guild (10 players) and 5 OCX players to server A.

It doesn't have to be EXACT but it needs to be close enough so there are good fights during at least the two primary time zones (NA and SEA) and if you can balance the secondary time zones (EU/OCX) then that would be cherry on the cake.

Please let us know you are aware of this issue and going to address it in your solution (so I don't have to create more threads to raise awareness).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"dzeRnumbrd.6129" said:As there is no "server pride" anymore you can't leave this up to alliances to self-balance as most alliance leaders won't care at all what happens outside of their time zone.

But... how did servers get to care then if alliances cant? Does alliances somehow contain different players than where on the servers?

There is as little stopping an alliance from 100% focusing on a 2h timeslot as there is stopping an alliance from recruiting people to cover different timezones 24/7. Its all up to players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"dzeRnumbrd.6129" said:As there is no "server pride" anymore you can't leave this up to alliances to self-balance as most alliance leaders won't care at all what happens outside of their time zone.

But... how did servers get to care then if alliances cant?

Everyone used to be on the same boat for the foreseeable future. It's easy to plan long term this way.

You care and maintain your boat because it is your boat for the foreseeable future - the people on this boat have become your friends and you rely on them and they rely on you - you make each other better because you know you're all stuck on this boat forever.However, with alliances you're on a boat that is rigged to explode after 8 weeks with a bunch of strangers.Do you care about maintaining and repairing a boat you know is going to blow up in 8 weeks?Do you care about a bunch of strangers that might be trying to kill you in the subsequent 8 week season?No alliance is going to want to help any other alliance because after each reshuffle, the alliance you helped get better might now be your enemy.Alliances will only care about themselves.

Does alliances somehow contain different players than where on the servers?

Yes an alliance is only 20% of a server's population. The other 80% are randoms.

There is as little stopping an alliance from 100% focusing on a 2h timeslot as there is stopping an alliance from recruiting people to cover different timezones 24/7. Its all up to players.

No it's not up to the players.

That's simplistic thinking - you're not thinking about how it works enough.

Servers will now be built from a random group of alliances supplemented by a random group of non-aligned guilds supplemented even further by a random group of non-aligned pugs.

A full alliance would form only 20% of that server.

However, the issue is that coverage happens at a server level, not an alliance level.

You literally have no idea what coverage gaps these random groups will bring to your server and yet they make 80% of your server.

It doesn't matter if I perfectly balance my alliance when the perfect balance only makes up 20% of the server's population.

Let's say however that I do balance my alliance perfectly - during the reshuffle I get joined with 3 alliances that couldn't give a hoot about coverage and have just stacked NA to the roof.

Do you think I'm going to be engaged in seeing my server succeed when the 3 other alliances I'm paired with don't care?

I won't, I'll only care about my alliance's performance - so I'll just stack my timezone to the hilt so my alliance's play time is good.

Even if I did work out the coverage gaps and manage to get a new SEA guild or two into my alliance - it would all change in 8 weeks.

I might have too many SEA players in my alliance the next week - do I now anger the two guilds I just recruited and kick them out?

If you structure your alliance to have a medium level of SEA players and you get randomly linked to groups that have zero SEA coverage, you now have terrible coverage.

If you structure your alliance to have a high level of SEA players and you get randomly linked with huge SEA coverage you now have too much coverage.

So an alliance would have to predict all the future shortcomings of every partner alliance, partner guilds and pugs in order to structure themselves for appropriate coverage.

It's much easier if Arenanet handles the coverage balancing in the way I specified previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Question:

With the same max member cap for an Alliance or a Guild wich are de advantage to be in a Alliance, I mean, you can easy do a guild that group up those member and there is no need of an alliance system... and if you overcap that WvW guild you can simply do the same as the dev say for an overcapped alliance (go for you own with your guild). So I do not see any improvement to the Alliance (After the Hype.. if you think it is just the same has do a guild and set that guild as your WvW guild)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone used to be on the same boat for the foreseeable future. It's easy to plan long term this way.

You care and maintain your boat because it is your boat for the foreseeable future - the people on this boat have become your friends and you rely on them and they rely on you - you make each other better because you know you're all stuck on this boat forever.However, with alliances you're on a boat that is rigged to explode after 8 weeks with a bunch of strangers.Do you care about maintaining and repairing a boat you know is going to blow up in 8 weeks?YesDo you care about a bunch of strangers that might be trying to kill you in the subsequent 8 week season?YesNo alliance is going to want to help any other alliance because after each reshuffle, the alliance you helped get better might now be your enemy.Alliances will only care about themselves.Speak for yourself, I will care about and help anyone in my world that isn't a troll, regardless of whether they are in my alliance or not, even if I may end up fighting them in 8 weeks.

You speak only for yourself. Your selfish attitude does not speak for the majority of wvw players.

Static, unchanging, permanent servers IS the problem with unbalanced matchups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q. What is beneficial in this system to roamers?

Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world.If you want to guarantee playing with other roamers that you are friends with, then you can make a guild. If you do not want to do that, then there should still be plenty of roamers on the new worlds.I’ve seen some roamers worried about this system, and I’d be interested in hearing what in this system could change to make it better for roamers in their opinions. If you could mark your account as a WvW roamer account, and the system guaranteed a percentage of roamers on each world, would that feel better? Or is there anything else we could do besides use a different system. We would love to hear other ideas, and even though we haven’t been able to respond to everything we have been reading it all and taking notes.

I think it would be a good idea if you can mark your account as a roamer. Roaming NEEDS to be more useful in WvW. I dont know exactly how this should be achieved.. just make roaming, small groups and solo players have more of an impact on the score. Atm it feels like its kinda useless except taking camps and killing some people here and there..

If a server/world/alliance etc. has a lot of roamers in it though, wouldnt that make it weak? considering how zergs and PUG groups will have a much easier time taking towers and keeps etc. simply because of their size?I am worried that by linking roamers together you will just make our problem more apparent: there isnt a clear place for us to do what we are best at which is: smallscale fights or solo fights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bigo.9037 said:

Q. What is beneficial in this system to roamers?

Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world.If you want to guarantee playing with other roamers that you are friends with, then you can make a guild. If you do not want to do that, then there should still be plenty of roamers on the new worlds.I’ve seen some roamers worried about this system, and I’d be interested in hearing what in this system could change to make it better for roamers in their opinions. If you could mark your account as a WvW roamer account, and the system guaranteed a percentage of roamers on each world, would that feel better? Or is there anything else we could do besides use a different system. We would love to hear other ideas, and even though we haven’t been able to respond to everything we have been reading it all and taking notes.

I think it would be a good idea if you can mark your account as a roamer. Roaming NEEDS to be more useful in WvW. I dont know exactly how this should be achieved.. just make roaming, small groups and solo players have more of an impact on the score. Atm it feels like its kinda useless except taking camps and killing some people here and there..

If a server/world/alliance etc. has a lot of roamers in it though, wouldnt that make it weak? considering how zergs and PUG groups will have a much easier time taking towers and keeps etc. simply because of their size?I am worried that by linking roamers together you will just make our problem more apparent: there isnt a clear place for us to do what we are best at which is: smallscale fights or solo fights.

I see it as the complete opposite. Not having a big server to lean on anymore mean more people will band together in guilds and alliance to form their own little clique within the world that has been generated and them put in.

Sure it can go whatever which way in practice, but I expect more small parties and independant roamers instead of less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

Q. What is beneficial in this system to roamers?

Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world.If you want to guarantee playing with other roamers that you are friends with, then you can make a guild. If you do not want to do that, then there should still be plenty of roamers on the new worlds.I’ve seen some roamers worried about this system, and I’d be interested in hearing what in this system could change to make it better for roamers in their opinions. If you could mark your account as a WvW roamer account, and the system guaranteed a percentage of roamers on each world, would that feel better? Or is there anything else we could do besides use a different system. We would love to hear other ideas, and even though we haven’t been able to respond to everything we have been reading it all and taking notes.

I think it would be a good idea if you can mark your account as a roamer. Roaming NEEDS to be more useful in WvW. I dont know exactly how this should be achieved.. just make roaming, small groups and solo players have more of an impact on the score. Atm it feels like its kinda useless except taking camps and killing some people here and there..

If a server/world/alliance etc. has a lot of roamers in it though, wouldnt that make it weak? considering how zergs and PUG groups will have a much easier time taking towers and keeps etc. simply because of their size?I am worried that by linking roamers together you will just make our problem more apparent: there isnt a clear place for us to do what we are best at which is: smallscale fights or solo fights.

I see it as the complete opposite. Not having a big server to lean on anymore mean more people will band together in guilds and alliance to form their own little clique within the world that has been generated and them put in.

Sure it can go whatever which way in practice, but I expect more small parties and independant roamers instead of less.

i HOPE thats the case. Im just worried this will somehow make blobbing and zerging an even better alternative to roaming, which is already not very useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shirlias.8104 said:Hold on a second.Is it a joke or you WvW team are really considering the Roleplayers when you talk about wvw modifies?

What I am trying to say is that it shouldn't be a problem to begin with.

It's not about the wvw, it's about the role servers currently play with landing RPers on the same world in (mostly) PvE maps. Currently servers are a primary factor in picking which instance of a given map you load into in PvE, and RPers want to load into the same world if possible for obvious reasons. NA RPers to now have generally chosen TC for that purpose.

Removing servers has an effect on them that has nothing to do with wvw but instead with how they are assigned to maps in PvE. Without a server to group them into the same map, the question becomes what will be used to replace that function. That's what the devs have to figure out before this can go live for wvw, even though it has very little to do with wvw itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man this change can't come soon enough, all the servers really need to die and give birth to new worlds, even if they're only 8 weeks at a time. The tier matchups are absolute messes, tier 1 has one server dominating whenever they feel like it on all 4 maps, the other server is afraid to take on that server and just ktrains the weak desert borderland all week while trying not stepping on their big brother toes. Tier 2 is a mismatch of tier 2 and 3 servers every single week, tier 3 is really the same as tier 4 just a matter of who decided to ppt train more that week. Heavy siege usage up and down the tiers now, walk up to t3 keep and you'll just 3-5 trebs and acs firing on as soon as you get there, zergs hiding in t3 structures for points don't want to give up kdr, broken one shot builds in roaming, combat still loaded with red circles and super tanks, I honestly don't know how people are getting any joy in this game mode anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

Q. What is beneficial in this system to roamers?

Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world.If you want to guarantee playing with other roamers that you are friends with, then you can make a guild. If you do not want to do that, then there should still be plenty of roamers on the new worlds.I’ve seen some roamers worried about this system, and I’d be interested in hearing what in this system could change to make it better for roamers in their opinions. If you could mark your account as a WvW roamer account, and the system guaranteed a percentage of roamers on each world, would that feel better? Or is there anything else we could do besides use a different system. We would love to hear other ideas, and even though we haven’t been able to respond to everything we have been reading it all and taking notes.

I Just posted A Cure for this here: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/34417/raymond-lukes-6305-the-cure-for-roaming-those-alike/p1?new=1 going into great detail for You @Raymond Lukes.6305

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • 1 year later...

Question: Instead of play-hours, why not determine server populations using pips?

Surely a significant number of PvE players contribute to a server's WvW play-hours by merely completing WvW dailies. What has such a player contributed to a server's WvW strength when all they've done is wait 10 minutes to kill a veteran warg? By counting pips intead of play-hours such PvE players would add much less to the population tally.

Furthermore, player experience would finally matter because veteran players gain pips faster than novices. A server full of novices would therefore have a higher population threshold than a server full of vets. Wasn't this one of the goals that ArenaNet hoped to achieve with alliances?

Similarly, commanders also earn pips faster, so a server with fewer commanders would naturally have a higher population threshold.

Bottom line: Who needs alliances when a mechanism already exists that could achieve many of the same benefits? ArenaNet merely needs to set server population thresholds using pips instead of play-hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...