Jump to content
  • Sign Up

World Restructuring


Gaile Gray.6029

Recommended Posts

@"subversiontwo.7501" said:Sometimes I struggle really hard to understand what Diku says.

It's like he communicates through poems :3 .


Haiku Syllables Count - 5/7/5

Life is subjectiveSenses are deep or shallowMeaning can be found

It's odd to say thisWe struggle to pick the hardThe fix is simple

WvW Haiku :)https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/5m7950/newgamemodewvgworldvsglobes


You took the red pill, you stay in Wonderland and I'm showing you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Remember, all I’m offering is the truth, nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Diku.2546 said:

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:
A message from McKenna Berdrow:
We will continue with World Linking until World Restructuring is ready to ship.

2.5 years later.

Hate to tell you this, but Gaile & McKenna had to "ironically" abandon ship due to a Company Restructuring.

I pray they've found a better path in life.

Our WvW community here has
somewhat
recovered...but it's still missing the heart & soul feel that they gave us.

I knew this. It's still 2.5 years later. They are (supposed to be) a business. Enough said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DeLys.5380 said:

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:
A message from McKenna Berdrow:
We will continue with World Linking until World Restructuring is ready to ship.

2.5 years later.

Hate to tell you this, but Gaile & McKenna had to "ironically" abandon ship due to a Company Restructuring.

I pray they've found a better path in life.

Our WvW community here has
somewhat
recovered...but it's still missing the heart & soul feel that they gave us.

I knew this. It's still 2.5 years later. They are (supposed to be) a business. Enough said?

It seems that you & I have both been loyal fans of WvW for a very long time...so you're correct...enough was said in your statement.

Your comment provided the grilled steak & my comment was there to give it the umami.

Still hanging in there as a die hard fan of WvW & hope this game mode will get the recognition it deserves & allow ANet to prosper.

My reply was meant for the newer WvW players...who might not be able to appreciate the irony.


TLDR version

Gaile - Original Author of threadMcKenna - WvW Developer

Gaile quotes - McKenna's announcement - We will continue with World Linking until World Restructuring is ready to ship

2.5 years later.

Gaile & McKenna had to "ironically" abandon ship (not continue) due to a Company Restructuring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current model is dangerously close to pay to win. I can easily pay money to transfer to the winning server each relink. And many do, because people don't like losing or being farmed, and are happy to get a quick fix and be on a winning team. A philosophy/model I thought Anet was against. Seems when the $$ starts flowing their principles take a back seat :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"KiteCrossx.3790" said:The current model is dangerously close to pay to win. I can easily pay money to transfer to the winning server each relink. And many do, because people don't like losing or being farmed, and are happy to get a quick fix and be on a winning team. A philosophy/model I thought Anet was against. Seems when the $$ starts flowing their principles take a back seat :angry:

I don't think it's that people can't stand losing and want to be on a winning team necessarily. I think it's that they want to have a fighting chance. What currently makes their re-linking system so stupid is that they do re-links based on their "server population" algorithms, then a week later, guilds move around and you have a few servers left with hardly any population, or population stacked in one or two time zones up against two servers who are stacked with huge amounts of population, or evenly distributed ones. You can see this by just watching the servers that move between High, Very High, and Full on a nearly weekly basis.

At this point, I'm not sure why Anet even bothers wasting time re-linking the servers at all. It's just really stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bump this thread with a rehash of something noted in another recent thread (or I guess, I've been saying some version of it for years):

The saddest part about the state of the WvW population systems is that if ArenaNet had not been sleeping on the job (or reinventing the wheel) they could have solved everything by just adding a proper GvG Arena and a scoring system based on live and tuned "outnumbered" status.

  • That would have stopped the GvG guilds from transfering just to match up against each other
  • That would have made equal-number scenarios determine the matchups on the ladder (fight guilds / server ID socials)
  • That would have made stacking any timezone for sense of winning or rewards pointless (anons)

It really is that simple. It really has been that simple all along.

  • Thus they could have introduced more result-based per server rewards (everyone)
  • It inherently encourages the population to spread out even if that doesn't slate out stacks overnight (regardless of scale or time)
  • It even allows people to still stack a language or timezone or a full server to get their personal time-spent rewards without affecting the ladder
  • It could even potentially encourage roaming in off-hours or off-maps by letting them contribute equal score or score when other maps wouldn't

and

  • It could be used as a platform to launch other systems, like doing away with the queue system, through overflow copies that lets you start pips etc.
  • It could let you do away with the border/home advantage style maps and only make balanced/mirror style maps prone to better facilitate content
  • It could let you rework the existing EotM and/or OS maps to lobby maps with the existing side-join tech to house things rather than be things
  • EotM today is intended as an overflow but never was because it doesn't facilitate transitions or balanced rewards - map copies would do that better
  • OS today is an FFA arena, GH is a GvG arena with PvE physics, EotM houses an FFA arena etc., so the ideas are all there, but none of them are GvG arenas. Armistice bastion also proves that combinated tech exists but that map is just a big fook you to us players in good old neglect-WvW style. Want some of what the others get for free? Well, you have to pay because you are WvW. Honestly, no single thing in this game makes me fume as much as AB, because I can not fathom how anybody could be so stupid as to actually build a proof of concept only to dangle it and not deliver. What kind of company spends time and resources to prove to their customers that they can give them what they want, only to not give it to them? It's pretty much the same thing with Strongholds etc. It proves that they can but will not. It throws any form of complexity-defense out the window.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly this one feels like:

  • Problem is accepted as an issue
  • Expansion was discussed internally
  • Issue was acknowledged since it could be part of an expansion
  • Expansion idea was cancelled
  • Communication stops
  • Living World was pushed hoping to be a replacement to expansion, didn't work
  • Numbers and income falling
  • Expansion idea re-opened
  • Alliances once again planned to be part of expansion selling point but free change for all
  • Alliances will release in 2 years with expansion release

I admit I side with the group that likes server pride and view the alliances as killing that. But not a fan of community engagement and then community dis-engagement when something is shelved, just say its shelved and move on. Since I do see it as much much more complex then sPvP match making I have made the argument that data has been being collected and numbers tested during server relinks. But again if that was true, come out and say that. Silence just lends weight to arguments that its shelved. That said wasn't asking for the linking system but have gotten to play with some people I did not before and it was fun and I look forward to potentially playing with again. The key is can the alliance system track enough attributes to actually create reasonable matchups, and is it even in works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TheGrimm.5624 said:I admit I side with the group that likes server pride and view the alliances as killing that. But not a fan of community engagement and then community dis-engagement when something is shelved, just say its shelved and move on./.../The key is can the alliance system track enough attributes to actually create reasonable matchups, and is it even in works.The problem with that viewpoint is that it has never been the players with server-identity who has created the things that the server is proud about. It has almost exclusively been players with guild-identities who have created content that the server is proud about and then shared it with the server.

I am not saying that having some sort of server pride is a bad thing. I believe that the vast majority of players have it to some degree. The guilds are apart of the servers too. It is just bad not to aknowledge the processes leading to the result. There is no mutual exclusivity in guild-identity and server-identity, there is just a priority. Like I said in my previous post above, had this been aknowledged earlier we may not have needed something as drastic as Alliances to solve problems that were rising.

Considering that Ray confirmed it as still being in the works last week, we will have to assume that it is. We can debate the details of that, but the baseline is there in black and white. As far as the system itself goes, I think it is mostly a question of understanding the system and treating it for what it is at this point. It is pretty much just a system that is even more open than the linking system. The linking system shuffles some servers while Alliances will shuffle all servers. The main selling point of the system is no longer necessarily balance (the mode's player-structures have devolved past a point of the intended balance) but rather that it may open for players to rebuild over time by providing alternatives to gem/gold transfers, by opening up full entities so we can recruit both in the game and from outside the game again, etc. Those more fundamental things are now the main sales point and not the possible social- and balance results of them. Alliances made up of 1-2 fight guilds and 3-4 GvG guilds are going to wreck the battlegroup entity as much as they do server entities now. However, at least more guilds and alliances can be created to fill up the battlegroups. Even if balance won't be stellar it will at least be better.

The issues with the current system isn't necessarily that entities aren't balanced, but rather that the ladder/matchups are not representative of the balance. At least not in the minds of the vast majority of players with plenty of good arguments as to why or how problems are related to that.

The transition for server-identity players may be rough, but I'm pretty sure that once they understand the system they may form server-alliances and end up in the right place on the ladder where they get the kind of matchups and content that suits them (whereas the fully anonymous will drift, but not necessarily have any group pride at all). A player with server pride usually at least has enough identity to socially interact in that likely >500 community. Also, given battlegroups, any such server-community will now and then be hitched to a more competetive alliance and then their pride will have to be similar to that of a link server: to provide some sort of support and help pull weight.

No doubt it will create some drama and infighting but you already have that now, that is apart of the content and with an Alliance model you get more control over that meta-game since you can kick people from guilds and guilds from Alliances. That gives incentive to work on your group's social aspects too and not just its organisation or performance. That is content, even if it is meta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:I admit I side with the group that likes server pride and view the alliances as killing that. But not a fan of community engagement and then community dis-engagement when something is shelved, just say its shelved and move on./.../The key is can the alliance system track enough attributes to actually create reasonable matchups, and is it even in works.The problem with that viewpoint is that it has never been the players with server-identity who has created the things that the server is proud about. It has almost exclusively been players with guild-identities who have created content that the server is proud about and then shared it with the server.

I am not saying that having some sort of server pride is a bad thing. I believe that the vast majority of players have it to some degree.

I think mileage will vary here. You are correct in your statements but for me, I do fight for my guild but I also fight for my server. And it's less what people have built for the server and moreover we fight since its home. Therefore it translate to, if you take our stuff, that won't do. I agree more likely for others it's exactly what you said, but I wouldn't rule out us oddballs that fight because the servers been our home for so long and we see familiar peeps. And when you see a familiar peep get attacked, you engage since they also live in your home. Some servers have elaborate external community tools and some just might have a common Discord/TS3/Voice-of-Choice-Here. I do know a lot of guilds also usually run their own as well. I agree there are strengths in the Alliance system, but as always new dark clouds will find silver linings.

Side note: I missed the comment from Ray. Will have to go look for that later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TheGrimm.5624 said:I think mileage will vary here. You are correct in your statements but for me, I do fight for my guild but I also fight for my server. And it's less what people have built for the server and moreover we fight since its home. Therefore it translate to, if you take our stuff, that won't do. I agree more likely for others it's exactly what you said, but I wouldn't rule out us oddballs that fight because the servers been our home for so long and we see familiar peeps. And when you see a familiar peep get attacked, you engage since they also live in your home. Some servers have elaborate external community tools and some just might have a common Discord/TS3/Voice-of-Choice-Here. I do know a lot of guilds also usually run their own as well. I agree there are strengths in the Alliance system, but as always new dark clouds will find silver linings.Like I said, as far as I am concerned people can be however oddball they like.

The issue here is that no amount of community tools, guides or help would compensate for the 2-3 top commanders on a server picking their tent up and leaving. This is especially true in any balanced scenario (where there is coverage, presence or content on a map).

I know of no server where those players were not either born in guilds and aquired their status with the backing of a guild or are still members of a guild (that still has a guild-first identity). If people then have other guilds, do other things or helps out either directly or indirectly... awesome! Yet, it doesn't change the fact. If a single player like Bez or James decides that they want to hop server, that effect ripples through their entire server's organisation and identity. The server's conception of identity then changes. It shows just how vulnurable the system is.

If I designed a game it would be a sore mistake to overlook that and assume that other forms of organisation were equal to- or more important than that, especially if I wanted to design systems reflective of- or rooted in content, balanced content.

Whatever people then like to do or choose to do is something they can do freely, as long as they do not misjudge their own importance to where it misrepresents and negatively affects those design decisions. That mistake has been made for WvW and it is in everyone's interest that it isn't perpetuated.

Side note: I missed the comment from Ray. Will have to go look for that later.It's the video plastered all over this page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@KiteCrossx.3790 said:The current model is dangerously close to pay to win. I can easily pay money to transfer to the winning server each relink. And many do, because people don't like losing or being farmed, and are happy to get a quick fix and be on a winning team. A philosophy/model I thought Anet was against. Seems when the $$ starts flowing their principles take a back seat :angry:

Exactly. They make lot $$$ from transferring accounts IMO. why lose that opportunity with Alliance. This decision was probably made in haste and they realized how much money they will be losing thus discarded. BTW server transfer in this game more expensive than any MMO I have seen and if people still keep buying them why stop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope Arenanet give us a few NPCs arguing about WvW Alliances in the Desert Borderland, just to feed the meme...

.+ I assure you, Paco, they are coming, you just have to wait a bit longer...

.- I do not know, Manolo, I think it is time to give up. That asura was right, you should pay him and end this madness.

.+ I refuse to lose! Just a few more months...

.- Yeah, like you said past winter...

.+ Shut up, Manolo, and make me a Paella.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friends at ArenaNet!

Did you know that words have meaning?

When you have an announcement and say that you are going to talk about something in the coming months: That implies the coming months.

If it is going to take you close to a year you would use the terminology: The coming year.

If it is going to take you more than a year you would use plural and say: The coming years.

EDLH4IGXYAciY9z.jpg

Up you go thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...