World Restructuring

[Klipso.8653]

@Mr Green.4157 said:

@Klipso.8653 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Klipso.8653 said:

@"Zephyr.8015" said:Quite honestly I am upset, especially because you name Blackgate as a problem server when its not. It is not BG's problem that servers don't want to participate in WvW, it is also not our problem that other servers aren't putting in time and effort into WvW in comparison to others. Looking at this site:

https://wvwstats.com/timezones

BG does not have the WvW population people think it does. I am so kitten glad to hear that anet has listened to the massive amount of haters of BG that carry around giant amounts of salt from Season 1 and 2. Because its BG's fault they don't put in effort, its BG's fault they get rolled over, its BG's fault that they don't play the game type as well. Anyone on SoS can tell you they have been doing well these past two weeks against us, by putting in effort and playing the game type. All this alliance thing will do is require more guild politics/map politics and cause drama. I am sure BG isn't alone in the fact that we have members of guilds who are in multiple WvW guilds, forcing them to choose 1 guild for an 8 week period or just in general to WvW with isn't cool. But I guess that's an exclusive issue on closed servers having to recruit from a limited pool of players, while other servers can recruit a lot more. This boils down to effort, the fact that you'd rather break apart servers who do WvW well to make it fair to those who don't want to put in effort.

This is a hard fact that will be ignored by the ignorant

It is also a hard fact that battlegroups was an idea first hinted at before server links and before T1 was as it is today, meaning that this announcement has nothing to do with today's BG.

Yet anet felt the need to point us out by name, even though we aren't the problem? They're just feeding into the propaganda built on pillars of salt

Your server alone is winning against four other servers. Any other server matched up against you without a link would lose, most likely without winning a skirmish. How is that not stacked?

Open the link, we are not even close to the top population. All we have are dedicated players that stay logged in for extended periods of time.

[wey daw ming.5784]

Didnt see if this was asked but say I chose my guild I plan to run with I also have 4 other guilds that I am in. Will I need to chose a wvw alliance with all my other guilds to rep them? Will I be able to rep any of the other guilds while I am in this alliance?

[Maryth.9372]

When making a determination on alliance caps it will have to be number of players instead of number of guilds. In addition, a guild that is claimed as WvW will need a counter included on their guild panel to identify how many people have opted to elect that guild for that season. Also, I'll need to see an indicator in the guild roster which members have opted my guild as primary for that season.

Here is why: Let's say I have a 480 member guild that is a multi server guild. I will be claiming the guild to be a WvW guild because there are a core number of players in the guild (from a time before we became a multi- server guild) that run in WvW for about 2 hours every night. Other members of the guild have other WvW guilds from other historic servers that they will call primary. I am certain of it. When I ally my guild I should only be allying the number of players that have selected the guild as primary for that season.It would be completely screwed up to identify all 480 members as alliance numbers when 1/3 of are inactive and have no selected wvw guild for the season and another 1/3 of have wvw guilds selected other than this main guild. The other thing that will need to be considered are the inactives. If an inactive member of the guild has claimed my guild as their primary WvW guild and that does never need to be checked again for future seasons. When they are inactive in the second season they are still counting as a number in my count toward numbers in the alliance. I shouldn't have to kick a guild member to avoid messing up the alliance number due to inactives. Life happens. We'll need some kind of a function that deselects a WvW guild option if there is inactivity say in the last week of the season, so it doesn't stay auto selected forever. They can recheck a guild when they return even if it is midseason.

[henchmen.1856]

as long as you prevent blackgate from happening every 8 weeks, im good with this.

[Chaba.5410]

@"Zephyr.8015" said:SoS is putting in work, SoS is putting in the time and the effort and I applaud them for doing it.

It seems like you didn't understand the meat of the example in the dev's post. SoS is only "putting in work" because they have a link that helps them achieve that: Borlis Pass. The dev said it is difficult for them to create teams that have the coverage profile of BG because the world linking system is not granular enough. So for example CD has the population but not the coverage. Anet was able to seemingly do it with the SoS and BP link, but their real goal is to be able to do that for all teams. The proposed system would create the granularity needed to achieve that goal.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

Finally. Thank you Arena Net

[Mr Green.4157]

@Klipso.8653 said:

@Mr Green.4157 said:

@Klipso.8653 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Klipso.8653 said:

@"Zephyr.8015" said:Quite honestly I am upset, especially because you name Blackgate as a problem server when its not. It is not BG's problem that servers don't want to participate in WvW, it is also not our problem that other servers aren't putting in time and effort into WvW in comparison to others. Looking at this site:

https://wvwstats.com/timezones

BG does not have the WvW population people think it does. I am so kitten glad to hear that anet has listened to the massive amount of haters of BG that carry around giant amounts of salt from Season 1 and 2. Because its BG's fault they don't put in effort, its BG's fault they get rolled over, its BG's fault that they don't play the game type as well. Anyone on SoS can tell you they have been doing well these past two weeks against us, by putting in effort and playing the game type. All this alliance thing will do is require more guild politics/map politics and cause drama. I am sure BG isn't alone in the fact that we have members of guilds who are in multiple WvW guilds, forcing them to choose 1 guild for an 8 week period or just in general to WvW with isn't cool. But I guess that's an exclusive issue on closed servers having to recruit from a limited pool of players, while other servers can recruit a lot more. This boils down to effort, the fact that you'd rather break apart servers who do WvW well to make it fair to those who don't want to put in effort.

This is a hard fact that will be ignored by the ignorant

It is also a hard fact that battlegroups was an idea first hinted at before server links and before T1 was as it is today, meaning that this announcement has nothing to do with today's BG.

Yet anet felt the need to point us out by name, even though we aren't the problem? They're just feeding into the propaganda built on pillars of salt

Your server alone is winning against four other servers. Any other server matched up against you without a link would lose, most likely without winning a skirmish. How is that not stacked?

Open the link, we are not even close to the top population. All we have are dedicated players that stay logged in for extended periods of time.

Open this link https://wvwstats.com/grapher?server=Henge%20of%20Denravi&data=keeps This is the current t4 matchup. There are points throughout each day where one serve will own 7 or 8 keeps. This is what population imbalance looks like and this is why Blackgate is considered a stacked server. Blackgate has enough coverage on it's own that through every time zones it never experience this. Look through the other graphs you'll see the same thing whenever there is a population imbalance. Yet your server without links doesn't experience this. You are stacked because you have enough people in every time zone to always take advantage of your opponents down time not because you have the highest population in any one time zone.

[OmskCamill.6412]

I am surprised in a very positive way. Looking forward to seeing the result!

[morrolan.9608]

@Klipso.8653 said:

@Mr Green.4157 said:

@Klipso.8653 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Klipso.8653 said:

@"Zephyr.8015" said:Quite honestly I am upset, especially because you name Blackgate as a problem server when its not. It is not BG's problem that servers don't want to participate in WvW, it is also not our problem that other servers aren't putting in time and effort into WvW in comparison to others. Looking at this site:

https://wvwstats.com/timezones

BG does not have the WvW population people think it does. I am so kitten glad to hear that anet has listened to the massive amount of haters of BG that carry around giant amounts of salt from Season 1 and 2. Because its BG's fault they don't put in effort, its BG's fault they get rolled over, its BG's fault that they don't play the game type as well. Anyone on SoS can tell you they have been doing well these past two weeks against us, by putting in effort and playing the game type. All this alliance thing will do is require more guild politics/map politics and cause drama. I am sure BG isn't alone in the fact that we have members of guilds who are in multiple WvW guilds, forcing them to choose 1 guild for an 8 week period or just in general to WvW with isn't cool. But I guess that's an exclusive issue on closed servers having to recruit from a limited pool of players, while other servers can recruit a lot more. This boils down to effort, the fact that you'd rather break apart servers who do WvW well to make it fair to those who don't want to put in effort.

This is a hard fact that will be ignored by the ignorant

It is also a hard fact that battlegroups was an idea first hinted at before server links and before T1 was as it is today, meaning that this announcement has nothing to do with today's BG.

Yet anet felt the need to point us out by name, even though we aren't the problem? They're just feeding into the propaganda built on pillars of salt

Your server alone is winning against four other servers. Any other server matched up against you without a link would lose, most likely without winning a skirmish. How is that not stacked?

Open the link, we are not even close to the top population. All we have are dedicated players that stay logged in for extended periods of time.

Cite proof of not being close to the top population.

@X T D.6458 said:

How long do you think it will take before it turns into a EoTM style ktrain, because you took away any meaning to matches

Matches have no meaning now. In fact once this new system is bedded down maybe they will be able to reintroduce tournaments and give matches more meaning.

[Rampage.7145]

@FlOwMaKeRs.8623 said:My second time asking this, I want an answer.

Is there any hope to have a new remodeling to the EBG map? like new terrain, textures, etc... is kinda old and ugly the graphics there.

quite honestly this is totally secondary, they need to get the gameplay right before touching any aesthetics. Once WvW is fun again and bringing back 30k players sure yeah change the textures if you want.

[Fuyunet.8497]

Me no want to play the current wvw anymore! New system please. D:Remove t3 gates and walls in the process too, k thx bai.

[Mini Crinny.6190]

Some people are afraid of change. Can’t wait for this system to be put live :)

[SwagDAD.4356]

When will this get implemented? Because tomorrow sounds good to me!

[matty.1052]

As someone who has been on the same world since launch (For the Toast!), this is sad news. I'm a fairly casual player without a WvW guild and am not sure a guild would take me on, especially if numbers are limited. I'll miss seeing all the familiar faces and sharing all the in-jokes from years past.

That said, I can see that this change is needed. My friends on smaller linked worlds have been watching their communities die for years and I know even bigger worlds have been having troubles with people and guilds drifting away. A good shake up might be what we need.

I do think it would be a good idea to allow another guild slot; many people are already at max guilds, and if they need to join one specifically for WvW they'll have to leave one of their other ones, which really isn't fair.

[Zephyr.8015]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Zephyr.8015" said:SoS is putting in work, SoS is putting in the time and the effort and I applaud them for doing it.

It seems like you didn't understand the meat of the example in the dev's post. SoS is only "putting in work" because they have a link that helps them achieve that: Borlis Pass. The dev said it is difficult for them to create teams that have the coverage profile of BG because the world linking system is not granular enough. So for example CD has the population but not the coverage. Anet was able to seemingly do it with the SoS and BP link, but their real goal is to be able to do that for all teams. The proposed system would create the granularity needed to achieve that goal.

So TBT, Gal, TSYM, Rx, Doc, Caos are all on BP? The only two guilds I know on BP are Joy and CL both of which are former BG guilds.

[Captainus.8710]

Extremely excited for these changes!!! This system seems to have a LOT more mechanisms to balance population. While you currently cannot force someone to transfer to a low-pop server, the new system seems to allow ANET to produce approximately equally-sized worlds at the start of each season. Also, it will be interesting to see how guild rosters stabilize after members are forced to select just one of their guilds (unless all their guilds happen to be on the same alliance).

[Novahh.7426]

Im excited to 1 push you all.

[nekuxdesu.4796]

@X T D.6458 said:Btw nice job anet listening to the elitist crowd so they can have their own private playground.

I am curious how do you think you can achieve any semblance of population balance, when a bunch of guilds that play in one timezone can stack a new server each time, capping the population, keeping out anyone not in the guild, and not having anyone from different timezones to fill in the coverage gaps?

How long do you think it will take before server A starts complaining wvw is dead because server B doesn't have anyone on at the same time?

How long do you think it will take before it turns into a EoTM style ktrain, because you took away any meaning to matches since everything will just reset every other month, therefore you are only playing for personal rewards...hmmm does scouting, defending, roaming, small team play give more rewards or blobbing up and ktraining?

Oh and I really love the part about ''evaluation''. Forget about being able to jump into wvw anytime you want, the game will now judge you based on how long and how much you play!

Everything already resets every week. Your server doesn't matter.

[darwinslittlehelper.7182]

This great change will get me and many others to actually play WvW much more often. I know people on several servers who want to play together, and now will be able to,just with being part of a guild. New players will not be stuck guessing which server is for them. Any new friends you make can possibly just join guilds to be able to play together. ArenaNet will have their work cut out for them, to make the system as fair as possible. I only hope this will help, even in a small way, to help them rout out the toxic activities of some few.Looking forward to the launch!

[Chaba.5410]

@"morrolan.9608" said:Matches have no meaning now. In fact once this new system is bedded down maybe they will be able to reintroduce tournaments and give matches more meaning.

Definitely. Instead of "tournaments" we will have 8-week "seasons" which should function basically the same way. I think there should be at least one week down-time between seasons though.

[Rampage.7145]

Can you just release this path on feb 6 please, thanks you arenanet!

[Chaba.5410]

@Zephyr.8015 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Zephyr.8015 said:SoS is putting in work, SoS is putting in the time and the effort and I applaud them for doing it.

It seems like you didn't understand the meat of the example in the dev's post. SoS is only "putting in work" because they have a link that helps them achieve that: Borlis Pass. The dev said it is difficult for them to create teams that have the coverage profile of BG because the world linking system is not granular enough. So for example CD has the population but not the coverage. Anet was able to seemingly do it with the SoS and BP link, but their real goal is to be able to do that for all teams. The proposed system would create the granularity needed to achieve that goal.

So TBT, Gal, TSYM, Rx, Doc, Caos are all on BP? The only two guilds I know on BP are Joy and CL both of which are former BG guilds.

Talking about population and coverage here, not guilds! You have to look at the entire forest, not just specific trees.

[Concordia Discors.7592]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Ermm....

As far as they described, the system will only recognize the players that specifically chose WvW guild as WvWers. So, choosing WvW guild is optional. However, what if people choose WvW guild for the sake of choosing it? Would it consider them as active players just like that or base on historical activities?

I think I get you. Thanks!. We still have to declare ourselves as a WvW guild and I'd still like to know what repurcussions that has.

Your other point echoes one of my other concerns -

So, in our PvX guild - 150+ online daily and we often hit 500 cap. We want to WvW under our guild tag, and would like the option of joining an alliance if WvW is definitely going as mentioned in the original post. If some of our guildies do as you say (pick WvW guild because its their main guild) then we can't join an alliance. We've guildies in WvW every day, some just weekends, and some log in every couple of weeks. That wouldn't be fair on a WvW alliance, but if we join an alliance with guilds like ours we may as well just not join one.

This is why determining just the current WvW activity of a guild alone would be great, IMO, and not using just guild numbers alone, or even the number of people who selected WvW Guild. Inactivity creep is a thing.

GW1 alliances were horrific (I managed one) and if this is anything like that... I won't be looking forward to it.

Edit: clarification

[Zephyr.8015]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Zephyr.8015 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Zephyr.8015 said:SoS is putting in work, SoS is putting in the time and the effort and I applaud them for doing it.

It seems like you didn't understand the meat of the example in the dev's post. SoS is only "putting in work" because they have a link that helps them achieve that: Borlis Pass. The dev said it is difficult for them to create teams that have the coverage profile of BG because the world linking system is not granular enough. So for example CD has the population but not the coverage. Anet was able to seemingly do it with the SoS and BP link, but their real goal is to be able to do that for all teams. The proposed system would create the granularity needed to achieve that goal.

So TBT, Gal, TSYM, Rx, Doc, Caos are all on BP? The only two guilds I know on BP are Joy and CL both of which are former BG guilds.

Talking about population and coverage here, not guilds! You have to look at the entire forest, not just specific trees.

Yes and you've had 50 man blobs at 4am EST, while BG is dead. Continue talking about coverage please.

[Chaba.5410]

@Zephyr.8015 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Zephyr.8015 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Zephyr.8015 said:SoS is putting in work, SoS is putting in the time and the effort and I applaud them for doing it.

It seems like you didn't understand the meat of the example in the dev's post. SoS is only "putting in work" because they have a link that helps them achieve that: Borlis Pass. The dev said it is difficult for them to create teams that have the coverage profile of BG because the world linking system is not granular enough. So for example CD has the population but not the coverage. Anet was able to seemingly do it with the SoS and BP link, but their real goal is to be able to do that for all teams. The proposed system would create the granularity needed to achieve that goal.

So TBT, Gal, TSYM, Rx, Doc, Caos are all on BP? The only two guilds I know on BP are Joy and CL both of which are former BG guilds.

Talking about population and coverage here, not guilds! You have to look at the entire forest, not just specific trees.

Yes and you've had 50 man blobs at 4am EST, while BG is dead. Continue talking about coverage please.

I don't need to. The statistics of world populations and relinkings and results of matches every week are proof enough.