World Restructuring

[Lord Filofax.1206]

Wow, I'm so glad you're planning to relieve WvW from the current, sadly very unequal system it is in now! It might finally start dragging more players into a more open and guild-friendly gamemode! Playing in a cross-server guild with high interests in finally playing WvW together, I'm reeeeally looking forward to the implementation of all this!

However, as a longtime Edge of the Mists fan, I'm a little confused in what concerns its future:How is playing on the Edge of the Mists going to look like? Will the same worlds play against each other on that map, or is it going to be completely random? Might it contribute to the main WvW system or will it be removed completely?

[Saniyah.1984]

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:

Transitioning to this system is going to be slow and we want to make this transition as smooth as possible. Once this system is ready, we plan to give everyone several weeks to form their WvW guilds and alliances. We also want to give titles related to the worlds on which players currently are playing when World Restructuring goes live. If there are other transition ideas, we would love to hear them!

uhm how could i get a title from a world i never played?? i would love to have some titles that match my characters,, but maybe i never played on that world. It would be really nice if i could still buy the titles i want from an NPC for like 50 gold it should be a little expensive because some servers may have a LOT of pride. So it would feel like they earned it!!

[McKenna Berdrow.2759]

@"Heibi.4251" said:So another question comes up. Say I enter WvW using my "WvW Guild" but during my time in WvW I switch my guild tag to one I haven't designated as my "WvW Guild". Would I suddenly get kick from WvW? Would suddenly get marked "red" to the other players? Would I be transferred to another Wvw "instance"?

You can represent whatever guild you want. A WvW Guild is only for world creation purposes.

[XenesisII.1540]

@Lord Filofax.1206 said:Wow, I'm so glad you're planning to relieve WvW from the current, sadly very unequal system it is in now! It might finally start dragging more players into a more open and guild-friendly gamemode! Playing in a cross-server guild with high interests in finally playing WvW together, I'm reeeeally looking forward to the implementation of all this!

However, as a longtime Edge of the Mists fan, I'm a little confused in what concerns its future:How is playing on the Edge of the Mists going to look like? Will the same worlds play against each other on that map, or is it going to be completely random? Might it contribute to the main WvW system or will it be removed completely?

Eotm is made up from red blue green sides of every server each week, I don't imagine anything changing there, there's still going to be red blue green sides.Your colored side is set due to your placement in matches from the 1u1d system.

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

@SnowPumpkin.1809 said:# Question: **So I am officially NA playing on EU, when we get regrouped or resorted will I be staying on EU or automatically on NA? The reason I ask is I play with my SO on EU so that would be awful :'( .

You will stay in what ever region you are currently in.

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

There has been some talk about using Blackgate as an example in the post. Blackgate has been at the top of player activity hours in WvW for a very long time in NA. BG's numbers are twice as big as the average world on NA (without world linking) and 30% larger then the average NA host world. I'm not saying Blackgate hasn't suffered losses of players and coverage but BG is still on top for activity. IT'S NOT JUST BLACKGATE though.Here are all the worlds in NA and EU ordered by size names have been omitted to protect the innocent:

[meerfunkuhtron.9725]

One thing I would propose to Anet is take this "server identity" seriously. It's the reason many people played WvW (just look at all the forum posts since your post-HoT changes on WvW), and the reason why so many left after the server merges. Look at the servers as an actual community versus just in technical terms. When you play alongside other players for several months and years, you get to learn how to do so efficiently, which is something that is needed in this gamemode. Throwing groups of players all over the place gets rid of two integral things that making playing WvW fun and efficient, which is cooperation and motivation (cooperation just from knowing each other, and motivation because you feel like you're fighting for your home... having glitzy things as prizes doesn't always motivate everyone to keep playing). You guys underestimated what community meant to the servers that you dismantled through your server links, and this most recent idea of Alliances pretty much does the same thing.

[Evolute.6239]

BG-JQ-Mag-YB-FA?

You could at least say the top 5! They're clearly the full servers :p

Cool info either way. pretty much showing/confirming what we already guessed hah

edit: oh thats NA AND EU. Jeeze. I'm guessing #2 is Piken or something then? Or is that JQ?

[shiri.4257]

@"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:There has been some talk about using Blackgate as an example in the post. Blackgate has been at the top of player activity hours in WvW for a very long time in NA. BG's numbers are twice as big as the average world on NA (without world linking) and 30% larger then the average NA host world. I'm not saying Blackgate hasn't suffered losses of players and coverage but BG is still on top for activity. IT'S NOT JUST BLACKGATE though.Here are all the worlds in NA and EU ordered by size names have been omitted to protect the innocent:

GLORIOUS GIVE THIS GUY A RAISE!! This dude posts this up and clocks out of anet to go home! LET THE PLEBS QQ!! 11/10 anet

[Xernth.8561]

That's a really great chart. Thanks for posting it

[Roxanne.6140]

What have I been saying for a long time?! Fights don't lie.

[MadBomber.3719]

@"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:There has been some talk about using Blackgate as an example in the post. Blackgate has been at the top of player activity hours in WvW for a very long time in NA. BG's numbers are twice as big as the average world on NA (without world linking) and 30% larger then the average NA host world. I'm not saying Blackgate hasn't suffered losses of players and coverage but BG is still on top for activity. IT'S NOT JUST BLACKGATE though.Here are all the worlds in NA and EU ordered by size names have been omitted to protect the innocent:

wow BG always told me it was superior players that made them so good. this is eye opening. TWICE AS BIG WTF

[Comprissent.3856]

This is honestly so much communication i don't know what to do with myself now

but pls do this more often <3

[OtakuModeEngage.8679]

@Swanky McDanky.5214 said:I'm convinced that this will be the final nail in the coffin for WvW, give it time for the larger guilds to poach all the players from any smaller guilds looking to remain a smaller tight-knit community in order to run their 4 map queues 24/7. Every other alliance that can't post the same numbers will just have to deal with it.

Players will as they have in the past manipulate their overall score to appear lower than their actual skill in order to allow for more players to flock to their alliance based on this:

I dont think that will be an issue. There are already alliances, guilds, and solo players on each server. No, the guilds dont have an official 'alliance UI' that links them, and exist merely as promises made between guild leaders and officers, but they DO exist. The significant difference is that this system allows the game to make sure there is dedicated coverage on all worlds at all times and that each world has a balance of alliances, guilds, and solo players, as apposed to how it is now, with some words having 100% coverage and others only 25% coverage, some worlds have many alliances and some few, some have strong alliances and guilds and others having very few. If done right this system insures each world has a good balance of large and small, strong and weak alliances; large and small, weak and strong guilds, casual and hardcore solo players, and 24h active coverage. So basically, it takes the mess that ALREADY exist and sorts it so that each world is a balanced rival capable of taking the top spot. Will this system be perfect? No. But it is the best plan theyve had for WVW since the game was released in 2012.

[Chaba.5410]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:BG's numbers are twice as big as the average world on NA (without world linking) and 30% larger then the average NA host world.

Thank you for posting this!

BEASTGATE!

[McKenna Berdrow.2759]

@"EbonFreeman.4051" said:Dear Anet, I love this and I'm sorry to drown you in questions.

When will this be implemented (approx. quarter)?

Can't give an exact date yet, but it will take several months We wanted to start the dialogue early so we could hear feedback and work to improve the design where possible.

Without saying too much about the algorithm, is alliance linked mainly limited by PPT skill, K/D skill, rank, (WvW) activity, or running coverage?

The algorithm is still being created and tested. Play hours will most likely end up being the biggest consideration for creating the new worlds, along with commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels.

Will/can we get the information about the alliance via the API?

We plan on updating the API so that it can recognize the new worlds created with World Restructuring.

Can we get match awards for match wins like PvP with guilds? Guild with the most kills, most defensive/offensive points, most healing/revives?

We want to release the system and make sure it meets all of our goals before adding/tweaking WvW rewards.

If a player changes their alliance server or main WvW guild, when or how long before it becomes active?

It will become "active" when the next season starts. So if you change your WvW guild in the middle of season 1, you wont be sorted onto the same world as them until season 2.

When changed, does it still carry the stigma of no pips for a week?

This is something that still needs to be discussed. So I don't have an answer for this yet.

When a player is in WvW, are they required to rep their main WvW guild?

No. You can rep whatever guild you want. The WvW guild is just there for world sorting and forming alliances.

In PvP, I have a tendency not to get linked with people I've blocked? Will the relinking be affect that? Or can we get a guild block list?

We will look into this, but world restructuring will probably not consider the block list. It becomes too difficult to create massive worlds if it has to consider block lists when creating them.

[SugarCayne.3098]

@"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:There has been some talk about using Blackgate as an example in the post. Blackgate has been at the top of player activity hours in WvW for a very long time in NA. BG's numbers are twice as big as the average world on NA (without world linking) and 30% larger then the average NA host world. I'm not saying Blackgate hasn't suffered losses of players and coverage but BG is still on top for activity. IT'S NOT JUST BLACKGATE though.Here are all the worlds in NA and EU ordered by size names have been omitted to protect the innocent:

Stop punishing EU for NA’s problems.

[Rampage.7145]

@McKenna Berdrow.2759 I think 8 weeks is way too much, it should be 2, 4 weeks tops i think so if you get a bad match up at least you are not stuck with it for 2 months, that will definitely make players quit in the long run. If you ask me i'd say match ups should be 24h only tbh get different people to fight everyday, that would keep the game fresh

[Drinks.2361]

@SugarCayne.3098 said:Stop punishing EU for NA’s problems.

^ best post in this thread so far

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

@Rampage.7145 said:@McKenna Berdrow.2759 I think 8 weeks is way too much, it should be 2, 4 weeks tops i think so if you get a bad match up at least you are not stuck with it for 2 months, that will definitely make players quit in the long run. If you ask me i'd say match ups should be 24h only tbh get different people to fight everyday, that would keep the game fresh

Transfer off. Just the same as current links.

[McKenna Berdrow.2759]

@Draeyon.4392 said:Question: How will inactive players becoming active again affect alliances. E.g. An alliance is close to the max capacity and a few inactive guildies return, mark their guild as their WvW guild and put the alliance over the population cap.

Obviously a situation that will not affect a whole lot of people but information to work with when setting these things up is always appreciated.

If the alliance is capped no more players can join. It would be up to the guild on how they want to handle having those guildies play with them. Leaving the alliance and creating a new one, is what I expect most guilds would try and do. They could also leave the alliance and decide to just be sorted as a guild in the next season.

[Thea Cherry.6327]

@Drinks.2361 said:

@SugarCayne.3098 said:Stop punishing EU for NA’s problems.

^ best post in this thread so far

Yeah, complain in the EU forums which are not moderated at all. xD

But yeah, it seems like the major problem of the NA Servers is the reason why everyone on the EU servers is getting punished.

[Comprissent.3856]

@Thea Cherry.6327 said:

@Drinks.2361 said:

@SugarCayne.3098 said:Stop punishing EU for NA’s problems.

^ best post in this thread so far

Yeah, complain in the EU forums which are not moderated at all. xD

But yeah, it seems like the major problem of the NA Servers is the reason why everyone on the EU servers is getting punished.

This is not a punishment, this is just a fallacious argument you're making

[shiri.4257]

@Thea Cherry.6327 said:

@Drinks.2361 said:

@SugarCayne.3098 said:Stop punishing EU for NA’s problems.

^ best post in this thread so far

Yeah, complain in the EU forums which are not moderated at all. xD

But yeah, it seems like the major problem of the NA Servers is the reason why everyone on the EU servers is getting punished.

we are not punishing you. we're just assimilating you.

[Evolute.6239]

@Thea Cherry.6327 said:

@Drinks.2361 said:

@SugarCayne.3098 said:Stop punishing EU for NA’s problems.

^ best post in this thread so far

Yeah, complain in the EU forums which are not moderated at all. xD

But yeah, it seems like the major problem of the NA Servers is the reason why everyone on the EU servers is getting punished.

The problem is very obvious on the NA servers, but it's not like this could not become an issue for EU servers. It was just a month ago Kodash had to blackout/NOT play in order to do anything, and Desolation was rotting in T4/5 until their recent link which they shot up to T1.

It's just more common in NA because T1 is a dead tier where virtually nothing can compete with Blackgate.