World Restructuring

[Strider Pj.2193]

@"Mechanix.9315" said:

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"FrizzFreston.5290" said:There's still the question as to why a guild would need a switch to be set as WvWguild or activate the possibility to be repped for WvW.This puts the option of how the guild works into the hands of the people managing the guild. This also could be used for future features where a guild needs to be identified as a WvW guild. I'll add this to the list of things to discuss and think about though.

Imo if a player set the guild for WvW seems logic that the player have to rep the same guild, i mean we are leaving behind the "server pride" and you should enforce the idea of "guild pride", repping should be something more important, and maybe some kind of stuff like "if you rep your wvw guild you get extra wxp" or something like that. Idk you should promote the idea of repping the main guild while in WvW.

That incentive will come from the guild. And don't doubt there will be some that enforce trapping requirements.

Shouldn't be something that comes from an outside source.

[Rod.6581]

I really do not understand and I am not trying to be offensive here.

I see lot of players who say they do not like to group up with other people and want to play solo while staying with same people they don't group up with or want to play with. Not to mention people who have barely read any comment apart from first one and just post out of the blue something that was already talked about many times.

Why do you want so bad to ruin this chance for us who want to play with friends and want to join alliances and play with people. We have been waiting for this for years now.Game's genre is MMORPG. Game's name is Guild Wars 2. RvR is a big reason many people play this game (or have played until disappointed how little effort is put in this game mode).

And for those saying they want to play how they like, well so do we. Same as you, we've bought this game, payed for core and both expansions. Still somehow it feels like you think you deserve more than us?

Most of people here cries: "This will ruin the game. This will destroy our community. We are doomed." Well, give some thoughtful idea how to fix what you think this will break.

[Deli.1302]

Regarding languages and national servers on EU, instead of using players text language or having them set a language for themselves, why not just base it on what server they are on before the restructuring?

If a player is on a german server, they'll be on a german server after restructuring. If they're on an international one before, they'll remain on an international one after.

Wouldn't this be much simpler?

[Absuuurrd.1850]

If the devs are looking for more metrics to measure player skill, look at rank by time played, a high rank with low playtime can be perceived as "skilled" where a long playtime with low rank can be perceived as "low skill".

Granted this doesn't factor in aspects like a bad server composition where this "low skilled" player probably ran solo often against a zerg. But it could give a good indication of a players skill, just not a complete representation of their skill.

Another thing to look at is pips/tiers earned to the passive WXP earned by playing. If this is factored out you can then tell a player's "true rank". Which is an alternative to the above.

Both metrics offer a valuable bit of information with an acceptable margin of assumption, as long as the negatives are known such as the previously stated.

[b k.1648]

@"Rod.6581" said:Most of people here cries: "This will ruin the game. This will destroy our community. We are doomed." Well, give some thoughtful idea how to fix what you think this will break.

Actually, most of the people here are saying the opposite. The only dissenters are those who haven't understood the proposed changes, want to maintain communities far larger than the alliance system will support, or have a love/hate relationship with other people ("I want to play with these people but I refuse to join a guild or alliance of any kind with them"... which sounds like more of a 'you' problem).

[Chaba.5410]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@Zephyr.8015 said:

@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:

So you're are saying that BG has the most WvW hours played, you are not saying that BG has the most players. Played hours does NOT equal population. It is unfair to say that in general. Like tonight we have scouts, commanders, and players in general that spend hours or most of their day in WvW. BG players have stated numerous times that we have dedicated players and guilds who care about our standing in WvW. I'd love to see a statistic for average played hours per person/per server in WvW.

You are correct play hours is not the same as unique player population. We have found that it more accurately represents the ability of a world to "hold it's own" in WvW. That being said your position on that chart does not change compared to the other NA servers if we use unique player population.

When average play hours on BG are 30% higher than the average play hours of host worlds and double the average of all worlds, yea, those play hours are going to come from having more people, not fewer people who play longer hours. A host world would go Full status long before it was able to achieve parity with BG.

Given what currently seems to constitute the line between Very High and Full, I'd anticipate that the new worlds after restructuring will roughly be the side of a current T2 linked server.

[OhHellzNo.1268]

@"Absuuurrd.1850" said:If the devs are looking for more metrics to measure player skill, look at rank by time played, a high rank with low playtime can be perceived as "skilled" where a long playtime with low rank can be perceived as "low skill".

High rank with low playtime = K-Training/PPTing. This is not skill.

[Sojourner.4621]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@glass.3245 said:

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"Tolmos.8395" said:I would like to reiterate the previous questions posed, and not yet answered, about how this will affect Roleplayers.This is something we hadn’t fully considered and we’ll start looking into possible solutions.

It would be nice if you roleplayers could enter WvW in "guest mode" and be seen as NPCs by the other players. More than once I've gone into a group full burst before noticing say chat and trying to disengage. The tone of frustration suggested that this was pretty common.This goes beyond players in WvW. World is used as one of the considerations when picking what instances of a map someone will go on. Removing the ability for the RP community to pick a single world reduces the chance for them to matched in a map instance with each other in the game at large without already being in the same guild or in a squad. We'd like to find a way to fix this if we can.

Would some kind of RP check-box or special title that when selected prioritizes MegaServer Shards be possible?

[Tolmos.8395]

@Sojourner.4621 said:

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@glass.3245 said:

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"Tolmos.8395" said:I would like to reiterate the previous questions posed, and not yet answered, about how this will affect Roleplayers.This is something we hadn’t fully considered and we’ll start looking into possible solutions.

It would be nice if you roleplayers could enter WvW in "guest mode" and be seen as NPCs by the other players. More than once I've gone into a group full burst before noticing say chat and trying to disengage. The tone of frustration suggested that this was pretty common.This goes beyond players in WvW. World is used as one of the considerations when picking what instances of a map someone will go on. Removing the ability for the RP community to pick a single world reduces the chance for them to matched in a map instance with each other in the game at large without already being in the same guild or in a squad. We'd like to find a way to fix this if we can.

Would some kind of RP check-box or special title that when selected prioritizes MegaServer Shards be possible?

I’d definitely prefer a checkbox to a title. I like my current title!

[Sojourner.4621]

@Tolmos.8395 said:

@Sojourner.4621 said:

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@glass.3245 said:

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@Tolmos.8395 said:I would like to reiterate the previous questions posed, and not yet answered, about how this will affect Roleplayers.This is something we hadn’t fully considered and we’ll start looking into possible solutions.

It would be nice if you roleplayers could enter WvW in "guest mode" and be seen as NPCs by the other players. More than once I've gone into a group full burst before noticing say chat and trying to disengage. The tone of frustration suggested that this was pretty common.This goes beyond players in WvW. World is used as one of the considerations when picking what instances of a map someone will go on. Removing the ability for the RP community to pick a single world reduces the chance for them to matched in a map instance with each other in the game at large without already being in the same guild or in a squad. We'd like to find a way to fix this if we can.

Would some kind of RP check-box or special title that when selected prioritizes MegaServer Shards be possible?

I’d definitely prefer a checkbox to a title. I like my current title!

Yeah, the title was just a suggestion that could work within current game systems, potentially... without adding something new to the Hero panels. Ideally, for me, what I'd want is the option for a checkbox that labels me as an RPer to actually come with a way to type up a short personal Profile for my character... but baby steps here. For the first time since MegaServers we might finally see some QoL we've been asking for and actually get a finally set, good way of being matched with other people who share RP interest. As a bonus to non-RPers, if the checkbox is the TOP shard sorting priority, with all others being below it... it could actually keep some non-RPers from having to see Emotes all over the place with their awful long range.

[Arricson Krei.9560]

Communities are not defined by arbitrary names of the realm where the community lies. Communities are defined by the people who occupy them. You may not be able to call yourselves "Tarnished Coast", but the people who identify with TC can band together in an alliance and continue playing with each other. Literally everything will be the same if the community of TC forms an intra-alliance (so to say). Who really gives a skritt's Ascalon about some name of a world? Dedicate your Alliance to the world you hold of so dear. People who think these proposed changes are "killing communities" need to get their head straight. Get involved with the players you want to stick around with or get out -- that's why they're giving us ample time to organize ourselves.

[Donari.5237]

@"Sojourner.4621" said:

As a bonus to non-RPers, if the checkbox is the TOP shard sorting priority, with all others being below it... it could actually keep some non-RPers from having to see Emotes all over the place with their awful long range.

I actually don't think making it top priority is the best idea. If we get this checkbox I'm checking it and leaving it on forever. But I still want to do non-RP PVE, and I feel that if I've joined a party, squad, or guild, or put someone on my friends list, then those are the people I want to default join in maps. It's a much smaller pool for me than thousands of RPers out there. If I've gone to the trouble of marking someone as being of particular relevance to me, however transitorily in the case of parties and squads, then the game should try to load me into the same maps as them. (Caveat: to prevent stalking, friend weighting should only occur for players who have friended each other).

Once my list of named people has been checked through for map joining, THEN toss me in with others who have flagged as RP. The "join in" map feature is handy but it's much better to just start out sharing the map.

[Tolmos.8395]

@Donari.5237 said:

@"Sojourner.4621" said:

As a bonus to non-RPers, if the checkbox is the TOP shard sorting priority, with all others being below it... it could actually keep some non-RPers from having to see Emotes all over the place with their awful long range.

I actually don't think making it top priority is the best idea. If we get this checkbox I'm checking it and leaving it on forever. But I still want to do non-RP PVE, and I feel that if I've joined a party, squad, or guild, or put someone on my friends list, then those are the people I want to default join in maps. It's a much smaller pool for me than thousands of RPers out there. If I've gone to the trouble of marking someone as being of particular relevance to me, however transitorily in the case of parties and squads, then the game should try to load me into the same maps as them. (Caveat: to prevent stalking, friend weighting should only occur for players who have friended each other).

Once my list of named people has been checked through for map joining, THEN toss me in with others who have flagged as RP. The "join in" map feature is handy but it's much better to just start out sharing the map.

I would imagine it would be a top priority, primarily because the logical flow for things like this is conscious decision first, followed by passive decisions next.

Checking a checkbox whose sole purpose is to change your server channel is the highest level conscious decision you can make about where to end up. After that, passive things like friends list and guild, etc etc.

If friends list overrode the checkbox, then folks would have to sanitize their friends list to make the box work. I doubt that would pass Anets QA to get released

[b k.1648]

Perhaps flagging which instance you'd prefer to join when you waypoint to a map might be better?

[Kovu.7560]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"Eramonster.2718" said:Will it still be a three sided war?Yes

Its mostly unrelated to the new alliances, but have you ever considered larger matches? 4-6 teams instead of 3? Is such a thing even possible from a programming perspective?I know a lot of things would have to be reworked and restructured (map que sizes, player team colors, map layouts) but a "battle royale" sort of matchup would really be neat. Blackgate would be unlikely to get so far ahead in a matchup if it had to contend with 4 other servers, for example.I bring this up now as such a thing might be more conceivable with the theoretically smaller alliances, rather than servers.

~ Kovu

[shiri.4257]

Did this thread just derail into a request for another game mode, called RP? or are we still discussing WvW?

[Haeteira.4735]

I'm glad to learn that ANET is exploring ways to improve the WvW experience, which is my favorite part of GW2 by far. That being said, reading this update makes me sad, as someone who has been on my server since launch and feels a lot of loyalty and pride toward my server's community. But I think I understand the issues it's trying to solve, and so am trying to remain open.

A couple thoughts -

• It's feels like people that aren't in Guilds will be left out-to-dry, which could be an issue for people who sometimes take breaks from playing and could be kicked from a Guild due to inactivity. Without the larger Server identity, it sounds like I would have to regularly start over finding people to play with and miss out on access to Commanders/Discord/Teamspeak capabilities if I am not playing regularly enough to be "valuable" in a Guild.
• I think there is a lot to be said for the long term strategy, high level of organization, and communication investment that has taken place for my server, at least. When everyone gets shuffled every 8 weeks, it makes that level of organization pretty much impossible. Of course, this organization can happen within Guilds/Alliances, but what will be available to organize the efforts and communication of ALL the Guilds/Alliances/SinglePlayers that are placed into a World each season? (ex. if there are 3 Alliances within a World, whose TeamSpeak do we use? Or do we choose to only communicate with a third of our World?) And will organizing across a World even be worth it when there is a time limit on our efforts?

It could be that I'm not fully understanding the vision ANET has for the future of WVW, so please let me know if I've misunderstood something. Again, I appreciate that ANET is interested in continuing to develop this part of the game.

[obastable.5231]

@"Absuuurrd.1850" said:If the devs are looking for more metrics to measure player skill, look at rank by time played, a high rank with low playtime can be perceived as "PPT" where a long playtime with low rank can be perceived as "PPK".

FIFY

Also, with many thousands of hours of WvW in, and under 1k rank, take it as a measure of people who played heavily before WXP or ranks were introduced, and recently came back to the game.

All in all, high rank doesn't measure skill at all. It just measures how efficiently you've k-trained and gamed a system that heavily rewards PPT play over any other form, and previously only rewarded PPT & karma training play exclusively. Fight guilds and roamers were mostly excluded from WXP gain, and therefor WvW rank gain, when it was introduced because the system only rewarded capturing objectives & basically nothing else. It's nice that it's changed over the years, but it still isn't something I'd ever say was a good metric to measure "skill" by.

[yanniell.1236]

Sorry if it was asked before, didn't find it in the FAQ:

will smt be done to fix skill lag in big fights as well? I expect a lot of people will come back when the changes hit, and if it's impossible right now to use your skills on big fights, I can't imagine how bad it will be on the first weeks.

[Strider Pj.2193]

Over the last 1-2 months lag has seemed considerably better in T-1 NA three way fights. Not sure about others experiences

[Baldrick.8967]

@"Absuuurrd.1850" said:If the devs are looking for more metrics to measure player skill, look at rank by time played, a high rank with low playtime can be perceived as "skilled" where a long playtime with low rank can be perceived as "low skill".

Granted this doesn't factor in aspects like a bad server composition where this "low skilled" player probably ran solo often against a zerg. But it could give a good indication of a players skill, just not a complete representation of their skill.

Another thing to look at is pips/tiers earned to the passive WXP earned by playing. If this is factored out you can then tell a player's "true rank". Which is an alternative to the above.

Both metrics offer a valuable bit of information with an acceptable margin of assumption, as long as the negatives are known such as the previously stated.

Utter garbage.

High rank with low playtime= zerg player on a high pop server.

Low rank with long playtime= scout, roamer, defender or player on a low population world.

Pips/tiers are based on rank, so that's also a useless metric. A zerg spam 1111 player would earn more wexp than a scout or roamer...

If anything, you could use high rank/low play time as 'zerg 1111 spammer, low skill, can only follow tag or sits in base waiting for a zerg to follow' and low rank with long playtime= 'more likely to be skilled and useful to the side as a whole'.

I suspect both your method and my method are equally unreliable.

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

@EbonFreeman.4051 said:Would it be possible to minimize the use of age for the algorithm? The reason why I bring it up is because you can get amazing pairs because of an accounts lack of data (pushing them to a veteran pairing) and also there are veteran players who have tens of thousands of hours and haven't really learned WvW.All aspects of the adjusted play hours are up for discussion. We're going to do a fair bit of data crunching with different calculations and see what shakes out.

[fieraviolet.3160]

@"Haeteira.4735" said:I'm glad to learn that ANET is exploring ways to improve the WvW experience, which is my favorite part of GW2 by far. That being said, reading this update makes me sad, as someone who has been on my server since launch and feels a lot of loyalty and pride toward my server's community. But I think I understand the issues it's trying to solve, and so am trying to remain open.

A couple thoughts -

• It's feels like people that aren't in Guilds will be left out-to-dry, which could be an issue for people who sometimes take breaks from playing and could be kicked from a Guild due to inactivity. Without the larger Server identity, it sounds like I would have to regularly start over finding people to play with and miss out on access to Commanders/Discord/Teamspeak capabilities if I am not playing regularly enough to be "valuable" in a Guild.
• I think there is a lot to be said for the long term strategy, high level of organization, and communication investment that has taken place for my server, at least. When everyone gets shuffled every 8 weeks, it makes that level of organization pretty much impossible. Of course, this organization can happen within Guilds/Alliances, but what will be available to organize the efforts and communication of ALL the Guilds/Alliances/SinglePlayers that are placed into a World each season? (ex. if there are 3 Alliances within a World, whose TeamSpeak do we use? Or do we choose to only communicate with a third of our World?) And will organizing across a World even be worth it when there is a time limit on our efforts?

It could be that I'm not fully understanding the vision ANET has for the future of WVW, so please let me know if I've misunderstood something. Again, I appreciate that ANET is interested in continuing to develop this part of the game.

I imagine it will be much the same as what we currently encounter with linking, if there are multiple alliances on a single "world". Currently with linked servers you often get two ts addresses, maybe throw in a few discord addresses as well. The commanders belonging to those unique addresses will generally stay there. Most pugs (who enjoy speaking to the players and hearing vocal commands) will simply join whichever voice chat the commander is on. The server I am on currently in itself provides both options, our commanders use both, whichever suits there needs most at the time. some only use one or the other.I see the pugs who use voice chat go to both,whichever their fave commander happens to be on. And I just recently in the past month discovered that our linked server also was hosting their own ts. although they are rather secretive about it(either that or i'm just on at the wrong times, highly likely at present).As to the will it be worth our effort to organize. If an alliance wants to make that world their home, and have all their guild mates be able to enjoy their stay during the "8 weeks/however long seasons end up being" It will be highly worth it to organize it for the brief stay. Yes you will get reshuffled constantly. However there is a good chance you will eventually be reshuffled with the same players. If a commander/alliance/guild really sticks out to some of the other guilds/players. They will remember and be more willing to work with you again. All of that info can be gleaned from the linking system we currently have.

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

@"ScribeTheMad.7614" said:Which leaves me with a quandary, I and a bunch of current guildies have been working on coordinating a server transfer to group up for WvW.Doing so would leave me on Crystal Desert, but it sounds like I'll need to transfer to SoR to be on my "home" server when Ragnarok happens and titles (whatever they end up being) are handed out. (I would really hate to get the title for the wrong server, honestly)There will be lead time before the worlds get removed. I can't promise we'll be able to do anything but take the world you were on when we made the switch but it's something I can think about.

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

@Dayra.7405 said:

@McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:

@NeroBoron.7285 said:Btw: What will happen with eotm? Will it be removed and integrated as a normal map?

EotM will remain the same as it does now.

Hm, what if someone only plays EotM? If I got it right this results in 0h WvW participation, which lead to this person is not added to any world. But if you are not in a world, you don't have a color. So you have to pick a WvW-World to play EotM?

You would still get a world so you would correctly be assigned a color. If all you played was EofM you'd still be registered with the match maker and still get put on a world though your adjusted play hours would not really affect the population value of the world you were assigned.