Jump to content
  • Sign Up

World Restructuring


Gaile Gray.6029

Recommended Posts

@"Dawdler.8521" said:Someone mentioned earlier than only "active" players count, ie those that have it set. But I'm not so sure. That would lead to an obvious issue - if 100 man in a 500 man guild tag up wvw and join a 400 man WvW alliance to reach 500 man cap, what happens if the other 400 people now tag it as their wvw guild? Either you would have a 900/500 man capped alliance next matchup (and you could make that much, much worse) or anet would have to disallow them choosing the guild as wvw guild if the alliance it is in has reached cap, which would be weird. But that would lead to allocation issues. First come first serve, or does alliances set the player count per guild and after that people in a guild can no longer tag it wvw and have to select another?We are clearly missing info about the limitations of alliances.

From what I read it looks like once a season starts players are locked into their WvW decision, so the alliance wouldn't have those 400 people until the next season. If those people cause them to exceed the player limit, perhaps the guild responsible will have to adjust its numbers or leave the alliance, but I'm just speculating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as long as you promote blobbing and skill spam, nothing you do will fix this game mode. its trash because any braindead player can run in a zerg and push buttons and collect bags. some people find that fun others don't. all you have been doing is promoting this type of game play since HoT. tone down damage and skill spam and just maybe this game mode will be fun again. i could really care less about your reconstruction of the game mode. more players doesn't equal more fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@pareod.2635 said:

@"Dawdler.8521" said:Someone mentioned earlier than only "active" players count, ie those that have it set. But I'm not so sure. That would lead to an obvious issue - if 100 man in a 500 man guild tag up wvw and join a 400 man WvW alliance to reach 500 man cap, what happens if the other 400 people now tag it as their wvw guild? Either you would have a 900/500 man capped alliance next matchup (and you could make that much, much worse) or anet would have to disallow them choosing the guild as wvw guild if the alliance it is in has reached cap, which would be weird. But that would lead to allocation issues. First come first serve, or does alliances set the player count per guild and after that people in a guild can no longer tag it wvw and have to select another?We are clearly missing info about the limitations of alliances.

From what I read it looks like once a season starts players are locked into their WvW decision, so the alliance wouldn't have those 400 people until the next season. If those people cause them to exceed the player limit, perhaps the guild responsible will have to adjust its numbers or leave the alliance, but I'm just speculating.

Correct, that is what Anet devs have said on it. Once the worlds are created, those that then mark it as their wvw guild will still be on whatever world those players were generated on. It was also said, however, that they will have the option, provided the world the guild is on isn't already full, to move to that world. It was also said in the OP that a percent of the population will be reserved for guilds that are marked for that world, so yes, you may be able to join a guild and then transfer to that world. That could lead to a full server, but not to an overstacked server, and come next world change, they will be split up everywhere all over again, which was part of the point.

As for Alliance, Anet hadn't fully decided on the population cap of the alliance, and we won't know it til the month before it's fully implemented. It may very well not allow people to select that guild as their WvW guild, if the alliance is already at it's cap. I can't think of an alternative they could take, without limiting the number of people that can designate a guild as their WvW guild.

I was originally against the idea of alliances and losing servers when it was first heavily talked about years ago, but after watching my server's community overrun with a sudden influx of people that many in the community did not want and the drama that occurred, I was ready for alliances. Now, I'm so disgusted that I'm waiting eagerly for this to be implemented, but still considering spending gems to move til then, if I were to decide on a server to move to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ArenaNet Staff

@shiri.4257 said:

@brianmiguel.8517 said:So will guilds need to kick inactive members in order to not take up alliance slots?

If they're designated as the WvW guild, probably so. Guild Administration should be up to the guild not anet anyways. However, if they're not designated it shouldn't have an affect.

I can look into adding the ability for guild administration to modify declaration status of members either by changing permissions of the member or a direct modification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ArenaNet Staff

@Threather.9354 said:

@brianmiguel.8517 said:So will guilds need to kick inactive members in order to not take up alliance slots?

The members need to mark one of their current guilds as WvW guild every 2 months to get counted towards alliance slot for that particular matching. Members that dont mark the guild as the one they chose to go with to a new world, dont count.

There is no plan to make this an active thing you need to keep setting. Once it's set you wont have to set it again unless something happens to unset it (you leave the guild etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ArenaNet Staff

@Discomfort.5987 said:I absolutely love this idea. High population on certain servers needs to be addressed and I think getting rid of servers and having different worlds based off of players playtime/rank/time of day play, is very important to finally get balance in WvW.

I have a few questions and concerns.

  1. Max # of alliances per world. I understand some alliances might have max number of players, but in the case of some alliances being low population (let's say 100 wvw'ers as opposed to one with 500 wvw'ers). Will there be extra alliances per world? Or will you compensate with extra random guilds?There won't be a hard limit to the number of Alliances on a world. The limits will fall out of the match maker keeping everything balanced. We're going to try various things to get the worlds balanced and make the matches more even across the board
  2. Trying to sort people into worlds based off what time of day they play will be very difficult, is this something you all are looking into? and if so, how will you count a player that plays multiple time zones?Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Celsith.2753 said:

Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything.Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Celsith.2753 said:

Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything.Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/

I think we'll see three. Problem is, with one up one down, matchups will get boring. Also feel many of them will join three main alliances.

And I don't necessarily blame them for that. They will actually want to fight more than doors, but it will essentially leave the other 9 worlds kinda flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Celsith.2753 said:

Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything.Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/

Even if they can't perfectly spread out off-hours coverage (which I suspect they won't), the worlds with higher off-hours coverage will still only exist for a season. The following season, it will be a different world with different players who see their off-hours better covered. Right now the same people (those on BG, SoS, etc) are the ones who continue to reap the benefits of having better coverage. With the new system, different people will finally get to experience that feeling of not waking up and seeing all your T3 keeps and towers flipped overnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Euryon.9248 said:

Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything.Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/

Even if they can't perfectly spread out off-hours coverage (which I suspect they won't), the worlds with higher off-hours coverage will still only exist for a season. The following season, it will be a different world with different players who see their off-hours better covered. Right now the same people (those on BG, SoS, etc) are the ones who continue to reap the benefits of having better coverage. With the new system, different people will finally get to experience that feeling of not waking up and seeing all your T3 keeps and towers flipped overnight.

I am definately sure that will make their day. /S

It's also why they can't tie rewards to winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Paralent.8564" said:Just want to throw in my two cents _against _this change. As someone who doesn't routinely play with a specific guild but does enjoy routinely playing with, and against, certain servers and the cultures that have developed on those servers, AND as someone who spends a considerable amount of money in support of GW2 for the purpose of transferring my several accounts, and does not mind doing so -- this is going to be the end of WvW as I know it. While I don't doubt that I can adapt to the new system (and will likely spend far less money on gems in the process), I would choose World Linking and its known flaws over the proposed changes any day of the week.

And that's great if you're safely behind a "full" and locked server, or you don't get screwed over by server links every couple of months. Your point of view is incredibly narrow, and selfish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything.Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/

I think we'll see three. Problem is, with one up one down, matchups will get boring. Also feel many of them will join three main alliances.

And I don't necessarily blame them for that. They will actually want to fight more than doors, but it will essentially leave the other 9 worlds kinda flat.But with whats basicly a complete glicko reset to zero every 8 weeks... how do you know which the "three main alliances" are? Worlds are random. Even if you see a trend and pay to move to one, how do you know that world and its random alliances would be even remotely as strong the next 8 weeks?

This really just comes down to one thing: can a single alliance carry a world?

I have my doubts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

I mean, if all else fails you could let guilds select which timezone(s) they predominantly play in for purposes of sorting. The honest ones will be sorted appropriately and the dishonest ones won't be doing their alliance any favors as they're only weakening the time they claimed to play. Not saying its perfect, just better than nothing.

~ Kovu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its the best step to a stale tier 1 wvw where servers avoid the match-up where blackgate/blob wars don't suit everybody. give a bonus to winning (like skirmish tickets for the old wvw tourenaments) will get people will try to win with now with a fairest chance to win than ever before. the system overall will guaranteed fairer than the current system of blackgate nearly always winning. most servers can keep their server identity via alliance (hopefully custom alliance name) and is not an issue. anet get to work hyped for this update B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything.Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/

Even if they can't perfectly spread out off-hours coverage (which I suspect they won't), the worlds with higher off-hours coverage will still only exist for a season. The following season, it will be a different world with different players who see their off-hours better covered. Right now the same people (those on BG, SoS, etc) are the ones who continue to reap the benefits of having better coverage. With the new system, different people will finally get to experience that feeling of not waking up and seeing all your T3 keeps and towers flipped overnight.

I am definately sure that will make their day. /S

It's also why they can't tie rewards to winning.

Then what's the point of PPTing if winning means nothing? might as well get rid of the score and the keeps then since PPT is meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@hunkamania.7561 said:

Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything.Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/

Even if they can't perfectly spread out off-hours coverage (which I suspect they won't), the worlds with higher off-hours coverage will still only exist for a season. The following season, it will be a different world with different players who see their off-hours better covered. Right now the same people (those on BG, SoS, etc) are the ones who continue to reap the benefits of having better coverage. With the new system, different people will finally get to experience that feeling of not waking up and seeing all your T3 keeps and towers flipped overnight.

I am definately sure that will make their day. /S

It's also why they can't tie rewards to winning.

Then what's the point of PPTing if winning means nothing? might as well get rid of the score and the keeps then since PPT is meaningless.

Lol.. I don't know. But everyone states winning doesn't matter now. A stacked alliance will carry a world. If rewards are tied to it, people focused on that will form an alliance that covers 'off hours'. Just like was done with the current system.

Now, re rolling every 8 weeks will help some, but let's say an alliance of 250 OCX and 100 Sea players form with a solid NA guild/ com. You are not going to see the guilds that like to fight do this, but let's face it, when rewards and winning matter, others will.

So, it'll be on a smaller scale, and if people want to stop it, they can easier than now, but, let's not fool ourselves into thinking it won't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kovu.7560 said:

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

I mean, if all else fails you could let guilds
select
which timezone(s) they predominantly play in for purposes of sorting. The honest ones will be sorted appropriately and the dishonest ones won't be doing their alliance any favors as they're only weakening the time they claimed to play. Not saying its perfect, just better than nothing.

~ Kovu

True, but likely the other alliance in a world along with the non aligned groups will make up for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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