World Restructuring

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Celsith.2753 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Celsith.2753 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.

If it's an alliance of SEA and OCX on a NA world, it could. But it will be harder than before.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Celsith.2753 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.

The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.'But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact.

Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones.

[DemonSeed.3528]

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Celsith.2753 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.

The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.'But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact.

Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones.

I thought they already addressed this (tried to) before in 2k16 around the time they changed into victory points.

Skirmishes will keep the winning and losing scores closer together, allowing the losing worlds a better fighting chance. Skirmishes should also help lessen the severity of runaway matches caused by off-hour coverage.

[Korgov.7645]

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Celsith.2753 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.

The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.'But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact.

Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones.

I definitely think ANet should consider time zones when setting alliance limits and especially when creating worlds.

As for how to make it work ANet could reduce playable area during off hours. Like close down all borderlands at night so that EB will have enough activity.

Further if BL maps were 3-way balanced like EB, you could have ABL+DBL+EB all open at peak hours, EB+ABL open during the day and EB only at morning/noon.

[DemonSeed.3528]

@Korgov.7645 said:

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Celsith.2753 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.

The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.'But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact.

Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones.

I definitely think ANet should consider time zones when setting alliance limits and especially when creating worlds.

As for how to make it work ANet could reduce playable area during off hours. Like close down all borderlands at night so that EB will have enough activity.

Further if BL maps were 3-way balanced like EB, you could have ABL+DBL+EB all open at peak hours, EB+ABL open during the day and EB only at morning/noon.

So off hour people don't get to play the map they want? Sounds pretty fair already.

[Korgov.7645]

@DemonSeed.3528 said:

@Korgov.7645 said:

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Celsith.2753 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.

The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.'But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact.

Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones.

I definitely think ANet should consider time zones when setting alliance limits and especially when creating worlds.

As for how to make it work ANet could reduce playable area during off hours. Like close down all borderlands at night so that EB will have enough activity.

Further if BL maps were 3-way balanced like EB, you could have ABL+DBL+EB all open at peak hours, EB+ABL open during the day and EB only at morning/noon.

So off hour people don't get to play the map they want? Sounds pretty fair already.

True. Then rotate which map gets closed.

[Archranis.2375]

Could we please have a breakout of Guild Permissions for using WvW items from other consumables? I'd like to separately give permission for someone to be able to use items in the War Chest (and any other WvW-specific items), but not have that tied to using consumables (as in Scribing things that consume items from the Guild's consumables inventory).

[Dawdler.8521]

@DemonSeed.3528 said:

@Korgov.7645 said:

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Celsith.2753 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.

The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.'But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact.

Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones.

I definitely think ANet should consider time zones when setting alliance limits and especially when creating worlds.

As for how to make it work ANet could reduce playable area during off hours. Like close down all borderlands at night so that EB will have enough activity.

Further if BL maps were 3-way balanced like EB, you could have ABL+DBL+EB all open at peak hours, EB+ABL open during the day and EB only at morning/noon.

So off hour people don't get to play the map they want? Sounds pretty fair already.Its not like primetime players get to play the map they "want" either, you get whats left over.

Either we have suggested this many times before (dynamic map count based on total population, much like how megaserver instances close) and the failure to have made all maps true 3-way really put a stick in the wheels. They missed such a chance with DBL design. It could have been a second EB in the desert.

Without modifying maps I think a WvW activity state that affect PPT and PPK would be easier. Ie if its "night" in WvW due to <= 25% total pop all sides get -% PPT but also +% PPK (with absolutely no consideration to real time, fair is fair).

Well or they could just fucking remove tier based PPT so uncontested objectives dont rake in points.

[DemonSeed.3528]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@DemonSeed.3528 said:

@Korgov.7645 said:

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Celsith.2753 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.

The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.'But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact.

Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones.

I definitely think ANet should consider time zones when setting alliance limits and especially when creating worlds.

As for how to make it work ANet could reduce playable area during off hours. Like close down all borderlands at night so that EB will have enough activity.

Further if BL maps were 3-way balanced like EB, you could have ABL+DBL+EB all open at peak hours, EB+ABL open during the day and EB only at morning/noon.

So off hour people don't get to play the map they want? Sounds pretty fair already.Its not like primetime players get to play the map they "want" either, you get whats left over.

Either we have suggested this many times before (dynamic map count based on total population, much like how megaserver instances close) and the failure to have made all maps true 3-way really put a stick in the wheels. They missed such a chance with DBL design. It could have been a second EB in the desert.

Without modifying maps I think a WvW activity state that affect PPT and PPK would be easier. Ie if its "night" in WvW due to <= 25% total pop all sides get -% PPT but also +% PPK (with absolutely no consideration to real time, fair is fair).

Well or they

could

just kitten remove tier based PPT so uncontested objectives dont rake in points.

Technically they could if they queued for it (and they still have choices for other maps), whereas the other scenario there is 0/limited choice.

[Celsith.2753]

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:

The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.'But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact.

Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones.

I guess the scoring is important. But what concerns me more is the play experience of people playing in off hours. If you aren't on the world that sea stacked, it's miserable to play that tz. If you're ON the stacked world and really dont enjoy running over people and ktraining it's not fun either.

Balance to me has always been about the feeling when playing that it wasn't hopeless and that I had a fun experience. Whether offhours effects scoring unduly or not, what makes people log off and makes things worse, is the lack of fun.

[Diku.2546]

Anet...whatever you do...

Please FIX the Top 3 Chronic Problems of WvW since it ORIGINALLY launched.

1. Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups
2. Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds
3. Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves

---

Hmmm...Instead of doing this complex World Restructuring...

Why not just make 5 simple changes to our current WvW that addresses the Top 3 Chronic Problems?

1. Assign 1 Map to each Server.
2. Re-purpose the 3 Spawn Points on these assigned Maps. Allow Players to enter any map through their (Player has only 1 Red-Home Spawn), OR enter All Other Servers (Green/Blue-Enemy Spawn Points). Players are free to visit both NA & EU servers, but should expect slow performance if they're geographically distant.
3. Re-purpose the existing Server Guesting mechanism & tailor it to keep track of a Player's fight choices. Then...Let players visit other Servers using these Re-purposed Spawn Points with Weekly Limits on How Many & Which Servers that they can fight on.
4. Adjust Player Rewards based on their Home Server Rank & the Rank of the Server that they attack. Reward More if the Enemy Server is Ranked Higher. Reward Less if Lower.
5. Re-purpose the WvW Panel to Show Top 3 Servers in a random order that is attacking a Player's Home Server.

---

Critical - Re-purposing our existing Server Guesting mechanic & specifically tailoring it for WvW will fundamentally change the game mode.

WvW Tiers = ANet pick 2 enemy servers FOR PLAYERS to fight weekly

CHANGES INTO

King of the Hill = PLAYERS pick which enemy servers FOR THEMSELVES to fight weekly

Server Guesting details found here:https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/guesting-is-coming

---

Set up a Map Max Cap to Reserve Seating for Players & ANet

Home – 45%Enemy – 45%Dev Team – 10%

Players will queue into respective lines to enter any highly ranked & popular servers once their Map Max Cap is reached. Players are encouraged to make wise choices on which servers to visit & fight on. Players that only pick the most popular servers can expect to be stuck waiting to fight based on their Server Choices & the accompanying Weekly Limits that's controlled by ANet.

---

SERVER STACKINGOver-stacked/Popular servers that keep winning will ultimately become the King of the Hill where everybody below them will want to simultaneously Target to kill.

FRIENDS & FAMILYPlayers are free to fight on both NA & EU servers. There are no WvW Tiers.

OFF-PEAK CAPPINGIn-Game "Verbal-Alliances" between players from different Time Zones are encouraged to help with their coverage issues. This allows for Off-peak capping, but lets players to work out a solution themselves.

---

For simplicity...the above can even be made into a Haiku.

Haiku Syllables Count - 5/7/5

"WvG - World vs Globes"

Re-Purpose 3 SpawnUse Server Guesting for MatchReward If Higher

---

I can't post often...so please give a vote for Helpful or Thumbs Up if you like this...or feel free to reference this post.

[Eramonster.2718]

The idea won't work? It shares the same fundamental flaws on coverage? Just say if server A have a lower population/coverage for certain time zones, it's a disadvantage for them in the game mode you're introducing since they barely can defend nor attack.

@"Diku.2546" said:Hmmm...Instead of doing this complex World Restructuring...

Why not just make 5 simple changes to our current WvW?

1. Assign 1 Map to each Server.Creating more worlds(maps/server) will just create more fluctuation. Not all world will function at 100% which is the current problem.

2. Re-purpose the 3 Spawn Points on these assigned Maps. Allow Players to enter any map through their (Player has only 1 Red-Home Spawn), OR enter All Other Server's (Green/Blue-Enemy Spawn Points). Players can visit both NA & EU servers, but should expect slow performance if they're geographically distant.

3. Re-purpose the existing Server Guesting mechanism & tailor it to keep track of a Player's fight choices. Then...Let players visit other Servers using these Re-purposed Spawn Points with Weekly Limits on How Many & Which Servers that they can fight on.You can track players behaviour but you can never control. Just because server A kept attacking server B, it doesn't mean they won't shift their attention to server G on the following week. What purpose was the tracking for? When "limiting & monitoring" intervention was mentioned here, you know the system is flawed, subconciously.

4. Adjust Player Rewards based on their Home Server Rank & the Rank of the Server that they attack. Reward More if the Enemy Server is Ranked Higher. Reward Less if Lower.Rewarding hardwork with low/no rewards... :worried:

5. Re-purpose the WvW Panel to Show Top 3 Servers in a random order that is attacking a Player's Home Server.Top tier server A is attacking bottom tier server Z...how will that info help? Retaliate against a force that overwhelms?Set up a Map Max Cap to Reserve Seating for Players & ANet

Home – 45%Enemy – 45%Dev Team – 10%:sweat_smile: I don't think any gaming company will hire staffs to play the game, just to fulfill the numbers of each server to solve population imbalanced.

[Diku.2546]

@"Eramonster.2718" said:The idea won't work? It shares the sane fundamental flaws on coverage? Just say uf server A have a lower population/coverage for certain time zones, its a disadvantage for them in the game mode you're introducing since they barely can defend nor attack.

:sweat_smile: I don't think any gaming company will hire staffs to play the game, just to fulfill the numbers of each server...

I think you misunderstood the post.

The game mode design is King of the Hill. Coverage isn't a thing.

Over-stacked/Popular servers that keep winning will ultimately become the King of the Hill where everybody below them will want to simultaneously Target to kill.

The reserve seating for ANet allows them to access the live map to referee/develop & not play...the 10% is just an open seat for them to use for this purpose.

---

Critical - Re-purposing our existing Server Guesting mechanic & specifically tailoring it for WvW will fundamentally change the game mode.

WvW Tiers = ANet pick 2 enemy servers FOR PLAYERS to fight weekly

CHANGES INTO

King of the Hill = PLAYERS pick which enemy servers FOR THEMSELVES to fight weekly

Server Guesting details found here:https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/guesting-is-coming/

---

Weekly Limits on How Many & Which Servers that players can fight on are controlled by ANet.

Players are free to fight on both NA & EU servers.

In-Game "Verbal-Alliances" between players from different Time Zones are encouraged to help with their coverage issues. This allows for Off-peak capping, but lets players to work out a solution themselves.

[Eramonster.2718]

Coverage will still be the issue...players login and out. It will just be another form or similar to server relink.

[ShionKreth.1542]

@Vegeta.2563 said:

@ShionKreth.1542 said:What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering?

It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon.

I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes).

If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight.

[Euryon.9248]

@ShionKreth.1542 said:

@Vegeta.2563 said:

@ShionKreth.1542 said:What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering?

It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon.

I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes).

If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight.

Hyperbole much?

Precisely how is this going to be a "disastrous change"?

[Eramonster.2718]

@ShionKreth.1542 said:

@Vegeta.2563 said:

@ShionKreth.1542 said:What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering?

It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon.

I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes).

If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight.

When T1 &T2 start showing symtoms, indicates it's time for a change. Mid tiers are on life support, while the bottom tiers are "expected". All this new system offer is just gathering up the numbers to fill up as much worlds as possible. For better or worse, a change is needed because the old system is "dying".

[Hellbound.5610]

@"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: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

Hi Raymond

You guys are currently making a great effort to "restructure" World vs World...

I would like to point out 2 major issues which will not change a thing with all the work you are doing unless it is addressed.

Firstly, just this past Friday we had a new re-link for servers.

I am not sure if you guys are aware of developments like these, but I play on Far Shiverpeaks and with the new re-link we lost no less than 3 core guilds contributing to more than 100 players who all transferred to another world.

Now I am not talking about your average player who jumps into WvW for "30 odd minutes" to get some dailies etc, I am talking about players who form the backbone of the server community and contribute more than 20 hours a week in WvW.

The impact of this migration is very obvious. We went from a world coalition who contends for Tier 1 to one who will now drop down to Tier 4. This is a big blow to us and we now have to wait until some other group decides to move over to us should that even happen.

I completely understand that server transfers are very important to the game business model, but by allowing transfers after a re-link ruins the whole intention of balancing matchups to the point where you might as well not bother with it.

Transfers should be allowed during a set window BEFORE re-linking.

Secondly, core guilds as you should well know have a big impact on the result of your world.

Yes, we did have the poll where many players voted for the Desert Borderlands to be part of WvW.

As a prominent member of the Far Shiverpeaks community I can tell you that our players simply do not enjoy having Desert Borderlands as our home border. The core guilds avoid this border like the plague to the point where it is a struggle to hold our ground on it.

With the Desert Borderlands being the allocated border during tier promotion, we are sitting with a situation on Far Shiverpeaks in particular where the core guilds and many players limit their effort for us to not promote.

In my view it would be more ideal to instead assign Desert Border/Red Border to worlds that DEMOTE from their tier. This will server as motivation for communities to always try to play to win instead of manipulating a matchup's outcome and avoid being on this border.

If you are not aware of these issues from where it you can actively strive to address it, you will only be wasting your energy with all the work you are doing for the new restructure, since the fundamental issues will still remain which cause unbalanced matchups.

[shiri.4257]

@Hellbound.5610 said:

@"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: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

Hi Raymond

You guys are currently making a great effort to "restructure" World vs World...

I would like to point out 2 major issues which will not change a thing with all the work you are doing unless it is addressed.

Firstly, just this past Friday we had a new re-link for servers.

I am not sure if you guys are aware of developments like these, but I play on Far Shiverpeaks and with the new re-link we lost no less than 3 core guilds contributing to more than 100 players who all transferred to another world.

Now I am not talking about your average player who jumps into WvW for "30 odd minutes" to get some dailies etc, I am talking about players who form the backbone of the server community and contribute more than 20 hours a week in WvW.

The impact of this migration is very obvious. We went from a world coalition who contends for Tier 1 to one who will now drop down to Tier 4. This is a big blow to us and we now have to wait until some other group decides to move over to us should that even happen.

I completely understand that server transfers are very important to the game business model, but by allowing transfers after a re-link ruins the whole intention of balancing matchups to the point where you might as well not bother with it.

Transfers should be allowed during a set window BEFORE re-linking.

Secondly, core guilds as you should well know have a big impact on the result of your world.

Yes, we did have the poll where many players voted for the Desert Borderlands to be part of WvW.

As a prominent member of the Far Shiverpeaks community I can tell you that our players simply do not enjoy having Desert Borderlands as our home border. The core guilds avoid this border like the plague to the point where it is a struggle to hold our ground on it.

With the Desert Borderlands being the allocated border during tier promotion, we are sitting with a situation on Far Shiverpeaks in particular where the core guilds and many players limit their effort for us to not promote.

In my view it would be more ideal to instead assign Desert Border/Red Border to worlds that DEMOTE from their tier. This will server as motivation for communities to always try to play to win instead of manipulating a matchup's outcome and avoid being on this border.

If you are not aware of these issues from where it you can actively strive to address it, you will only be wasting your energy with all the work you are doing for the new restructure, since the fundamental issues will still remain which cause unbalanced matchups.

Those don't sound like core guilds. How much did you pay for them? How long were they on your server?

[Dawdler.8521]

@Hellbound.5610 said:

@"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: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

Hi Raymond

You guys are currently making a great effort to "restructure" World vs World...

I would like to point out 2 major issues which will not change a thing with all the work you are doing unless it is addressed.

Firstly, just this past Friday we had a new re-link for servers.

I am not sure if you guys are aware of developments like these, but I play on Far Shiverpeaks and with the new re-link we lost no less than 3 core guilds contributing to more than 100 players who all transferred to another world.

Now I am not talking about your average player who jumps into WvW for "30 odd minutes" to get some dailies etc, I am talking about players who form the backbone of the server community and contribute more than 20 hours a week in WvW.

The impact of this migration is very obvious. We went from a world coalition who contends for Tier 1 to one who will now drop down to Tier 4. This is a big blow to us and we now have to wait until some other group decides to move over to us should that even happen.

I completely understand that server transfers are very important to the game business model, but by allowing transfers after a re-link ruins the whole intention of balancing matchups to the point where you might as well not bother with it.

Transfers should be allowed during a set window BEFORE re-linking.

Secondly, core guilds as you should well know have a big impact on the result of your world.

Yes, we did have the poll where many players voted for the Desert Borderlands to be part of WvW.

As a prominent member of the Far Shiverpeaks community I can tell you that our players simply do not enjoy having Desert Borderlands as our home border. The core guilds avoid this border like the plague to the point where it is a struggle to hold our ground on it.

With the Desert Borderlands being the allocated border during tier promotion, we are sitting with a situation on Far Shiverpeaks in particular where the core guilds and many players limit their effort for us to not promote.

In my view it would be more ideal to instead assign Desert Border/Red Border to worlds that DEMOTE from their tier. This will server as motivation for communities to always try to play to win instead of manipulating a matchup's outcome and avoid being on this border.

If you are not aware of these issues from where it you can actively strive to address it, you will only be wasting your energy with all the work you are doing for the new restructure, since the fundamental issues will still remain which cause unbalanced matchups.What does any of this have to do with the restructure and the issues it address?Guilds always come and go, its no different now compared to the last 6 years. Servers rise and fall. Playing to avoid playing on DBL seem like an... odd... goal for the game to promote.

That FSP members prefer to sit in 80+ man EB queues AFK in spawn talking crap while the rest of us are fighting 10v50 outside the same spawn is indeed a community thing, but its not on Anets shoulders to try to "fix" that.

[Baroness.9506]

I would really love to know how this is going to even work. At the moment, this is what is happening from my view point.

I play on Blackgate, Fort Aspenwood, and Sanctum of Rall.

Blackgate guilds have been talking about making an alliance for quite some time, to the point a guild has been created to accommodate the numbers. A lot o Blackgate guilds have been denied because of the size it currently is. There is in fact more than one alliance on BG being created.

As opposed to the other servers I play on, who have no one to ally with, they are just hoping for the best by the looks of it.

Wouldnt a more suitable solution be keep the current system so those who have spent countless hours over the years creating a community for their selected server and having a look at the cap numbers on each map, as well as current "active" numbers for each server in WvW? There is no reason why Jade Quarry should be locked, as well as Yaks Bend, Fort Aspenwood and Sea of Sorrows, i mean....What The Actual F Anet?

The hype is real for this restructuring, but i predict it will do more harm than good and break alot of long lasting friendships as well as server pride.

[Djamonja.6453]

So your solution is to lower the map caps and open up JQ, YB, FA and SoS? I don't think it would help to have even bigger queues, and it wouldn't really solve anything because it would just keep getting harder for Anet to balance the links for 4 tiers.

[zoomborg.9462]

So basically WvW is gonna get a direction and that direction is Guilds. Instead of servers we're gonna have alliances which can change and adapt, move guilds in or out depending on circumstances,population cap etc etc. For organized team-play and less population imbalance this is a dream come true.This has been the main demand of the wvw playerbase, population balancing. Ofc its not gonna be perfect but getting a direction and working on it with a much more flexible model(alliances) than world linking is gonna smooth it out in the long run.

PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO ORGANIZE THEMSELVES AFTER THIS CHANGE AND THIS WILL BE CRUCIAL. If u are from oceanic or generally off hours region u should create a guild with people who play on off hours and try to get into a certain alliance (with other guilds u know/people u play with).Most alliances will try to cover their off-hours by inviting guilds like that. The current communities will also probably stay together in an alliance purely to be able to play together, unless their numbers are way too big and would give a clear population advantage(Anet saids they will cap the number of guilds in an alliance based on population). In the end guilds will prob ally with guilds they know and play with so the community factor will stay even if there is no longer a server name.

Adjusting world population based on play hours is the best they can do. It is far from perfect but unfortunately there is absolutely no way to correctly balance a mode driven by human behavior. Some people are casuals, other have jobs,family and they mb login 1h a day and not every day while others spend their whole day on wvw. Then u got zerglings,roamers,havoc squads, karma trains, GvG fighting, even duels.... It simply is impossible to balance in a perfect way. Still people have the choice to ally with people that share the same goal through guilds and Alliances.

I believe the restructure is very much needed and looks good atm even though a lot of the changes need to be refined, properly explained down to the very detail so when it happens we dont get a shitstorm and chaos. There must be 100% transparency in order to avoid the worst.

The part of the playerbase thats gonna suffer (including myself) are the lone players who might be either casual or hardcore but not willing to commit to a single guild or play very sporadically. WvW guilds are prolly gonna change a lot in a sense that most alliances will not accept guilds of semi-active players that sporadically log-in for 5 hours a week and "run around having fun". Instead they will try to get guilds with commited players be it zerging,havoking,roaming,PPTing or simply fighting. Since the mode is basically getting a general direction (which is great), some people will be left behind and they will have to choose to play with randoms, form some tight-knit small guilds with the people they regularly play, or pay for transfer once every 8 weeks to join another world. This is unfortunate but something's got to give in the end as with every change.

[zoomborg.9462]

@ShionKreth.1542 said:

@Vegeta.2563 said:

@ShionKreth.1542 said:What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering?

It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon.

I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes).

If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight.

Also gl with that. 99% of the MMO's have "cash grab" as their main priority and are modeled around the korean/chinese playerbase who love to grind or buy p2w items and services from the game store. Thats what MMO's have been reduced to at this moment.A lot of players talked about leaving GW2 to play other MMOs and most of them either come back to GW2 or drop the MMO genre completely.

[Eramonster.2718]

@zoomborg.9462

The part of the playerbase thats gonna suffer (including myself) are the lone players who might be either casual or hardcore but not willing to commit to a single guild or play very sporadically.Same boat here :smile: tho I'm not particularly worried as a solo roamer, the system will just randomly place us into a world. I do rally with tagged commanders sometimes, without paying attention to their guild tags. My point is, even if the new system gets implemented, I probably will continue my solo play style and rally with whoever tagged from time to time. Tho I will consider to get into alliance to play with few of my friends/guildies, but we will probably discuss on that together only if the new system is announced a sure go.

Another issue I hope Anet will look into aside coverage is the reward(or some form of benefit/fame) for WvW. For a competative game, there will be a victor and loser. It's very important to distinguish the two. I understand the game is trying to be fair to all. But if the winner and loser is getting the same reward/benefits there's no point in trying or motivation to win. Hence PPT is ignored, why rank up to struggle when we can get the same/better rewards by not to. WvW will probably function better if the coverage is mended, but imo it's not fulfilling its true function as a competitive mode.