World Restructuring Update 1

[Sojourner.4621]

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:

@Sojourner.4621 said:

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:

@Sojourner.4621 said:

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:

@Sojourner.4621 said:

@Rysdude.3824 said:

@Sojourner.4621 said:

@Seera.5916 said:

@"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:So. What happens to the RPer's and their server(s)?

D:

Find PvE maps or custom PvP rooms to do the RP you do in WvW. Because, personally, RP should not be done in WvW due to the map cap of players.

There are only X number of spots for people to come into WvW. RP can happen on any map, anywhere. WvW can only happen on a specific map. And a large number of RP'ers on an active WvW player map is a hinderance for the world of those RP'ers. It means that the map gets overrun by enemies as the players who own the land can't get enough players onto the map to defend.

Which means I'm basically saying that RP concerns should be the very very very very very last thing ANet devs consider when designing this system. And things put in place for RP'ers should only happen if they wouldn't negatively impact WvW players or would benefit WvW players.

He's not talking about RPing IN WvW... no one is EVER talking about that when they say RPers regarding this change. Currently, your WORLD/SERVER choice affects what PVE maps you get put in to. If WORLDS/SERVERS are now 100% determined by a PvP mode such as WvW, then RPERS will no longer be matched with other RPERS on PVE maps. Stop being obtuse. All we're asking is for a way to flag ourselves as RPers to increase our chances of being put on the same map as other RPers when we enter any PVE map, since we will no longer be able to get in to maps with other RPers by simply joining the "unofficial RP servers" Tarnished Coast or Piken Square.

Why not make an RP guild? Then right click and join instance?

Because there are way more than 500 RPers...

I'm 100% positive you dont play with most of them.

I am also 100% positive that if I only ever had RPed with the people in my guilds that I would never have met at least half of the RPers who are now on my friend list. Once again, in what way is people asking this question (that has already been acknowledged by ANet as an issue in the previous world restructuring thread, and we're simply looking for an update) hurting you? Why do you object to this so much? Why are you attacking the things that are important to other people just because it's not important to you personally? If it's because you dislike RPers such a feature would actually make it LESS likely for you personally to encounter them, by NOT having the same check-box ticked.

Too bad RP is not official game mode, unlike WvW, so I prefer Anet focuses on real issue which is WvW retention and proper matchmaking while leaving entitled afterthought spawns on their own.

Someone else pointed out the GvG isn't an official game mode either...

And it's still officially unsupported, just like RP. GvGers are not getting anything special and neither should RPers. Server/Alliance swap is crucial for WvW. Don't destroy good change with your entitled demands.

RP has an official listing in the LFG and so is arguably an official recognized game mode more than GvG is or will ever be, actually... Yet the WvW and sPvP team are actively working to try and find ways to make the GvG people happy (with ofc much mixed results/success and limited communication) This isn't just a WvW change, it is a server structure change, and it effects more than WvW. It's never good to make a change without considering the impacts it will have to other parts of the community, and is actually the reason we've been pushing so hard for WvW changes for so long (Because WvW is often neglected in favor of PvE). I am not the one being self serving, I am actively thinking of the community as a whole rather than just one portion of it. And what does my "demand" destroy? I want the WvW world structure changes to occur. Adding a checkbox affects the WvW changes in what way? I'm not in any way asking them to cancel the changes, just to add a moment of consideration.

[Emerz.5913]

@"Raymond Lukes.6305"When it comes to alliances and guilds having active/inactive members, should we expect the wvw team to add some method to control who is currently counted as a number in the alliance/wvw population of the guild or not? For example, adding a guild permission "alliance manager" so that guild leaders/select officers can regulate who counts towards their alliance/wvw population. This way if someone has been inactive for a while or has changed their game mode interest (no longer feels like wvwing), leaders can essentially unmark them and they won't count towards the max alliance limit to give space for people who do want to wvw more/fit in with their guild playstyle. Thank you and your team for all your hard work! Looking forward to future updates.

[Sojourner.4621]

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:

@Sojourner.4621 said:

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:

@Sojourner.4621 said:

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:

@Sojourner.4621 said:

@Rysdude.3824 said:

@Sojourner.4621 said:

@Seera.5916 said:

@"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:So. What happens to the RPer's and their server(s)?

D:

Find PvE maps or custom PvP rooms to do the RP you do in WvW. Because, personally, RP should not be done in WvW due to the map cap of players.

There are only X number of spots for people to come into WvW. RP can happen on any map, anywhere. WvW can only happen on a specific map. And a large number of RP'ers on an active WvW player map is a hinderance for the world of those RP'ers. It means that the map gets overrun by enemies as the players who own the land can't get enough players onto the map to defend.

Which means I'm basically saying that RP concerns should be the very very very very very last thing ANet devs consider when designing this system. And things put in place for RP'ers should only happen if they wouldn't negatively impact WvW players or would benefit WvW players.

He's not talking about RPing IN WvW... no one is EVER talking about that when they say RPers regarding this change. Currently, your WORLD/SERVER choice affects what PVE maps you get put in to. If WORLDS/SERVERS are now 100% determined by a PvP mode such as WvW, then RPERS will no longer be matched with other RPERS on PVE maps. Stop being obtuse. All we're asking is for a way to flag ourselves as RPers to increase our chances of being put on the same map as other RPers when we enter any PVE map, since we will no longer be able to get in to maps with other RPers by simply joining the "unofficial RP servers" Tarnished Coast or Piken Square.

Why not make an RP guild? Then right click and join instance?

Because there are way more than 500 RPers...

I'm 100% positive you dont play with most of them.

I am also 100% positive that if I only ever had RPed with the people in my guilds that I would never have met at least half of the RPers who are now on my friend list. Once again, in what way is people asking this question (that has already been acknowledged by ANet as an issue in the previous world restructuring thread, and we're simply looking for an update) hurting you? Why do you object to this so much? Why are you attacking the things that are important to other people just because it's not important to you personally? If it's because you dislike RPers such a feature would actually make it LESS likely for you personally to encounter them, by NOT having the same check-box ticked.

Too bad RP is not official game mode, unlike WvW, so I prefer Anet focuses on real issue which is WvW retention and proper matchmaking while leaving entitled afterthought spawns on their own.

Someone else pointed out the GvG isn't an official game mode either...

And it's still officially unsupported, just like RP. GvGers are not getting anything special and neither should RPers. Server/Alliance swap is crucial for WvW. Don't destroy good change with your entitled demands.

As a side note, just going to throw out there what this entire argument against us wanting a simple QoL feature added ALONGSIDE the awesome world restructuring update that we don't want to change in any way sounds like, with a few select words swapped to RPers, PvE Sorting, WvW, and World Restructuring.

"I have nothing against RPers. I have a friend that is an RPer. I just don't see why RPers want PvE sorting. PvE sorting will disrupt the sanctity of my World Restructuring and destroy traditional WvW."

Just gonna leave that here.

[Etheri.5406]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@"Etheri.5406" said:Crops

The description of veterans written is casual to me. You claim that pugs are trash because they don't go voip. However, do those so-called veterans go to voip as well when they pugging? There are a lot of veterans that never ever go voip just because is not their guild raiding or because they don't like that guild playstyle or whatever. Also, veterans are also "pugs" when they outside of your guild raid. Lastly, you claim veteran guilds bandwagon away to empty server which is fine but what if they bandwagon together to the same server, are they not stacking? Furthermore, there are no such thing as empty server, is just means that it is low populated or they all just playing pve until someone come in to command for them. Pugs are always there, blaming pugs for the decisions are just poor justification, act of casuals. Be a man, do the right thing.

Maybe my definition of veterans doesn't include the "hardcore casuals" of gw2. Too many players with 5k hours who still have no clue what they're doing.

The guilds end up going together because they want to play an actual organised style rather than sitting around a choke spamming random aoe's in eachothers direction because neither side can push. The guilds go to the emptier servers because there aren't 3 queues every prime. Because they won't have 10 pugs adding to every guild fight they do.

Pugs are trash because they're too casual to try and play the game. They want to sit around and do their thing without improving; roleplaying around in WvW. Which is fine; except nobody wants to do it with you. Especially not if they're a majority on every server. Overall the general quality of WvW is so low that frankly, playing on most servers isn't enjoyable in any way for most of the players.

[Roxanne.6140]

@Etheri.5406 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Etheri.5406 said:Crops

The description of veterans written is casual to me. You claim that pugs are trash because they don't go voip. However, do those so-called veterans go to voip as well when they pugging? There are a lot of veterans that never ever go voip just because is not their guild raiding or because they don't like that guild playstyle or whatever. Also, veterans are also "pugs" when they outside of your guild raid. Lastly, you claim veteran guilds bandwagon away to empty server which is fine but what if they bandwagon together to the same server, are they not stacking? Furthermore, there are no such thing as empty server, is just means that it is low populated or they all just playing pve until someone come in to command for them. Pugs are always there, blaming pugs for the decisions are just poor justification, act of casuals. Be a man, do the right thing.

Maybe my definition of veterans doesn't include the "hardcore casuals" of gw2. Too many players with 5k hours who still have no clue what they're doing.

The guilds end up going together because they want to play an actual organised style rather than sitting around a choke spamming random aoe's in eachothers direction because neither side can push. The guilds go to the emptier servers because there aren't 3 queues every prime. Because they won't have 10 pugs adding to every guild fight they do.

Pugs are trash because they're too casual to try and play the game. They want to sit around and do their thing without improving; roleplaying around in WvW. Which is fine; except nobody wants to do it with you. Especially not if they're a majority on every server. Overall the general quality of WvW is so low that frankly, playing on most servers isn't enjoyable in any way for most of the players.

Whoa Mr Hotshot, which guild and which server are you in?

[morrolan.9608]

@XenesisII.1540 said:Maybe the rp players should like go to the general forums section and ask for a RP tag, since that involves pve megaserver sorting, not the wvw alliance sorting. In fact it's something they should have continued to ask for ever since megaserver first came out 4 years ago. There are also other methods to meet up with like minded people already, lfg/squads/guilds/friends list, which will still be usable after the world changes.

Yep this is exactly what I've said, its an issue for Mike Z not for Raymond. Its not a concern for WvW at all.

[morrolan.9608]

@Jalad Lantana.3027 said:I have read through the original post and all the comments, and the linked to worlds redo post, and I am totally confused. Why can't someone at Anet summarize the end result of the world and alliance system change, and describe in two sentences how it will basically work.

Well I'm not from anet but here is my take: WvW Guilds will be able to form alliances with other guilds, these alliances will be another layer of organisation within the game, players will be able to designate one of their guilds as their WvW guild, and will be automatically be designated as a member of the alliance that their WvW guild is part of. Alliances can have a maximum of 500 WvW players, once that cap is reached new members of guilds within that alliance will not be able to join it until spots open up. Guilds will have to designate themselves as WvW guilds but they don't have to be part of an alliance. Every 8 weeks worlds will be created composed of players from guild alliances and WvW guilds not part of an alliance. There will be some sort of matching process to ensure the play time of each world is approximately the same. Solo players without a WvW guild will be allocated to a world when they go into WvW within that 8 week period, its assumed they will be 1st allocated to worlds with a low play time.

@"Thorfinnr Sleggja.1209" said:If I am repping my "friends guild" and playing PvE to get guild favor for bounties or whatever, but then decide to jump into WvW for a bit: Will I get sorted as a "solo" player because I am repping my "PvX" guild(not set as WvW guild) of my friends or will it place me in with the "HoD Alliance" appropriately if I have that tagged as my WvW Guild?

Matching will be based on what guild you designate as your WvW guild not what guild you rep at the time you go into WvW, therefore you will be placed with the HOD Alliance.

[Zaklex.6308]

I think we have a slight problem in thinking that the team working on this system is the WvW team, I think these are more back end systems people, and front end systems people instead of developers that work on one game mode or another. Servers are hardware, Worlds inhabit servers, you could conceivably have more than one world on a single server, and most likely do, so you shouldn't be using the two descriptors as equivalents.

Oh, and if there's anyone here that remember WvW during the first year, plenty of people played without using VoiP...and Commanders did not exist as they do today, pugging was prevalent...I stopped when it became more organized. If people really liked fighting battles then it would be more open and free-for-allish, sort of like how a real battle devolves after the initial neat and tidy organized fighting...

[Tiawal.2351]

@Etheri.5406 said:

The guilds end up going together because they want to play an actual organised style rather than sitting around a choke spamming random aoe's in eachothers direction because neither side can push. The guilds go to the emptier servers because there aren't 3 queues every prime. Because they won't have 10 pugs adding to every guild fight they do.

Having enemies worth fighting, is even more important than having allies. Stacking one side, to farm baddies on the other side, is the least fun form of WvW.

Still, I agree with your overall ideeas about how to fix the system and the problems presented are very accurate. While it's risky giving player alliances the power to recruit and kick, it's the only way making WvW competitive - by letting them manage the world they are in, raise or fall together with the comunity they build. This is the only way to make WvW meaningful.

[Roxanne.6140]

@Tiawal.2351 said:

@Etheri.5406 said:

The guilds end up going together because they want to play an actual organised style rather than sitting around a choke spamming random aoe's in eachothers direction because neither side can push. The guilds go to the emptier servers because there aren't 3 queues every prime. Because they won't have 10 pugs adding to every guild fight they do.

Having enemies worth fighting, is even more important than having allies. Stacking one side, to farm baddies on the other side, is the least fun form of WvW.

Still, I agree with your overall ideeas about how to fix the system and the problems presented are very accurate. While it's risky giving player alliances the power to recruit and kick, it's the only way making WvW competitive - by letting them manage the world they are in, raise or fall together with the comunity they build. This is the only way to make WvW meaningful.

So you trust players to create their own competition? Good for you!!!

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@XenesisII.1540 said:Maybe the rp players should like go to the general forums section and ask for a RP tag, since that involves pve megaserver sorting, not the wvw alliance sorting. In fact it's something they should have continued to ask for ever since megaserver first came out 4 years ago. There are also other methods to meet up with like minded people already, lfg/squads/guilds/friends list, which will still be usable after the world changes.

Yep this is exactly what I've said, its an issue for Mike Z not for Raymond. Its not a concern for WvW at all.

Idk. It seemed unnecessary if they were already gathered on a single server back then. I think what bothers the RP people is not of content or additions, but one of interference.

Does WvW Alliance interfere with their game play experience? Unfortunately it isn't something players here can answer. Could a little RP flag/checkbox help when Alliances hit? Probably.

I wouldn't want Living Story to ever (EVER AGAIN) come into WvW. Luckily back then WvWers properly complained about it, and we never have to take any precautions for every Living Story update since then (minus the dcs and bugs...). Alliances to RPers is probably what Scarlet's stuff was to WvWers. It literally impacted the game play experience.

So yes, the RPers are allowed to complain in a WvW forum about an issue they believe may affect their game play experience. Just as WvWers were allowed to complain about a living story that impacted their game play experience.

P.S. While the topic was brought up in the previous thread, I didn't think my post would spark anything. I don't represent the RPers, but I do like looking at the whole picture sometimes.

D:

[Sarrs.4831]

Honestly I think RP is kind of a non-issue, if you're a serious RPer then you're in an RP guild anyway, and you can use the RP guild as your anchor to enter RP servers in PvE. The game already has a number of ways to decide which shard you enter other than home server which you can use to get into the right shard.

The main people who it might really punish are people who are literally bystanders who see people RPing and think "hey that looks fun" and they won't see that, but they're probably already not on tarnished coast anyway. It's very very few people who are joining tarnished coast and this feature needs to be seriously rethought because of it??? Don't think I agree.

[Sojourner.4621]

@"Sarrs.4831" said:Honestly I think RP is kind of a non-issue, if you're a serious RPer then you're in an RP guild anyway, and you can use the RP guild as your anchor to enter RP servers in PvE. The game already has a number of ways to decide which shard you enter other than home server which you can use to get into the right shard.

The main people who it might really punish are people who are literally bystanders who see people RPing and think "hey that looks fun" and they won't see that, but they're probably already not on tarnished coast anyway. It's very very few people who are joining tarnished coast and this feature needs to be seriously rethought because of it??? Don't think I agree.

No one mentioned rethinking the features. No one said that ever. The WvW sorting is a great idea. Here is the grand total of what has been asked:The current mega-server sorting priority is Party/Squad>Guild>World>Friends. Since World will no longer be something you can personally choose to affect the sorting as a direct result of this update, can it be Party/Squad>RP Checkbox>Guild>World>Friends instead? Heck, Originally we weren't even looking for that in this thread. All we asked for was an update to the following statement by a dev, which was posted in the LAST World Restructuring mega-thread:

If at any point a dev says "It doesn't seem like a feasible idea at this time, and might delay the release of World Restructuring" I will happily stop asking about it. I would NEVER suggest not pushing through, or delaying the release of, this world structuring update. But if this is something that they can tack on that will give QoL to a portion of the community and will have zero affect on the WvW community at all... why are we being attacked for asking?

[Sarrs.4831]

@Sojourner.4621 said:why are we being attacked for asking?

I'm not attacking you. I RP from time to time. I just don't see the issue and don't see why someone'd get wound up about it.

[OokamiKawaii.1750]

@"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:The next major things to develop are the front-end systems and the back-end matchmaking. The front-end takes time and iteration, and the matchmaking itself is sort of the whole point and needs to be undertaken with care, since it involves assigning every WvW player to a new world all at once!

What makes up a world?

We will build a world from any number of Alliances, Guilds, and Solo Players. This means a single alliance will not necessarily dominate the population of a world. The goal is to create even worlds, so the matchmaker builds the worlds out of whatever pieces makes sense to fulfill that goal.

Will you build hard-core and casual worlds?

No. The goal is to balance worlds by population. The matchmaker, at this time, is unconcerned with trying to match skill.

Population balance is good, but also need playstyle balance.WvW at the moment has PPT and KDR/fight types. It sucks when your group wants fights but you only matched up against 2 servers that focus on PPT and run at open field fights.

Some guilds only care about fights because it the main rewards you get from WvW. I know there pip chests and reward track rewards, but you get those by time and not by play in WvW. PPT players get rewards from tower/keep lords but that really insignificant, especially if they defending PPT instead of claiming. Where KDR/fight play might reward more loot/bags. In the end, currently fights give the "only" real reward outside of how much time played.So either mixing both players into a world evenly or separating worlds as 2 type of WvW gametypes. Either way you might need to ask players what type of playstyle they prefer.

Maybe can add a 4th map to WvW, with limited objectives and more fields for fights. Maybe take the DAoC idea of relics as the objective. Each sides has 3 places to hold a relic and match starts with each holding 1 relic. Can take enemies relics and have to escort them to home objectives to gain a buff. Relics even carried marked on map so sides can head to them for KDR/fights. This map has increased WvW score for enemy kills to contribute to world score.

Rewards/Tournaments/Leaderboards

If—and that is a big if—we do add/change rewards to be tied more directly to World success in matches, those changes would come later. The plan is to ship the core system and get all the kinks worked out and the teams balanced before we start trying to find new ways to give rewards or do tournaments or anything of that kind.

I do believe that rewards are indeed needed for WvW. And how those rewards are gained changed as well. As I just mentioned with world/playstyle balance in my paragraph before.

For PPT players maybe add in reward bags like the tower/keep lord loot for successfully defending. I know some players don't care if a low tier objective is flipped. As it not worth it since there no reward for PPT and end of skirmish and match. Or they only defend t3 objectives and even then might not if they are attacking an enemy objective. So need to incentivise defending and winning skirmishes and matches.

Leave the pip/reward tracks as we are used to them.

Add in rewards for Skirmishes and Matches, what you get depends what place your world got in the skirmish and for the match at the end of the week.Since Skirmishes are 2 hours long they might have rewards in line as PvP daily tournaments (gold, mystic coins, cosmetic item [dye or something else], potions of WvW reward, and something else to replace qualifying points)Match rewards can be more in line with the PvP monthly tournaments (high amount of gold, lots of mystic coins, Large potions of WvW reward, cosmetic item [pet box or something], ascended item box, etc).Since we already have participation for reward track and pips, we can use them to dish out rewards for skirmishes and matches.For skirmish rewards can be lvl 5 or 6 participation at end of the skirmish.For match rewards could be finished gold pip chests that week (like how wood division is).

For KDR/fights, some classes need change to how their skills help fights. Main thing at the moment is the dps classes get tons of bags, while support players barely get any. We need to incentivise people to play the supports. It shouldn't be on leaders or players to "tip" or send gold to scouts and support (like a hiring bonus).I play a support mesmer, my focus pull is crucial to bombing and getting downs in fights, yet if my teammates bomb is good I will get no credit for those I pulled as i will have no chance to tag those enemies (resulting in no loot bags for me but tons for the dps). Firebrands for healing and buffing is the same, that they hardly get anything. There probably lots more to change how we "tag" enemies, but current meta fights I'm used to firebrand and mesmer issues.

I also believe participation needs to be changed in one way. That if you die due to a player that it resets your time decay. Meaning a death does not generate more participation, but if outnumbered/roaming that failing to claim a camp or something doesnt penalize you with decay.example: Im green trying to take a blue camp. Red comes and kills me and claims the camp (now RI for 5 minutes). I now have 2 minutes to gain participation, but no objective close for me to try for before I start decaying participation. So since I was out and doing WvW activities, I should not be penalized with decay.This is important to note that only to deaths by enemy players count. If die to npc at a camp/tower etc wont count (so players don't just suicide to stop decay)

Player Play Hours

In the original post and discussion, we talked about using player hours (the current method we use for calculating world sizes for links and “full” status) and then adjusting those hours by other metrics like command hours, etc. We subsequently have decided to, at least at the start, use only play hours and not adjust using other metrics. This will allow us to compare apples to apples so to speak once the system is in place. From there we can simulate how certain adjustments would change the matchups. This will make it easier to determine if an adjustment will have a positive impact.

I think instead of making it so "old play data" determines things that you can have a survey at the start of each 8 weeks.This surve can ask many things of the player to help determine match ups.Things like:

1. what guild want to play with in WvW (0-5 options)
2. If they like PPT or fights (or both)
3. What days they most likely to play WvW for the upcoming 8 weeks (add random option besides the 7 days, and maybe other options)
4. What times during the days likely to play (add random option besides the 24 hours, and maybe other options)
5. maybe other things

Writing a program to determine where people are placed but using old data makes it hard for if something in that players life changes.Like went from a rotating day/hour schedule to a set 9-5 job. Or retiring and have many more hours can play. Or changed jobs and now instead of playing in NA prime hours they playing off hours and the worlds created for that match up either dead at those hours or who knows.

Adding a survey to that program can help a lot. As instead of just relying on old data you asking for what the player thinks they can do/play in the upcoming weeks. Helping balance for what they want to do.Like currently my server lost a link and now we don't have coverage. There times in NA prime hours that we are getting the outnumbered buff. These nights as a fight guild we might be getting steamrolled and so we log early since it is frustrating. Asking the player what they like to do in WvW can be crucial, and these "objectives" for their play style and time can change over the months. So asking us what we want is better then relying on old data.

[Sojourner.4621]

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@Sojourner.4621 said:why are we being attacked for asking?

I'm not attacking you. I RP from time to time. I just don't see the issue and don't see why someone'd get wound up about it.

You might not be personally... that's fine. A lot of the attacking posts were deleted and came from a particular user, but I got mobbed against by a number of people for even having the nerve to ask.

Back when the Mega-server sorting system was put in to place RPers said it would very clearly make finding RP in the open world more difficult, and could they find a way to make the sorting not so harmful to that. We were told, basically, to shut up and deal with it... if you want to be sorted with RPers just all join the same World and you'll be more likely to sort together. That's good enough. Sure enough, finding RP out in the open world became much more rare because the world sorting is pretty low on the priority list (Party/Squad>Guild>World>Friends). This new change will make it so it will be harder to stumble on RP even in cities... because worlds won't exist outside of WvW. The only choices will be NA/EU. There are a lot more than 500 RPers in the game... I am in TCrps mega-guild but the majority of RPers on my friend list were met by accident out in the open, and are NOT in the TCrp guild. If we are restricted to only seeing other RPers if we're guilded with them, then that means I'd have never met a lot of the people I call friends now. That's no solution.

[morrolan.9608]

@"Sojourner.4621" said:If at any point a dev says "It doesn't seem like a feasible idea at this time, and might delay the release of World Restructuring" I will happily stop asking about it. I would NEVER suggest not pushing through, or delaying the release of, this world structuring update. But if this is something that they can tack on that will give QoL to a portion of the community and will have zero affect on the WvW community at all... why are we being attacked for asking?

Cause you're asking the wrong people in the wrong forum.

[Sojourner.4621]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@"Sojourner.4621" said:If at any point a dev says "It doesn't seem like a feasible idea at this time, and might delay the release of World Restructuring" I will happily stop asking about it. I would NEVER suggest not pushing through, or delaying the release of, this world structuring update. But if this is something that they can tack on that will give QoL to a portion of the community and will have zero affect on the WvW community at all... why are we being attacked for asking?

Cause you're asking the wrong people in the wrong forum.

I am asking the people working on the system that will directly kill World sorting in mega-server maps. The people who, the very poster of this thread in fact, acknowledged in the last thread about this very subject. I am asking for a follow-up from the person who said he'd look in to it, in the place where he said he would look in to it... in a thread specifically designed to give follow-up information from the last thread. How is that the wrong place?

[Rysdude.3824]

@Roxanne.6140 said:

@Etheri.5406 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Etheri.5406 said:Crops

The description of veterans written is casual to me. You claim that pugs are trash because they don't go voip. However, do those so-called veterans go to voip as well when they pugging? There are a lot of veterans that never ever go voip just because is not their guild raiding or because they don't like that guild playstyle or whatever. Also, veterans are also "pugs" when they outside of your guild raid. Lastly, you claim veteran guilds bandwagon away to empty server which is fine but what if they bandwagon together to the same server, are they not stacking? Furthermore, there are no such thing as empty server, is just means that it is low populated or they all just playing pve until someone come in to command for them. Pugs are always there, blaming pugs for the decisions are just poor justification, act of casuals. Be a man, do the right thing.

Maybe my definition of veterans doesn't include the "hardcore casuals" of gw2. Too many players with 5k hours who still have no clue what they're doing.

The guilds end up going together because they want to play an actual organised style rather than sitting around a choke spamming random aoe's in eachothers direction because neither side can push. The guilds go to the emptier servers because there aren't 3 queues every prime. Because they won't have 10 pugs adding to every guild fight they do.

Pugs are trash because they're too casual to try and play the game. They want to sit around and do their thing without improving; roleplaying around in WvW. Which is fine; except nobody wants to do it with you. Especially not if they're a majority on every server. Overall the general quality of WvW is so low that frankly, playing on most servers isn't enjoyable in any way for most of the players.

Whoa Mr Hotshot, which guild and which server are you in?

I’m so curious about this as well. While I agree with most of what he/she has written, the matter of fact tone of the writing makes it sound like he/she is the Founder of WvW lol I don’t mind it, just curious on the credentials.

[Kitta.3657]

RPers, you have your answer: they are looking into possible solutions. CLEARLY they aren't done with their system and things are moving quite slowly, there are no updates to your questions on it so you should honestly sit and wait like the rest. You've asked, there is nothing for them to say as of right now. There is no reason to keep this going in here and it's quite polluting at this point.

[Etheri.5406]

@Tiawal.2351 said:

@"Etheri.5406" said:

The guilds end up going together because they want to play an actual organised style rather than sitting around a choke spamming random aoe's in eachothers direction because neither side can push. The guilds go to the emptier servers because there aren't 3 queues every prime. Because they won't have 10 pugs adding to every guild fight they do.

Having enemies worth fighting, is even more important than having allies. Stacking one side, to farm baddies on the other side, is the least fun form of WvW.

Still, I agree with your overall ideeas about how to fix the system and the problems presented are very accurate. While it's risky giving player alliances the power to recruit and kick, it's the only way making WvW competitive - by letting them manage the world they are in, raise or fall together with the comunity they build. This is the only way to make WvW meaningful.

Having enemies worth fighting... yeah that'd be nice. Howmany players do you think we'd need to send to gandara to turn it into a server worth fighting? If we spread the good players over all servers, do you think we'd have much more enemies worth fighting? It won't just turn the water into wine magically. Most pugs want to get carried, not to get good. And as long as that's their main drive, they're just walking bags to be honest.

Let's see; you got a 20 man guild and you want to not stack on vabbi or wsr. Where do you go? Right, T5 is germans and they're increasingly less active. Very little guilds to fight but overall better fights than T3 and T4 if they happen. T4 there is, right now, not a single good group to fight. Absolutely no point to go there. (And for the record - we went SFR for 3 weeks first time vabbi got a major influx of bandwagon players from FSP. Took 3 weeks to get permanent EBG queues and dedicated clowns following our comms 24/7.)

So truthfully, you need a T1 or T2 server to be able to reach the other guilds / fight worthy opponents right now. Which are your options? WSR and vabbi are presumably not; which leaves gandara, FSP and deso.

You could go gankdara. This gives you no openfield, no coordinated gameplay out of guildraids, a lot of pugs adding permanently to every fight and nice queues. Pugmanding is impossible if you want to organise rather than chatmand around. You will never be able to drop from T1 or control matchups. Compared to the amount of players, there's fairly little community interaction / teamplay but a lot of carebearism. If you go there it takes a month before half your guild ragequits out of boreddom.

You could go FSP. In my opinion this used to be the best option assuming you don't want WSR and vabbi; but truthfully it's still incredibly bad. Let's start by the beginning : FSP used to be a stacked server with considerably more guilds than either vabbi or WSR and many, many comms. They had a stable core community for several years, and kept growing in pugs. Nowadays FSP gets 3-4 queues almost every prime. Kill, Amp and a huge majority of pugs left to WSR. RT, Kale and Gang stayed at that point. Even after half the core of FSP left; they managed to get 4 queues virtually every prime; altho linked with AG (quite high pop link). RT and Gang have now also left. I don't know a single pugmander left on FSP that will provide some kind of fight.

My alt has been on FSP for a while considering it a better option than gankdara. Literally moved it off wsr as most of FSP core moved there to a weaker server. So how is playing on FSP? last time I tagged up there on my alt (admittedly EBG) the map was queue'd, players were asking for commander, I got 50+ around my tag, never more than 25 in squad and it took more than one hour to get 10 players into their TS. Wasn't able to organise a single thing. No point calling any skills; there was less than 5 players listening throughout most.

If I tag on vabbi, I can get 20-30 players willing to play at start and you make a few groups so you can do things. You don't have a massive group, but you have some players who are playing together. If I tag on FSP without bringing my own players, I'm literally alone. Except there's 50 players following you around, happy that there's a dorito to follow. They just dont' give a flying fuck about what the dorito says or does, or about anyone else. Then they have the audacity to cry when they get rolled over.

The time before then was desert bl. Again managed to get queues and fights for a quite long time. Never managed to get more than 1/3rd on ts. FSP was a STACKED incredibly strong server. When vabbi was formed; FSP had MORE guilds (and a lot more pugs) there than vabbi did; altho in my opinion vabbi's guilds were more "hardcore". So what happened? Oh right, so many bandwaggoners that pretty much every single one of these guilds and almost all pugmanders left. Bandwaggoners by which I mean "casual entitled leechers". Now FSP has 4 maps full of pugs yet it can only be competitive with fairly weak wsr / vabbi blobs.

The exact same happens on gankdara and deso. Two servers which have had... all their fight guilds leave. So a few misnomers.1) bringing 15-20 fight players to a server with 200+ pugs active every prime does not make them a worthy opponent. It means that rather than one pushing 60 plebs that spread and run, you one push a guild of 15 players while their pugs spread and try to 45v5 a few of your pugs in the back. That's gankdara. Then they'll complain about blobbing despite "ganking" with 50 players on a queue'd map...2) Spreading out doesn't create more enemies worth fighting. You aren't really "teaching" your pugs, you can't get them to listen or care about anything you have to say. You don't have enough players to influence server culture either. You have only few choices : tag up yourself, roam, guildraid, don't play. You can go tag up on piken or sfr or FSP or gandara and "fight" for them but it won't turn them into a fight server. No matter howmuch you try, if you manage to get any kind of players in the first place after losing a few fights half the players will just afk in keep or do something else anyways rather than listening and trying to improve. These players want commanders but they have absolutely no interest in following the commanders ideas or calls. The commander is expected to know how to get loot, and if not he's just a bad commander.

So how exactly does spreading over 15 servers give more fights than spreading over 2-3? By all means it would if the ones willing to fight weren't... 15% of the population. If players were interested in improving without... making a server dedicated to not playing a teamgame as if you're single player. Spreading out doesn't make things even and doesnt make pugs worth fighting. It means you have 30-40 players that die on engage and 20 players worth fighting who don't stand a chance. It means you still have the 50v30 for the winning side; permanently, because pugs are fairweather and have no interest in fights. They are interested in using you for bags you can provide. It means you can't do 15v15's between guilds because... Oh right, pugs respecting guildraids? OmegaLUL.

So yeah... The reason not a single guild stays on these servers is because the players can't actually play on these servers. Casuals are too demanding and insanely toxic towards their style of play. That's reality. If you're bad at the game, you're going to get farmed. You can run and port to spawn a lot to avoid it, but nothing and nobody will save or carry your ass. Just try and improve, it's not that hard.

What anet needs to do is ADD COVERAGE to their metrics or this system fails regardless. Then in my opinion, PPT has to be rebalanced to allow skilled players to outppt unskilled ones far more easily. Currently it takes hours to flip defended objectives due to siege and tactics; despite never engaging in combat. This promotes having massive no-skill pug servers in high tiers complaining about wiping 24/7. At some point it's just better to use rankings as skill / style divide so more fight-oriented servers gravitate towards the same tiers; and more PPT oriented servers gravitate towards the same tiers too.

It seems "logical" that PPT oriented servers would end up highest in PPT. The issue is twofold. 1) PPT servers ragequit insanely hard if you farm them. Most PPT servers are "PPT servers" because they're too bad to fight; and thus mostly avoid fights to try and karma train or defend stuff (the most advantageous fights). Not because they're good at PPT. The second issue is that you can never have influence of skill on tiers as long as siege is vastly more powerful than players. If pressing 1 2 3 on acs and using tactics is effective enough to delay or stall most assaults significantly then it won't happen.

I hope the new world system improves things. The community has to do it; because it's clear from anet's description that their new system will NOT fix population balance in any meaningful way. In order to fix it; it will require community organisation. And it's the same as with stacked servers now - you ask organisation but 80% of the players in this game have 0 interest in organising, only in their personal interests.

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

@Kitta.3657 said:RPers, you have your answer: they are looking into possible solutions. CLEARLY they aren't done with their system and things are moving quite slowly, there are no updates to your questions on it so you should honestly sit and wait like the rest. You've asked, there is nothing for them to say as of right now. There is no reason to keep this going in here and it's quite polluting at this point.

They are too busy RPing as forum warriors.

[Blocki.4931]

@Roxanne.6140 said:

@Blocki.4931 said:

@Roxanne.6140 said:In this new system, there will be no server pride and winning has no meaning because of matchmaker. Not that both of them have a huge presence now but they will be even less in the new system. But of course who is reading this anyway rofl.

Server pride hasn't been a thing for a few years now...

Good news is that guild pride will be more of a thing with this though

So the logic is if something is wrong or broken or missing, accept it's broken and make it worse?

Accept that you can't fix it and wait until somebody else does

[Tiawal.2351]

@Roxanne.6140 said:

@Tiawal.2351 said:

@"Etheri.5406" said:

The guilds end up going together because they want to play an actual organised style rather than sitting around a choke spamming random aoe's in eachothers direction because neither side can push. The guilds go to the emptier servers because there aren't 3 queues every prime. Because they won't have 10 pugs adding to every guild fight they do.

Having enemies worth fighting, is even more important than having allies. Stacking one side, to farm baddies on the other side, is the least fun form of WvW.

Still, I agree with your overall ideeas about how to fix the system and the problems presented are very accurate. While it's risky giving player alliances the power to recruit and kick, it's the only way making WvW competitive - by letting them manage the world they are in, raise or fall together with the comunity they build. This is the only way to make WvW meaningful.

So you trust players to create their own competition? Good for you!!!

Players already control their guild, and soon their alliance. It's just that their alliance will be an important minority, in their world/community, and both will be moved around more or less randomly, removing any reason to adapt to each other. This can and in many cases WILL create and mantain conflict between an alliance focused on something vs. the rest of randoms who won't contribute, because it's a conflict of interests, just like in the current system. This ends just like now, in "servers" which don't care about win or competing, because it's not possible, unless a small numbers does a huge effort for a while, the rest just being carried.

This can be solved by having a guild vs. guild system, alliance vs. alliance system, or world vs. world system - either managed by players (same way they already manage a guild/alliance) or managed by an ArenaNet employee "Game Master", which is highly unlikely. It's nothing new, the "United we stand, divided we fall" it's an ancient fact. Humans always need a reason, to motivate them, otherwise they won't work together to achieve a common goal. Randoms vs. randoms, where everyone wants something else or nothing at all, it's a "competition" of chaos vs. chaos only... it's pointless.

[Etria.3642]

I just don't understand why the vast majority of pugs outright REFUSE to get in voice.

That refusal often leads to frustrated commanders running tagless or actively trying to 'lose' the pugs. Saying in voice to port to garri while linking a different wp in mapchat.

Then the pugs not in voice get angry and pissed off(most aren't even in the squad!) but IF THEY WOULD JUST JOIN VOICE it would improve their value immensely. The difference between hearing 'fake push to gate then dodge right' and just seeing the zerg surge forward is IMMENSE. Even just LISTENING improves the results.

Can't tell you how many times an open run becomes 'if you can hear my voice do this action' then those players are invited to a squad, commander tags down, reinvited and the run continues tagless. The fights are better--with fewer people. Until the pugs find them anyway.

I don't know how alliances will fix this refusal. It isn't anet that kills the experience. Its voice refusal. Insistence on playing a weaker class with inferior gear. Considering food and buffs optional. I don't understand how players can accept all these requirements for raids but not for wvw. For crying out loud. PLAYERS should be considered far more difficult to face than an NPC boss with known mechanics.

So that all said. I know some guild's are already figuring alliances. Knowing the cap is 500 is really good for this preorganization.