World Restructuring Update 1

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Etria.3642" said: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.

I dont see what this has to do with world restructure. Voice coms is something players use to make WvW better. World restructure neither fix or break anything in that area. Its not supposed to.

That said maybe alliances will make more people think "hey that alliance look fun, maybe I should join an alliance and be part of their community. Oh they have discord too and alliance commanders that use it?"

[Etheri.5406]

@Etria.3642 said:THE TRUTH

I completely agree. However, the raiders in GW2 PvE deal with the exact same issue. They ask for all these requirements just to keep the casuals out. The moment you don't ask any requirements your group is instantly full with random players hoping to get carried yet they can't kill a single boss; and after 2 wipes 3 players leave. OH HEY THAT'S LIKE WORLD V WORLD NOWADAYS. It's extra funny, because everyone who isn't hyper casual is doing their very best at this point to just get rid of them. PvE'ers ask whatever demands required and kick who won't adapt. WvWers use tactics as you describe everywhere. Many guilds and comms are trying to, any way possible, get rid of the casuals chasing them. And these casuals? They want nothing more than to play with you! But only on their terms, doing their stuff and if you don't like that you're a toxic elitist.

@"Dawdler.8521" this is very relevant to the update. It's a huge reason why population balance in WvW cannot work right now; and why it will continue to fail after the rework when done as announced here. Nothing in anet's system to promote coverage or skill devision or balancing. Neither through matchmaking, alliance sorting or anything to make players do it themselves. Why would it improve?

The more casual WvW becomes; the more "population balance" is an issue. When two blobs fight they don't fight 50v50. They fight 10v10 with 40 players on both sides hoping they'll get free wins; then as soon as they know who's stronger the losing side leaves; the winning side gains some extra and the fights are done. 90% of WvW isn't interested in competition, balance or fights. They're casuals who want to be rewarded for winning; nothing else. But their playstyle is literally what promotes inbalance - they won't try when they lose; they'll just make you lose more. And they'll stalk you when you win even tho you don't need or want them; because they demand loot!

This change is supposed to what? Fix matchmaking? Fix balance issues? I'm seeing minor improvements yet NOTHING about coverage. Nothing about creating a healthy environment. How does this improve things if they won't adress our basic concerns? Just give EOTM bigger rewards and full pips so they go play there then.

If anet doesn't adress the issues described; and obviously it's more than just voice comms but it's a pretty big part of it; then I predict the veterans will continue to avoid them like the plague they are. It's not enjoyable for either side. I don't even like flaming casuals; but they simply won't listen to nice requests. Nobody cares about a few players; but a majority of every group is too much to manage. Anet clearly has no intention to balance PPT / coverage / skill at this time; and I assure you an alliance of 200-300 veterans is more than enough to beat 2.000 casual players consistently. And you know what? Those 2.000 players will cry about population inbalance, but there's only three solutions for their bullshit that I can think of.

1) Predominantly veteran scene; nobody minds carrying 10% casuals or 20% casuals. It's 60% casuals that is a problem. Except you can't just magically get enough veterans back; so forget about this one.2) Splitting these groups all together. Can be done multiple ways. e.g. veterans enjoy competition more than loot; generally casuals enjoy loot and ingame rewards more than competition. Give EOTM high rewards again; BYE PLEBS AND PIPFARMERS. Or make WvW competition favor one or the other; so hardcore groups end up fighting eachother in T1 or T5; and mass casual alliances end up playing in the opposite with gradual changes in between.3) Let players FULLY control the alliances; same as instanced content and normal guilds. WvW is currently like raidselling. If you're trash you can just pay some gems and go any strong server you like. Instead make it a two way contract. Alliances NEED and WANT players; and players NEED and WANT alliances to play with. Make alliances capable of inviting and kicking whoever they please. You'll suddenly see plenty of players willing to put in more effort; and those who do not will simply join less skilled alliances with less expectations. It creates a natural ranking of more casual towards more hardcore, which you can have fight eachother too. This avoids the stacking of hardcore players onto a few servers and the use of millions of tactics to try and avoid casuals; and instead promotes players on the same alliance to actually play TOGETHER.

You know; I think that's the goal of this discussion. Fix major issues in balancing the populations and different desires of groups in WvW. But what the fuck do I know; I'm just a toxic elitist.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Rysdude.3824 said:

@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.

To me is more like a political reply that not trying to argue or disagree but rather to misdirect inorder to make his own points.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

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.

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'm just guessing these things are what people are talking about.

I understand that this might come or be thought about after the main structure is in place, as you described. But what incentive would players have to win their match up? The way I understand how this works is that the teams are like random teams where alliances and guilds function like upscaled duopartners in sPvP.

The seasons are like 8 matches with the same team after which you get another random team.

Is there anything in mind to give alliances or guilds a rating or even worlds a rating (later on). Do worlds have a rating so that they dont have to play against the same opponent for 8 weeks?

(Sudden realisation why its based on population only for now.)

[Etheri.5406]

No; I just think the idea that WvW and PvP need to be as casual as PvE is absurd. If you expect to win or have nice gameplay; I expect you put the effort in that it requires. This isn't elitist nor makes me the founder of WvW; it's simply realistic. I play and occasionally lead on vabbi with the group that moved there from piken when we got sick and tired of piken carebears griefing.

This is also why I have clear opinions on why players rather move to "dead" link servers together than to existing "communities" in EU. We've discussed several server moves to enable our core to have more "fights". I know the opinions of the veterans I play with, because we've discussed them at length several times.

Not trying to argue or disagree but rather misdirect in order to make his own points...

That sounds like having an opinion; and most opinions are nuanced rather than "agree" or "disagree". Not sure how having your own points / opinion is misdirection.

Make no mistake; if this rework fails miserably you can safely assume WvW is done. Or at least the way I and many others enjoyed playing WvW. If this rework is done well then WvW might actually end up getting the attention most of us want it to have. I rather not stay around another 5 years praying for an update and arguing with RPers about the direction of WvW reforms (?????). Many guilds will, especially if it seems good, come back and revitalize WvW if it's good. And these guilds will leave as quickly as they came if it's inherently flawed.

And current iteration which anet suggested? Unless coverage data included it's a minor improvement. Now I'm ALL GAME for minor improvements; but it will not be enough. Absolutely no solution to coverage issues, and the resulting population inbalance. No taking into account skill, meaning even less population balance... Minor improvements are great for small, regular updates and patches. Not for a complete overhaul that is still in early design phases and will be our main "content" for years.

[Redponey.8352]

@"Etheri.5406" said:No; I just think the idea that WvW and PvP need to be as casual as PvE is absurd. If you expect to win or have nice gameplay; I expect you put the effort in that it requires. This isn't elitist nor makes me the founder of WvW; it's simply realistic. I play and occasionally lead on vabbi with the group that moved there from piken when we got sick and tired of piken carebears griefing.

This is also why I have clear opinions on why players rather move to "dead" link servers together than to existing "communities" in EU. We've discussed several server moves to enable our core to have more "fights". I know the opinions of the veterans I play with, because we've discussed them at length several times.

Not trying to argue or disagree but rather misdirect in order to make his own points...

That sounds like having an opinion; and most opinions are nuanced rather than "agree" or "disagree". Not sure how having your own points / opinion is misdirection.

Make no mistake; if this rework fails miserably you can safely assume WvW is done. Or at least the way I and many others enjoyed playing WvW. If this rework is done well then WvW might actually end up getting the attention most of us want it to have. I rather not stay around another 5 years praying for an update and arguing with RPers about the direction of WvW reforms (?????). Many guilds will, especially if it seems good, come back and revitalize WvW if it's good. And these guilds will leave as quickly as they came if it's inherently flawed.

And current iteration which anet suggested? Unless coverage data included it's a minor improvement. Now I'm ALL GAME for minor improvements; but it will not be enough. Absolutely no solution to coverage issues, and the resulting population inbalance. No taking into account skill, meaning even less population balance... Minor improvements are great for small, regular updates and patches. Not for a complete overhaul that is still in early design phases and will be our main "content" for years.

i totally agree with you.

Some major balancing patch in WvW should be done to revitalize the combat gameplay. Regular and competitive players should be back if the gameplay allow them to play in different style and create their own. Passive skills and bonus are quite too strong vs combo between classes (combo field was a great way to promote competitive gameplay because it needs synergy and game vision).

[SkyShroud.2865]

@"Etheri.5406" said:

Not trying to argue or disagree but rather misdirect in order to make his own points...

That sounds like having an opinion; and most opinions are nuanced rather than "agree" or "disagree". Not sure how having your own points / opinion is misdirection.

Really. Like how the context was talking about A and you shift it into B? Not everybody are easily manipulated and impressed easily with wall of text, you know?

[joneirikb.7506]

@Etheri.5406

Taking another line of thought at your idea of splitting veteran/casual players by either eotm or tiers. How about splitting them by the normal maps in WvW ?

If ANet setup some larger variety of maps per match-up, and allowed for some different rules per map, you could easily re-create what you say without having to split up servers/alliances/whatever. Simply let people go play on the map they enjoy the style of the most.

Just some quick examples to give the idea:

• Add EotM as a normal map next to EBG, and tune it so it gets 10% more loot in general, but perhaps less other things (like WxP, structures doesn't upgrade so no extra PPT etc).
• EBG should already give the most PPT so would appeal more to the PPT crowd and those that chase them down to get fights
• Give the borderlands a bonus to WXP for example to encourage new players to go there and learn.

---

General line of thought: It is better to give players the options to play ways they like, rather than shut down an entire tier for specific play styles (I mean, should they lock down entire tier 4 for roaming then? Just because I miss roaming).

And most posters here would rather eat their keyboard than ever let there be a reason for anyone to ever go to EotM again. :p

And considering the way the game/combat breaks under numbers, I can't really imagine how you would ever manage to make WvW give points for being "skillful", closest I can see would be to make one map (EBG?) give a bunch of more points for kills? (Though everyone is just going to scream I'm a spy from Mag if I say that...) (This probably worthy of a own separate thread)

---

PS: (random comment) You're quite verbose, I've read all your posts so far, and keep thinking you could have said the same with half the text. Not that I'm one to speak, tend to do the same myself.

[LetoII.3782]

@"Phelar.1627" said:Can we please get some type of title of the the world were on currently when this changes. I've been on the same server since Early access and would like to have something to represent that.

I agree, and the title should be "cheapskate"

[joneirikb.7506]

Would love some more info on the whole "title" part, since that is literally all we've heard so far. I want to know when entire Kaineng gets our proper title of "BandWagon #1"

[Dawdler.8521]

@OokamiKawaii.1750 said:Either way you might need to ask players what type of playstyle they prefer.

No, you really dont.

Splitting up players into DLCs, expansions or gamemodes has been and will always be the death of multiplayer games.

In the case of GW2, people say that the game is ded already on this forum due to low population and you're saying we need to go lower? Ugh.

[OokamiKawaii.1750]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@OokamiKawaii.1750 said:Either way you might need to ask players what type of playstyle they prefer.

No, you really dont.

Splitting up players into DLCs, expansions or gamemodes has been and will always be the death of multiplayer games.

In the case of GW2, people say that the game is ded already on this forum due to low population and you're saying we need to go lower? Ugh.

I never said to split them up. I said ask them their playstyle.As in, person x likes to roam, and probably do that for the 8 weeks of the matches. So don't put them with all the other roamers, put them on a world where they complement the other players.

WvW is a mixture of playstyles. To have a world do well you need all types. But we need to make incentives to do certain activities.And honestly it is better to get a person's idea of what and when they will play from them directly, instead of trying to make a program to figure it out from old data.

[Etheri.5406]

@joneirikb.7506 said:@Etheri.5406

Taking another line of thought at your idea of splitting veteran/casual players by either eotm or tiers. How about splitting them by the normal maps in WvW ?

If ANet setup some larger variety of maps per match-up, and allowed for some different rules per map, you could easily re-create what you say without having to split up servers/alliances/whatever. Simply let people go play on the map they enjoy the style of the most.

Just some quick examples to give the idea:

• Add EotM as a normal map next to EBG, and tune it so it gets 10% more loot in general, but perhaps less other things (like WxP, structures doesn't upgrade so no extra PPT etc).
• EBG should already give the most PPT so would appeal more to the PPT crowd and those that chase them down to get fights
• Give the borderlands a bonus to WXP for example to encourage new players to go there and learn.

---

General line of thought: It is better to give players the options to play ways they like, rather than shut down an entire tier for specific play styles (I mean, should they lock down entire tier 4 for roaming then? Just because I miss roaming).

And most posters here would rather eat their keyboard than ever let there be a reason for anyone to ever go to EotM again. :p

And considering the way the game/combat breaks under numbers, I can't really imagine how you would ever manage to make WvW give points for being "skillful", closest I can see would be to make one map (EBG?) give a bunch of more points for kills? (Though everyone is just going to scream I'm a spy from Mag if I say that...) (This probably worthy of a own separate thread)

---

PS: (random comment) You're quite verbose, I've read all your posts so far, and keep thinking you could have said the same with half the text. Not that I'm one to speak, tend to do the same myself.

Putting it in the same WvW worlds is bad; it only adds difficulty balancing populations to create healthy gameplay rather than trying to solve the issue. Say you add a third ktrain map, that only makes it more difficult to balance PPT and more likely to have servers with distinctly different playstyles face off and play their respective prefered maps, which leads to the issues we already have. One server goes to dodge and ktrain on red avoiding fights at all cost; the other sits in sm in EBG and despite both sides having ~50 players, both sides prefer to play 40v10. That's already the reality right now; but the game promotes it as defense is insanely OP and PPT is irrelevant, in my opinion even BAD for server health. So you add a third map that needs to be balanced; and you don't immediately fix any issues. Please explain the goal / advantage.

In my opinion IDEALLY you want genuine balanced groups. I think this can be done by balancing PPT a bit better. Each aspect of the game is helpful and required for "hardcore" ppt. Roamers blobs guilds fights pugs scouts and coverage is ALL required for hardcore PPT. But you need incentives to put everyone on board with this plan; and not having bandwaggoners go to the winners is a basic requirement for that. I've written posts here before on how I think it can be done by making the mode competitive as this makes PPT mean something more than 2 blues, a green and the death of your own server. At the moment, if vabbi ppt'd to T1 and stayed there for 1 full relink; it would gain hundreds of players and lose most of its quality. The moment we're in T1 too long our core will actively make sure we LOSE just to not become the next sfr / deso / fsp as quickly. To get better fights we don't necessarily PPT either; we just snipe a certain matchup.

PPT is a means to an end rather than a goal; and if these goals don't allign we get conflict with our teammates. That's one of the main issues in WvW right now. There is no real "team", only selfinterst. Pugs just want entertainment and bags for no effort. Others want PPT no matter what. Others want fights no matter what. Others want to roam or defend stuff or just chill and roleplay. And I don't /mind/ all these; I just also want to play my style in an enjoyable way just like everyone else.

The biggest problem with WvW right now is that /every/ server is fighting their own team 24/7. Communities are very limited on most servers. You struggle more with getting your pugs organised and on the same page than you do fighting enemies. Roamers, ppters, fight guilds, pugs all want different things. I want them to rebalance both worlds / matchmaking and PPT to make the entire mode competitive. So that everyone on a server really wants their server to win. When it comes down to it, it is possible to balance PPT so all aspects of WvW (except perhaps the RP...) is required. Roamers, pugs, coverage, fighters, ... can all be benefits to PPT. See tournaments with guilds being bought, sold, coverage being fixed by recruiting and paying tons of golds to commanders and guilds just to ensure WvW is alive almost 24/7.

But bandwaggoning freely to any server MUST be removed. WvW can NEVER be competitive as long as anyone can pay 5-20 euro to transfer to the winning side. That was the main issue from my point of view. You need ability to transfer to balance things out... but free transfers especially (or during times / timezones where) activity declines directly "promote" stacking. Lets say mag needs more EU timezone pugs. Why would EU pugs move to mag if they won't have comms or an enjoyable experience ever? They don't. Instead they join a side which has nice EU time comms and groups running around, and increase the inbalance. Bad overall, but that's because their interests don't directly allign with those that promote the health of the game.

Walls of text are maybe too long but required to explain why I think these things. I find unexplained ideas about things as complex as WvW very triggering. I'll compare to anet's post : it's very clear and understandable what they try to do, but I have absolutely NO IDEA how or why they expect these changes to have a positive effect. The only advantage I've seen specifically mentioned is the lower population for alliances / cap making it easier to form servers balanced based on population. That's true, and nice, and entirely misses the problem with population inbalance. I'd rather write a wall of text that actually explains why things are problematic and how to solve them than write one liners that sound nice but lack the detail to be constructive; as is common on social media.

"Raids are not difficult enough" - That's just a sentimental statement.

"Raids are not difficult enough because we can skip or ignore the majority of the mechanics trivially, see gorseval without updrafts or VG without greens. By buffing raid bosses or nerfing player strength, these mechanics would become relevant." That's a lot longer but actually supports your opinion turning your sentimental statement into a constructive argument.

Back to your suggestion : I don't want to "lock servers to a certain style of play". I'm saying that's what players like me WILL organise / aim for if anet doesn't create an environment where each of the playstyles of WvW can happily coexist; and so far I don't see the alliance update adressing enough issues considering the size and work going into it. 3-4 years ago, T1-T2 servers had fight guilds, PPT blobs and roamers in between. Lower end servers were roam heavy with occasional bad zergs and guilds duking it out, and a smooth transition in between. Because the game promoted it. You weren't going to T1 unless you had massive coverage advantage or a huge advantage in terms of fighting strength.

I don't want to hard split up players into categories and not have them play together; that is not healthy. I want to have the game / matchmaking naturally create servers where fight guilds can fight other fight guilds or small blobs, weak blobs of casuals fight other weak blobs of casuals and stacked zoneblobs fight other stacked zoneblobs. Right now I'd say the strongest blobs on EU are in T1, T3 and T5. They did not reach eachother ONCE in the last two months.Right now I'd say the strongest GvG guilds are spread across tiers and most did not face eachother during regular matchups much. Same for roam heavy servers. T1 is roam heavy gandara against group-fight heavy WSR, and neither enjoy fighting eachother. This should NEVER be the result of anet measuring and intentionally putting players together accordingly. This should be the result of PPT / gameplay / matchmaking; just like how in PvP you put high rated and low rated players together based off their results.

Casuals and veterans can enjoy fighting in PvP because they fight players of their own rating. One of the first problems PvP had at the start of the game was "lobbies" where a few good players would farm the entire enemy team rather than matchmaking. Nowadays virtually every game uses matchmaking for that exact reason.... Except WvW. WvW uses matchmaking yet truthfully; anyone can choose to join any team they like as with lobbies which results in "no matchmaking at all".

[Dawdler.8521]

@OokamiKawaii.1750 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@OokamiKawaii.1750 said:Either way you might need to ask players what type of playstyle they prefer.

No, you really dont.

Splitting up players into DLCs, expansions or gamemodes has been and will always be the death of multiplayer games.

In the case of GW2, people say that the game is ded already on this forum due to low population and you're saying we need to go lower? Ugh.

I never said to split them up. I said ask them their playstyle.As in, person x likes to roam, and probably do that for the 8 weeks of the matches. So don't put them with all the other roamers, put them on a world where they complement the other players.

WvW is a mixture of playstyles. To have a world do well you need all types. But we need to make incentives to do certain activities.And honestly it is better to get a person's idea of what and when they will play from them directly, instead of trying to make a program to figure it out from old data.

Oh that would be so easily abused. Just tag yourself as the opposite of what you like.

WvW is a mixture of playstyles, yes. Join one day on a gank built thief, the next day on a minstrel firebrand...

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

@"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?Repping a guild and selecting a WvW guild are independent.Also, if I do have an "HoD Alliance" guild set as my WvW guild, will there be a way for our small guild to go into WvW together when we need to do a WvW guild mission?So long as your guild mates are sorted into your world you'll be able to do your WvW missions for that guild.I guess basically I am asking will the guild we are set to "Represent" affect how we are sorted, or will that default "WvW" tag always apply in our sorting?It's only the WvW guild that applies to sorting.

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

@"Sojourner.4621" said:

There have been some concerns about how World Restructuring will change the ways people are matched in public maps outside of WvW. In a previous post, I alluded to the possibility of an issue here but I was mistaken. At the time, I wasn't clear about public map instance selection and how it was done. I've now done the proper discovery and nothing about how we are changing worlds with world restructuring will effect instance selection for public maps.

[dynomite.5834]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"Sojourner.4621" said:

There have been some concerns about how World Restructuring will change the ways people are matched in public maps outside of WvW. In a previous post, I alluded to the possibility of an issue here but I was mistaken. At the time, I wasn't clear about public map instance selection and how it was done. I've now done the proper discovery and nothing about how we are changing worlds with world restructuring will effect instance selection for public maps.

RP'ers rejoice! Thankfully we can put this issue to bed.

[shiri.4257]

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.

Surveys are more inaccurate than old data. Surveys are what people perceive they do or want to do in their glorious minds as they RP through wvw. Actual data as player hours tells them what they actually do.

ie: WvW fight guilds believe they are fighting for Sparta underneath a hail of persian arrows and bringing victory to their alliance.Reality: they're either afk at spawn, looking for the next nut hug bandwagon, or the ones reigning arrow carts behind T3 fortresses themselves.

[MedievalThings.5417]

@"shiri.4257" said:

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.

Surveys are more inaccurate than old data. Surveys are what people perceive they do or want to do in their glorious minds as they RP through wvw. Actual data as player hours tells them what they actually do.

ie: WvW fight guilds believe they are fighting for Sparta underneath a hail of persian arrows and bringing victory to their alliance.Reality: they're either afk at spawn, looking for the next nut hug bandwagon, or the ones reigning arrow carts behind T3 fortresses themselves.

LOL I just spit my drink out.

[michelada.2947]

This system is "too" complex to work, before hand, WvW has to be reworked and simplified or reworked into something else, i believe anet has to create a new game mode or just leave wvw as it is right now.

[Hesacon.8735]

@"michelada.2947" said:This system is "too" complex to work, before hand, WvW has to be reworked and simplified or reworked into something else, i believe anet has to create a new game mode or just leave wvw as it is right now.

I disagree, this is a pretty elegant solution. The framework for it would be straightforward if built from scratch, it's only complicated by legacy decisions from pre-launch development.

It also solves one of the biggest challenges to new wvw players: playing with their friends. Often you meet people in pve areas, but can't wvw together because they selected a random open server months or years before. Now they can link up via a guild. I can see a lot of new and more casual players playing wvw with the new system as it's described.

[michelada.2947]

They have to remove the 24 hrs cover of the game mode, this is the bane of WvW and this is why is impossible to balance, like i said before they need to rework wvw before implementing this system.

yes the new system solve a lot of problems, but also leave a lot of problems untouch.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"Sojourner.4621" said:

There have been some concerns about how World Restructuring will change the ways people are matched in public maps outside of WvW. In a previous post, I alluded to the possibility of an issue here but I was mistaken. At the time, I wasn't clear about public map instance selection and how it was done. I've now done the proper discovery and nothing about how we are changing worlds with world restructuring will effect instance selection for public maps.

You are saying, that, contrary to what we've been told earlier, your server has no impact whatsoever on PvE map sorting? Because if it does (as we've been informed), then the change will impact RPers.(remember, from what you say after this change, new players no longer will be able to select old servers).

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:Repping a guild and selecting a WvW guild are independent.

Also, if I do have an "HoD Alliance" guild set as my WvW guild, will there be a way for our small guild to go into WvW together when we need to do a WvW guild mission?So long as your guild mates are sorted into your world you'll be able to do your WvW missions for that guild.So, it will become much harder (and subject to random world selection) to do WvW missions for your guilds that you

didn't

set as WvW ones?(because currently the WvW guild missions completely break if your guild happens to be a multiserver one, which is often the case for guilds that are more generic in their content coverage)

Today, there's at least the option to get all WvW players of a non-wvw guild on one server. In future, that won't work.(no, having all of them join another, WvW specific guild is not a good solution, for a multitude of reasons).

[Sarrs.4831]

@Astralporing.1957 said:(no, having all of them join another, WvW specific guild is not a good solution, for a multitude of reasons).

It is somewhat peculiar that you clear WvW missions with a specific guild and cannot select that guild for your primary WvW guild.

[Karnasis.6892]

@Etria.3642 said:I just don't understand why the vast majority of pugs outright REFUSE to get in voice.

I'll use myself as an example. While I don't often follow commanders (prefer to roam) but when I do, typically I don't want to because I just spent 9 hours talking to customers and just want to relax in WvW. Same reason recently I didn't join voice chat on my ps4 for other games people randomly sent me party invites for.

And I doubt I'm the only one that feels this way, especially coming home from work. However I understand that MMO's are inherently social games, and if your okay with me typing to respond then I'm more likely to at least join to listen. But I should be able to make that choice on my own terms :)

And sometimes those same commanders yell at you for no reason, or valid reasons but they just yell at you anyway instead of just speaking calmly.... since it is still a game after all. Not everyone handles being yelled at well