Jump to content
  • Sign Up

World Restructuring


Gaile Gray.6029

Recommended Posts

@wanya.1697 said:maybe if there is a cap how many guilds can join an alliance

as far as i know, by this illustration, the world will work like this:

(world(alliance -multiple until 500 is capped (guilds within the alliance (guilds not in the alliance (pugs)))))

we may have a world that is 1k or 2k in size?

if we queu up all maps and divide per matchup tick which is 2 hours. it be about

80 players x 4 maps x 12 hours. 3840 players for a full q if all players play 2 hours round the clock at max. this could be the working cap.

but in average, a player plays roughly 4 hours or less, and the carreer wvw does 6 hours or so.

maybe soft cap of 3840? then adjust every 2 months? gather some data and decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Sovereign.1093" said:if a guild can have 500 members and alliance cap is 500, will there be a change in guild population?

They said no. Only members that declared that guild as their wvw guild would count towards the alliance anyway, so no guild population changes really needed or expected. The problem is that the game tries to "sort" people when placing them in maps. People are already trying to figure out how to exploit this. Because the game sorts where to put you based on guild/server, which means that people can claim an alt guild as their wvw guild, and then most likely get "sorted" in to the same world as the main wvw guild and their alliance, the same way that when you load in to Lions Arch or another map with multiple instances, the game "sorts" you to be with guildies. So, you have an alliance cap that is almost certainly meaningless, unless they do some serious changes to the way the sorting already works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:looking forward to the change. it will finally be guild wars. guild.vs guilds vs guilds.

It..... really won't....

because?

Because most guilds aren't alliance sized. And alliances will only be a small part of the world.

I think it will be a slightly better way to balance population, though coverage has a high potential to be borked.

I don't think it will be a bad change (as I did initially) but I am not sure it's going to be a tremendous change that many feel it will be.

Pretty much this. Alliances are mostly a tool set for ANET to create more competitive matches across all time zones. The server system isn't working. If ANET does this properly then it could eventually lead to other things like tournaments. But in reality, not much is going to change in the short term, except player distribution across servers. The game mode is the same and PvD is still king.

And even though alliances haven't been released yet they are already having a positive effect. Players are starting to self organize, some players came back, etc. The idea of Alliances is a good one and it gives players hope that ANET isn't ignoring the game mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blodeuyn.2751 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:I totally support 5 alliances, this is matter of consistency principle. Why can players be part of 5 different guilds while can't be part of 5 different alliances of different guilds?

PS: Gw2 players sure are super casual and inconsistent.

Because under the new system it wouldn't make sense to have more than one alliance. Each link will bring a new mix of alliances and the whole purpose is to use this to make balanced matches. Having more than one alliance per person would skew the metric for balance.

I actually find it hard to converse my thoughts for this subject in concise manner.Anyway, if you think a unique alliance is important for competitiveness, then why does the game allow players to join 5 guilds? Since just like alliance a unique guild should be important for competitiveness. There is a fundamental inconsistent game design here. It is this kind of inconsistency that make it logically hard to justify why we shouldn't have 5 alliances. This is also against the rule of change principle for system designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:I totally support 5 alliances, this is matter of consistency principle. Why can players be part of 5 different guilds while can't be part of 5 different alliances of different guilds?

PS: Gw2 players sure are super casual and inconsistent.

Because under the new system it wouldn't make sense to have more than one alliance. Each link will bring a new mix of alliances and the whole purpose is to use this to make balanced matches. Having more than one alliance per person would skew the metric for balance.

I actually find it hard to converse my thoughts for this subject in concise manner.Anyway, if you think a unique alliance is important for competitiveness, then why does the game allow players to join 5 guilds? Since just like alliance a unique guild should be important for competitiveness. There is a fundamental inconsistent game design here. It is this kind of inconsistency that make it logically hard to justify why we shouldn't have 5 alliances. This is also against the rule of change principle for system designs.

The system will only allow you to have 1 WvW guild for each season.

So, while you may have more than one guild, only one of them can be designated as a WvW guild for the purpose of world assignment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:I totally support 5 alliances, this is matter of consistency principle. Why can players be part of 5 different guilds while can't be part of 5 different alliances of different guilds?

PS: Gw2 players sure are super casual and inconsistent.

Because under the new system it wouldn't make sense to have more than one alliance. Each link will bring a new mix of alliances and the whole purpose is to use this to make balanced matches. Having more than one alliance per person would skew the metric for balance.

I actually find it hard to converse my thoughts for this subject in concise manner.Anyway, if you think a unique alliance is important for competitiveness, then why does the game allow players to join 5 guilds? Since just like alliance a unique guild should be important for competitiveness. There is a fundamental inconsistent game design here. It is this kind of inconsistency that make it logically hard to justify why we shouldn't have 5 alliances. This is also against the rule of change principle for system designs.

The system will only allow you to have 1 WvW guild for each season.

So, while you may have more than one guild, only one of them can be designated as a WvW guild for the purpose of world assignment.

Therefore, by this argument, isn't his request for 5 alliances even more justifiable since you can always have the guild represent one alliance per season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Etria.3642 said:Being in five alliances would be like being in five servers.

And then imagine if those servers meet in a matchup and you just choose which you fight as depending what you feel like (ie the server winning).

No, that does not create competition. An alliance is like a server, yes. The alliance that contain the guild you have designated as WvW is your server and you only get one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, this World Restructuring does not adequately address the 3 fundamental issues that have been with this game mode since launch:

1) Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups...while using it in a positive way2) Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds...even from enemy Worlds3) Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves...through International cooperation

Also, how does this World Restructuring help to address the following:

Stable Population Growth of Local & International Long-Term Communities tied to Real World Countries that have huge differences in:

a) Languageb) Time Zone...aka...Geographic Locationc) Ethnic Culture

The above needs to be fixed & properly addressed...while encouraging a more competitive & healthy game mode...that engages the player to be part of a Larger Nation...far bigger than any Player controlled Guild or Alliance can provide...imho.

Motto: For God, Country, and Family.

Where fighting has deeper meaning...in a game that is supposedly meaningless.

Think about it for a second. :)

Yours truly,Diku

p.s.See some of my past posts...please vote Helpful or Thumbs up if you agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Etria.3642 said:Being in five alliances would be like being in five servers.

And then imagine if those servers meet in a matchup and you just choose which you fight as depending what you feel like (ie the server winning).

No, that does not create competition. An alliance is like a server, yes. The alliance that contain the guild you have designated as WvW is your server and you only get one.

But if the guild can only represent one alliance like how player can represent one guild? Furthermore, base on the announcement, you can't switch designation on ongoing season thus your point of guilds able to jump between alliances or servers in this case doesn't sound logically right.

PS: I am not saying I support the notion but logically speaking, your argument is flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Diku.2546" said:Sorry, this World Restructuring does not adequately address the 3 fundamental issues that have been with this game mode since launch:

1) Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups...while using it in a positive way2) Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds...even from enemy Worlds3) Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves...through International cooperation

Except that it does.1) It cuts behemoth 2500+ player chunks that cant be balanced into 1-500 player chunks that can be put together like Lego, reducing server stacking.2) It allow you to join any WvW guild and then after 8 weeks you will join their world, even if they are currently on an another world. Friends and family play in same guild, that's how together and the concept of guilds work. Why on earth they would play "together" on different worlds that are enemies to each other is beyond me, unless you want encourage exploiting and match manipulation and that's what you call "friends and family".3) This is not a fundamental issue in any way. Nightcapping remain a thing even when already addressed and much improved by the skirmish system redesign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Dawdler.8521" said:Except that it does.1) It cuts behemoth 2500+ player chunks that cant be balanced into 1-500 player chunks that can be put together like Lego, reducing server stacking.2) It allow you to join any WvW guild and then after 8 weeks you will join their world, even if they are currently on an another world. Friends and family play in same guild, that's how together and the concept of guilds work. Why on earth they would play "together" on different worlds that are enemies to each other is beyond me, unless you want encourage exploiting and match manipulation and that's what you call "friends and family".3) This is not a fundamental issue in any way. Nightcapping remain a thing even when already addressed and much improved by the skirmish system redesign.


I'll have to disagree with you, but to each his own.

1) Population - Why use buckets to manage the flow of a river? Wouldn't it be better to take advantage of the natural physics of water & re-design something that effortlessly powers our Match-Ups in a positive way? You can't stop players wanting to stack for the win, but you can re-engineer the Match-Up design to take advantage of this aspect.

Focus should be put on re-designing the Match-Up mechanics & not re-building the Team Creation Process that provides the raw source of power...aka...rushing water...or in terms of the WvW perspective...Squads, Guilds, Alliances, etc.

There needs to be consequences on being the Number 1 Ranked WvW behemoth - Over-stacked servers can expect to have longer wait queues to enter their map...much like how customers to any popular restaurant have to wait to find a seat or a table to open up for them to dine at.

2) The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Fighting on a shared enemy BL with an enemy "Friend" is based on mutual trust to fight against a bigger enemy.

3) Coverage - Off-Peak Capping (it's daytime somewhere) is an issue because of how our Fixed 3 Way Match-Up restricts fighting between 3 Servers...we should get rid of this restriction & allow International cooperation between All Servers. See NATO for a real world example of this concept - Attack on one is an attack on ALL. Alliances are Player inspired & Player maintained...until player drama prevails. Creating an Alliance can be as simple as a verbal agreement in chat.

Re-design Match-Up mechanics to extend Coverage - It's critical that we remove this restriction that a Server can only attack 2 other specific Servers in this Fixed 3 Way Match-Up design. We need to let your International enemy "Friend" server to be able to retaliate attack the BL of any enemy server that attacks your Home BL to extend your coverage.


Don't forget we need a Long-Term plan to support Population Growth of Local & International Communities in a sustainable way that are different in:

a) Languageb) Time Zone...aka...Geographic Locationc) Ethnic Culture

WvW really needs to engage players in such a way that their fighting has deeper meaning. Repeatable content...that makes players want to come back to play...time and time again.

Using player based Alliances to build the WvW Foundation upon - has inherent risks - Guilds are subject to player drama in the Long-Term & things may backfire if things go wrong between players...not sure how to insulate the WvW game mode from this exposure.


Boils down to a decision to Re-design Match-Up Mechanics or Re-build Team Creation Process

It's more effective that we choose to re-design the Match-Up mechanics instead of re-building the WvW Team Creation Process...in order to encourage in the Long-Term...a self-sustaining & healthy competitive game mode...imho

Yours truly,Diku

p.s.See some of my past posts...please vote Helpful or Thumbs up if you agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Diku.2546You can't fix unbalance without blowing up servers, afterall the source of the unbalance is the servers itself.Using your analogy. Some source are bigger, some source are smaller therefore the flow of river is proportional to the size of the source. They are not managing the river, they are building connectors across all sources to equalize them so the river will flow equally as well. The rivers are managed by the players themselves.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Diku.2546 said:Sorry, this World Restructuring does not adequately address the 3 fundamental issues that have been with this game mode since launch:

1) Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups...while using it in a positive way2) Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds...even from enemy Worlds3) Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves...through International cooperation

Except that it does.1) It cuts behemoth 2500+ player chunks that cant be balanced into 1-500 player chunks that can be put together like Lego, reducing server stacking.2) It allow you to join any WvW guild and then after 8 weeks you will join their world, even if they are currently on an another world. Friends and family play in same guild, that's how together and the concept of guilds work. Why on earth they would play "together" on different worlds that are enemies to each other is beyond me, unless you want encourage exploiting and match manipulation and that's what you call "friends and family".3) This is not a fundamental issue in any way. Nightcapping remain a thing even when already addressed and much improved by the skirmish system redesign.

Point 2 challenge the multi guilds system. So you saying multi guilds in some ways is encouraging exploiting and match manipulation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Let's face it, they'd be better off resurrecting EotM. As the value of worlds was decimated, so were the weekly matches. The players that cared and played to win were lost for good. The only players left just want to log in, smash stuff, and log out, without any other concern. Alliances is just going to be a continued design failure because the people playing don't care about winning the week anymore. No matter if the teams are labeled Worlds, Guilds, Numbers, or Colors, a weekly match is the core issue. Short matches like EotM is likely to be the better design for today's players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So WoW destroyed servers and everyone hates it.and ArenaNet told them self ..."let's do the same mistake!"???

by destroying the servers you are destroying individuality of players.

also competing for you server means much more than compete for some... blob of people, so much less players will play WvWvW. in other words, this is the worst idea that you could have.

if this goes life, i quit gw2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"MartinTT.4123" said:So WoW destroyed servers and everyone hates it.and ArenaNet told them self ..."let's do the same mistake!"???

by destroying the servers you are destroying individuality of players.

also competing for you server means much more than compete for some... blob of people, so much less players will play WvWvW. in other words, this is the worst idea that you could have.

if this goes life, i quit gw2.


At least you can say...

"Told you so"

I agree with you...we've thrown away the one thing that made this game mode endearing & unique.

But then again...we can say....

"Told you so"

Those that argue that server identity doesn't exist....we warned you that Server Linking would continue to destroy server identity (heart & soul of WvW) that is supposedly "non-existant". Changing the game mode mechanics to satisfy veteran players demand for big blob fights was a wrong decision. We continue to dump our immature small fry players from guest servers into the host servers big tank where they're "toxicly" challenged to survive by the veteran sharks...so it nice to say...

"Told you so"

When Alliance Linking kicks in...just saying we can not depend on transient Guilds within an Alliance to provide a stable base for the WvW game mode to build a strong & self-sustaining Long Term community without the toxic culture that is made possible when players are involved with who stays & goes...so it's nice to say once again...

"Told you so"

There's a better alternative...imho.

Yours truly,Diku

p.s.See some of my past posts...please vote Helpful or Thumbs up if you agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"MartinTT.4123" said:So WoW destroyed servers and everyone hates it.and ArenaNet told them self ..."let's do the same mistake!"???

by destroying the servers you are destroying individuality of players.

also competing for you server means much more than compete for some... blob of people, so much less players will play WvWvW. in other words, this is the worst idea that you could have.

if this goes life, i quit gw2.

That may be true for you, but based on the comments and results of polls, most players don't care about a "server" or "server identity". For them, it's closer to home - the guild they fight with/for and the friends they fight with/for. The "server" they're on doesn't matter at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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