Jump to content
  • Sign Up

World Restructuring Season Length


Chaba.5410

Recommended Posts

Please, please, please, please do not make seasons 8 weeks long.

Four weeks seems about right IMHO.  Server links already feel too long sometimes at 8 weeks.

Longer season lengths punish players who have historically played with multiple guilds on their server because of different rally times and days.  Server hopping guilds shed players that don't want to move around so I'd expect them to have a higher incidence of players who are dedicated to a single guild than guilds that don't server hop.  I, of course, don't have actual data on that.  It's just a theory based on the experience of being in both kinds of guilds.

Longer season lengths also increase the pressure to try to use alliances to keep players across multiple guilds together.  This is both impractical and somewhat unfair to the individual guilds in an alliance who may end up competing against other alliances with less shared members.  Alliances shouldn't really be used in such a manner.

Shorter season lengths would take stress off players feeling like they're abandoning their friends in one guild for another guild.

Shorter season lengths would allow players to rotate guilds more frequently.

Shorter season lengths would also allow players to not have to wait a really long time to join their guild in WvW if they were coming back to the game but just missed the selection window.

Shorter season lengths would allow alliance leaders to not have to wait so long to implement any changes to the alliance because of issues that may come up during a season.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some food for thoughts about the opposite:

* 4 weeks might be too short to really have a leaderboard work out, have all the new worlds move to correct places, and fight equal servers, before new shuffle.

* 4 weeks might be too short for a new world to get familiar with each others, and might make it not even worth trying to get to know your new world-mates.

* 4 weeks might be too short to get familiar with rival worlds, and what guilds/alliances are on them, and their playstyle. At which point enemies will just feel like EotM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Just some food for thoughts about the opposite:

* 4 weeks might be too short to really have a leaderboard work out, have all the new worlds move to correct places, and fight equal servers, before new shuffle.

* 4 weeks might be too short for a new world to get familiar with each others, and might make it not even worth trying to get to know your new world-mates.

* 4 weeks might be too short to get familiar with rival worlds, and what guilds/alliances are on them, and their playstyle. At which point enemies will just feel like EotM.

I recall from when we moved from Glicko to 1u1d matchmaking that 4 weeks was about the time it took for the Glicko ratings to "settle".  That's one of the reasons I suggested it.  Maybe the length should be tied to the number of tiers there are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eight ways is too long for a season. If you get stuck with a server/alliance of guilds that don't particularly fit your playstyle, which happens very often right now, you basically have to stop playing. For example, at the moment many servers have a zerging specialty, while others have a roaming specialty, and I don't expect that to change much with conversions to a guild-based system, at least not at certain times of day.

 

One week is too long for a matchup. Again its the same problem, if you get stuck in a particularly bad match where your opponent just runs over you, you have no choice but to just not play for the entire week because as the week goes on more and more players will quit making the situation even worse.

 

I know the solution is just "keep playing anyway", but you can't control the actions of allied players. Just use shorter seasons and matchups so the whole thing gets tossed in the bin after a while.

 

As for not having enough time to get to know allies/enemies, the more often you change the season/matchup, the more often you'll be exposed to all kinds of different players. Not only will it be more interesting to be matched with certain guilds so often they become familiar, but also to face them as enemies on a regular basis too. This is already how other competitive matchmaking games work.

 

Or as the old saying goes , "the more you stir the stew, the better it'll taste".

 

Loyalty should be to guild/alliance, not world or team. We're all going to miss it, and linked servers have already been hurting, but its time to leave the past behind and move forward to Guild Wars.

Edited by Hannelore.8153
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hannelore.8153 said:

 if you get stuck in a particularly bad match where your opponent just runs over you, you have no choice but to just not play for the entire week

There is also the option of getting good at the game.  But that is a big hurdle and takes time.

 

Match duration won't change anything in that regard.  Transferring to a successful server just clogs up the works for the serious fighters.

 

Matchmaking by skill and coverage is the only thing that will have an effect on fairweathering/rage quitting.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here is the way 1up1down and tiers work. We know it take several weeks to stabilize and find your "proper" tiers after relinks. We also know that the last couple of weeks are basicly people giving up and wanting new links because at that point its either too strong (bandwagoning, strong to begin with) or too weak (same except the reverse) so they usually are stuck where they are.

For a 4 week matchup period... you dont need to do much math here to realize the issue.

Will this significantly change with the alliance matchup system? I dont know. In theory servers should be more equal and not swing so much in the early weeks. This should in theory trickle down to the last weeks too. And alliances should encourage more frequent reschuffles since your alliance should be the anchor, not the world. But I dont know. I have a feeling seasons will loose meaning if its "too fast".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, displayname.8315 said:

There is also the option of getting good at the game.  But that is a big hurdle and takes time.

 

Match duration won't change anything in that regard.  Transferring to a successful server just clogs up the works for the serious fighters.

 

Matchmaking by skill and coverage is the only thing that will have an effect on fairweathering/rage quitting.

 

Getting good at the game has NOTHING to do with getting steamrolled in the current version of WvW.  It's about fighting servers who will only fight when they have 50+ players facing off against half their numbers.  Very rarely does skill come into play in WvW anymore outside of small-scale/roaming fights.  It's all about who has greater numbers and can spam more boons.

 

Matchmaking by skill?  That's probably the most laughable premise I've ever seen presented on these forums.

 

Alliances should address the over-populated vs under-populated issue, but as with all new concepts introduced to WvW, that remains to be seen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ronin.4501 said:

Getting good at the game has NOTHING to do with getting steamrolled in the current version of WvW.  It's about fighting servers who will only fight when they have 50+ players facing off against half their numbers.

 

Matchmaking by skill?  That's probably the most laughable premise I've ever seen presented on these forums.

25v50 is playable..if your good.  You probably mean 25 daily farmers vs 2 guilds holding hands.  But either way it isn't going to be the normal - stack and run at them in a straight line, like your used to.

 

Matchmaking by skill is done in PvP by your rank.  You drop rank when you die and lose, you gain it back when you perform and win.

 

In WvW it would probably need to be done by your kills since so many people avoid fights like it's the rona.

 

 

Edited by displayname.8315
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example game reset When
1) one color have SMC (or its equivalent) for 1 day the match ends
2) one color have more than (assuming its the same 4 maps we are playing on) 6 Keeps, the match ends. 

Hence why I keep saying we need new maps, and those maps should be PvE maps. aside form ppt and pvp you actually need search and destroy. 

Match could end in hours or goes on for days depending on how engaging your guild and alliances wants the match to be. 

 

 

 

Edited by SweetPotato.7456
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

For a 4 week matchup period... you dont need to do much math here to realize the issue.

 

Without any statistics yet, there is no math to do. I feel like the betas will give the community a chance to consider this instead of making assumptions and asking for features based on what you hope it ends up being like. Once there is a complete over view and statistics to calculate, then it would be good to determine the match length.

 

Also instead of week long matches, 4 day matches may be a better option, then 8 matches could be more appropriate.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, displayname.8315 said:

There is also the option of getting good at the game.  But that is a big hurdle and takes time.

 

Match duration won't change anything in that regard.  Transferring to a successful server just clogs up the works for the serious fighters.

 

Matchmaking by skill and coverage is the only thing that will have an effect on fairweathering/rage quitting.

What does your post have to do with season length or any of the points I brought up about multi-guild players?

Edited by Chaba.5410
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Deedrick.4372 said:

 

Without any statistics yet, there is no math to do. I feel like the betas will give the community a chance to consider this instead of making assumptions and asking for features based on what you hope it ends up being like. Once there is a complete over view and statistics to calculate, then it would be good to determine the match length.

 

Also instead of week long matches, 4 day matches may be a better option, then 8 matches could be more appropriate.

 

 

You know, that paragraph sort of go with the first. Or are you saying relinks does nothing of what I wrote? If that's your argument I'll buy it. Statistics have nothing to do with what I wrote though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

What does your post have to do with season length or any of the points I brought up about multi-guild players?

Hanne was saying 1 week matchups are too long because they can't play when the enemy is too strong.  I was offering a counterpoint. 

 

I do agree with her on the being exposed to new allies/enemys though.  I don't like to cling to a guild or whatever the quasi-guild of alliances will be.  Too stagnant for me, but to each his/her own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, displayname.8315 said:

Hanne was saying 1 week matchups are too long because they can't play when the enemy is too strong.  I was offering a counterpoint. 

 

I do agree with her on the being exposed to new allies/enemys though.  I don't like to cling to a guild or whatever the quasi-guild of alliances will be.  Too stagnant for me, but to each his/her own. 

Ah.

Yea I think if a season were not 8 weeks long, that makes players feel a bit more free and relaxed to explore playing WvW outside of any one particular group of friends because they don't have to wait so long to play with a different group of friends.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, displayname.8315 said:

25v50 is playable..if your good.  You probably mean 25 daily farmers vs 2 guilds holding hands.  But either way it isn't going to be the normal - stack and run at them in a straight line, like your used to.

 

Matchmaking by skill is done in PvP by your rank.  You drop rank when you die and lose, you gain it back when you perform and win.

 

In WvW it would probably need to be done by your kills since so many people avoid fights like it's the rona.

 

 

25v50 was playable a few years back.  With the current boonball meta it is not.  Unless you're talking about 25 skilled/coordinated players going up against 50 players who are new to WvW and/or relatively new to the game in general.

 

And basing skill off player kills is essentially saying that the random pug who hangs out in EBG and leeches off the blob fights (and thus gets more kills) is better than an actual skilled roamer/havoc player...or even raiding player who knows their role in the squad and synchronizes that role with the rest of the squad.  Kills don't equate to skill.  Just look at how many terrible Diamond rank players there are versus how many skilled Bronze/Silver players there are currently.  The sad reality is Anet could never come up with a quantifiable metric to measure skill, especially not when so many of the skills we use in WvW are being created for PvE players to fight raid bosses and not versus one another.

 

I got the impression Hanne was referring to match-ups where one server has a map queue on every map vs the servers that are barely able to muster a single zerg-sized squad for EBG with havoc-sized groups left to cover the borderlands.  Those match-ups tend to become untenable very quickly, unless you enjoy using guerilla-style tactics (which I personally don't mind but I think I'm probably in the minority there).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ronin.4501 said:

25v50 was playable a few years back.  With the current boonball meta it is not.  Unless you're talking about 25 skilled/coordinated players going up against 50 players who are new to WvW and/or relatively new to the game in general.

 

And basing skill off player kills is essentially saying that the random pug who hangs out in EBG and leeches off the blob fights (and thus gets more kills) is better than an actual skilled roamer/havoc player...or even raiding player who knows their role in the squad and synchronizes that role with the rest of the squad.  Kills don't equate to skill.  Just look at how many terrible Diamond rank players there are versus how many skilled Bronze/Silver players there are currently.  The sad reality is Anet could never come up with a quantifiable metric to measure skill, especially not when so many of the skills we use in WvW are being created for PvE players to fight raid bosses and not versus one another.

 

I got the impression Hanne was referring to match-ups where one server has a map queue on every map vs the servers that are barely able to muster a single zerg-sized squad for EBG with havoc-sized groups left to cover the borderlands.  Those match-ups tend to become untenable very quickly, unless you enjoy using guerilla-style tactics (which I personally don't mind but I think I'm probably in the minority there).

I don't think kill leeches would have the same KDR as a highly skilled player or guild.  They hang back until the fight is already won or just pick off singles out of position.

 

Servers queuing multiple maps vs servers with no map queues is the current player made alliance system and should go away soon.  However long the "season" should be is just a matter of staleness vs keeping it fresh.

 

But fairweathering is often the root cause too.  You can't know which one it is unless you saw all the one push, skill vs no-skill going on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, displayname.8315 said:

I don't think kill leeches would have the same KDR as a highly skilled player or guild.  They hang back until the fight is already won or just pick off singles out of position.

 

Servers queuing multiple maps vs servers with no map queues is the current player made alliance system and should go away soon.  However long the "season" should be is just a matter of staleness vs keeping it fresh.

 

But fairweathering is often the root cause too.  You can't know which one it is unless you saw all the one push, skill vs no-skill going on.

 

I agree with your 2nd and 3rd points, but typically the kill leeches I see are either on rangers or scourges (or build random arrow carts) attempting to hit as many targets as possible in the zerg vs zerg fights, especially in EBG.  Players like that will still likely have a higher KDR than a much more skilled havoc guild that roams/defends on the BLs. 

 

I don't know if you're on a NA or EU server, but this is definitely what I'm seeing on the NA servers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...