Which WvW system do you prefer?

[Xenesis.6389]

So this week we finally got a rough taste of alliances, obviously a ton of bugs, a lot of features missing, and a lot of work still required to pull it together, but it's finally being worked on. We've also seen many comments on how the system works, some passing final judgement on it before it even began, and of course disagreements on it's future effects on players and communities.

 

We've had three systems of wvw so far. Classic era, full lone servers, server glicko ratings for rank placements. Re-links, most servers doubling up, 1u1d server placements. Upcoming Alliance system, rebuilding entire worlds every two months, 1u1d, with hopes of evening out the populations for more competitive play and events.

 

All three have/will have different effects on populations and communities, where classic era had mostly base populations on server and guilds would move when they wanted, stacking from bottom to top servers was a regular thing. Re-links had two base servers linked, frequent movement of guilds and players. Alliances will have communities based on alliances of guilds, community guilds, and solo guilds, while solo players would have to take steps to join guilds instead of servers if they wish to stay with any particular community.

 

(I haven't mentioned skirmish mode because I don't think it should be messed with at this time, as it also ties heavily into the rewards system).

 

So, which system do you favor and wish wvw would operate on? Feel free to discuss in greater detail why you think a particular system should be used, and what changes you would add.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Xenesis.6389

[Infusion.7149]

We aren't getting classic era back due to megaservers in PvE.
Links don't work because people stack the links.

[Xenesis.6389]

3 minutes ago, Infusion.7149 said:

We aren't getting classic era back due to megaservers in PvE.
Links don't work because people stack the links.

 

What does megaservers have to do with it? This is strictly about wvw.

[Danikat.8537]

As many people have said in other threads there's no way to say what we think of alliances at the moment because we haven't seen them yet.

We've had a beta of one part of that system - players selecting a guild to be grouped with instead of a server - but even that wasn't working properly, meaning players who selected the same guild ended up in different teams. We haven't seen any of the actual alliance system where guilds and individuals can form larger groups and more automated sorting is going on behind the scenes (like grouping guilds/alliances together based on language).

It's like asking someone who has only gotten to level 10 to review the build options in GW2. They haven't unlocked specialisations, they haven't got most of their skills and only have 1-2 attributes on each equipment piece, they may not even have tried all the weapons, so they haven't seen the vast majority of the systems or how they work together and therefore cannot give an informed opinion.

I think my experience of WvW this week hasn't been that different to previous weeks, so my experience isn't dependant on the people currently on my server, but I can't say what impact alliances will have or whether matches based on alliances will be more balanced because we haven't seen them yet.

[Infusion.7149]

13 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

What does megaservers have to do with it? This is strictly about wvw.

If hypothetically you revert back to "classic" you have no way to get additional support from WvW players that happen to be lounging around in Lion's Arch or other hubs. Team chat only is WvW-wide plus in armistice bastion.

Server guilds were made before the advent of team chat for this explicit purpose.

[Xenesis.6389]

3 minutes ago, Infusion.7149 said:

If hypothetically you revert back to "classic" you have no way to get additional support from WvW players that happen to be lounging around in Lion's Arch or other hubs. Team chat only is WvW-wide plus in armistice bastion.

Server guilds were made before the advent of team chat for this explicit purpose.

 

Still has nothing to do with how servers function for wvw. Basically all they would have to do is stop relinks and you're back to classic era of servers which operated the same before and after megaservers. Also megaservers are suppose to match you with players of your servers as a priority over other servers, with guilds and friends being above all that.

 

Not that it matters much as pve'ers don't care about wvw, even before megaservers, going to lions arch was most likely a call to reserve wvw players who weren't in wvw at the moment.

 

Overall my question is whether or not players want the lone server, the link servers, or the alliance worlds for wvw. Not going back to classic and stripping everything else like megaservers and skirmishes out.

[MountainRunner.3576]

Without invalidating any of the volumes of feedback submitted from the beta week, I’m a bit surprised by how much of it is less than at least cautiously positive.  Reset was the most energetic I can remember with map queues of zergs, havoc groups, and roamers and every combination of content that mix could create. Throughout the week the content was pretty consistent with the worlds taking turns fielding stronger numbers; there are still some map queue zergs and the outnumbered fighting setbacks that accompany said situation… but also way more guild and pug groups of various different sizes, comps, and experience levels. It was great to see so much activity in wvw for a change. At the time of writing this the victory point total for the match up is 284 / 295 / 284. It seems… pretty well balanced? Perhaps I’m one of the fortunate ones that got into a balance match.

 

I have been in one small wvw guild on one server for my entire time in GW2, always roaming and havocing and approaching rank 5k. For the beta event, usual server mates have been scattered all over and it is “different”, but not at all bad as we are still communicating throughout the week. Plus, the new people we have gotten to fight beside and against has been both refreshing and fun along with a more consistent frequency of both.

[joneirikb.7506]

Damnit! I was so tempted to select option 1 Classic! Just for the nostalgia... But I can't deny that it would be a horrid mess at this time.

[Norbe.7630]

Where's the one out one in option for balanced matches in map queue?

[GoldenPants.1870]

From what I experienced this whole beta ? With literally being outnumbered by bots ? Give me relinks back.

[Mabi black.1824]

I had fun as always when I play gw2.......... I played with many trusted friends and with new friends .......... I was very sorry that I hadn't played with so many other teammates.

I add that I had no goals for the whole week ....... win or lose was the same thing for me........ extremely relaxing.

I do not feel like choosing among the options you have indicated but I express what are my desires.

many more well-balanced teams ......... transfers limited to 1 or 2 per year......... a serious ranking with a nice group tournament and special prizes for the first three classified ........ a healthy competition......... and have fun at all.

[Abanga.7451]

Alliances kill wvw now we have - 70% lowest online all see it

if some players are not interested in playing noralnoe wvw, why not do it separately for them as they are interested, because wvw players will leave the project with such changes and there will be fewer of them anyway, just there will be no others

[Nidome.1365]

None of those options. I have been saying for years that they need to revise the cost of server transfers.

A simple solution would be to make the cost:
Number of times you have previously changed server multiplied by 500 gems.

If the target server is very high then double it, if it is less than high then halve it.

That way your first transfer is free which means that if you accidentally joined a different server to friends etc. this can be resolved without cost but constant bandwaggoning is discouraged and will eventually become prohibitive in cost and should deal with population surges and lurches.

If Anet can find a way to encourage people back into WvW permanently then we can go back to individual servers, if not stay with links.

[Dawdler.8521]

25 minutes ago, Nidome.1365 said:

None of those options. I have been saying for years that they need to revise the cost of server transfers.

A simple solution would be to make the cost:
Number of times you have previously changed server multiplied by 500 gems.

If the target server is very high then double it, if it is less than high then halve it.

That way your first transfer is free which means that if you accidentally joined a different server to friends etc. this can be resolved without cost but constant bandwaggoning is discouraged and will eventually become prohibitive in cost and should deal with population surges and lurches.

If Anet can find a way to encourage people back into WvW permanently then we can go back to individual servers, if not stay with links.

Which is a solution for what problem? Players stacking? Even without the transfer feature the players are still on worlds vastly outnumbering others.

And please dont say there then need to be some kind of feature that even out the balance of these large worlds vs small worlds.

[Abanga.7451]

I was transferred to the Piken server I am satisfied with everything an interesting game there is always someone to run with and you don’t like something in and out for what reason I’ll choose some alliances with you for a while, maybe then the same as you need to collect in alliances like that separately without interfering with playing on wvw for the rest
over the last 2 months on picken, only 1 bad thing was on BBB this is your test of the alliance I had to play other games at this time if it is like this all the time I will not go to such a century for sure and as long as there is enough new pve content I will only play in pve then look for something else for yourself

[palduno.9372]

@Danikat.8537

Fully agree with that:

quote:"We've had a beta of one part of that system - players selecting a guild to be grouped with instead of a server - but even that wasn't working properly, meaning players who selected the same guild ended up in different teams. We haven't seen any of the actual alliance system where guilds and individuals can form larger groups and more automated sorting is going on behind the scenes (like grouping guilds/alliances together based on language)."

-->From my side, I saw nothing, just a majority of "solo" who never want to group up and join a discord/ts vocal, It was very frustrating.

Anet must take into account the complementary aspect of gw2 with the external communication tools to the game (discord/ts)

 

I am not voting, no aspect of the alliances has been disclosed.

Edited December 11, 2021 by palduno.9372

[Abanga.7451]

i see now in voces 9+10+29+4=52 voices

do you guys know how many people online here are not 52))and if they see 22 of your alliances and stop going to bbb at all, just go and that's it) that's how such surveys end up in which less than 1% of players participate and change something based on them

[Abanga.7451]

You see, there is still such a moment when playing from the server, the solo player clicks and goes gets pleasure from the game and your alliances are analogous to bbb guilds with some kind of incomprehensible to anyone at all interesting rules necessary and so very few who are interested in playing at all not for their own pleasure but as someone needs there)

 

[Abanga.7451]

from servers where large wvw guilds fight blob on blob and have their own rules for some kind of a joint game of owls, the players left and got bored on free ones where they enjoy playing, but the arena does not want them to go back to the same channel so that they already started leaving the game with these alliances

[Junkpile.7439]

Hot join. First player in wvw after reset go green, second go blue, third go red, fourth go green and so on. 😎

[Junkpile.7439]

2 hours ago, Abanga.7451 said:

I was transferred to the Piken server I am satisfied with everything an interesting game there is always someone to run with and you don’t like something in and out for what reason I’ll choose some alliances with you for a while, maybe then the same as you need to collect in alliances like that separately without interfering with playing on wvw for the rest
over the last 2 months on picken, only 1 bad thing was on BBB this is your test of the alliance I had to play other games at this time if it is like this all the time I will not go to such a century for sure and as long as there is enough new pve content I will only play in pve then look for something else for yourself

Of course because you have stupid amount of players +linked server.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

the original classic was a total failure and its sad that so many people (probably primetime players) don't remember how bad it failed.

[kathy.8291]

I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE ALLIANCE.  PLEASE KEEP IT AND MAKE IT SOON....

[Abanga.7451]

here people like gw2, they advise friends and they also buy with this money, an experiment is being done that some people will just leave the game and this happens again and again, and what is the goal of the project

 

[Abanga.7451]

to find out if the players like the new science, you can release the gw2 classic version and see where there is more online, or at least remove all the mounts from the new parts