Look, Anet what you’ve created, and look proud !

[enkidu.5937]

I’m fine with WvW to be reworked, even though I dislike the planned implementation. I already had a many good moments over the last decade, so I cannot ask for more, just this one last thing.

 

Admittedly, the majority of WvWlers have desired a rework of WvW for a long time, with their very contrary preferences of course ^^. So thx, Anet to answer the call. Nonetheless, every change should be preceded by recognizing the former achievements. So I ask you to first look on what you’ve created, and look proud !

 

You’ve created a game mode that provides enthusiasm on par with real life sports leagues. Over the decade, players have translated their passion for their club into becoming team managers, coaches, key players, fxxk even mascots 😝, or just mere “random” fans that support their club from the stand in the arena. We have a long-term perspective by being part of a server with a unique profile, being linked with, and matched against other servers with unique profiles. Even as guilds or alliances we deserve more than to just being matched with and against a bunch of nameless dudes, as teams without a profile.

 

Admittedly, UK Premier League of Football might become more exciting, score-wise, if we mix the players from ManCity, Liverpool, and Newcastle every few weeks, and give those clubs random names, like “FC Run-a-Lot” vs. “FC Make-that-Goal”. But who do you think would be left to care about the final score then? Who do you think are the people that currently care about the final war score?  😗

 

Maybe Game of Thrones would be more exciting if we’d mix House Lannister and House Stark with House Penny and House Toyne? And name them “House X” and “House Y”, to make it more even. Who do you think would be left to care about the final outcome?

 

What about L. A. Lakers vs. Boston Celtics, maybe shuffle this as well?

 

Maybe shuffle Team Edward vs. Team Jacob? . . . ok let’s skip this ^^

 

So look proud, Anet on what you’ve created, before you tear this all down irretrievably.

[Mabi black.1824]

I totally agree.

but I want to be constructive and I really believe that there is a way to make alliances work and maintain a team identity. indeed I want to think that the final version of alliances already provides for it.

[Ashantara.8731]

WvW needs a new map with new mechanics. Reshuffling the WvW population is barely a "rework" in my book - you still get to do the same boring thing day in and day out. It's not what I consider an update, leave alone new content.

That said, I wonder what the point of such beta weeks is when half the population gets scattered randomly across server shards and therefore stops playing. Doesn't a weekend suffice for this kind of experiment?

[Dawdler.8521]

20 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

Admittedly, UK Premier League of Football might become more exciting, score-wise, if we mix the players from ManCity, Liverpool, and Newcastle every few weeks, and give those clubs random names, like “FC Run-a-Lot” vs. “FC Make-that-Goal”. But who do you think would be left to care about the final score then? Who do you think are the people that currently care about the final war score?  😗

No I'm sure the premier league would be far more exciting if Liverpool comes onto the field with 3 players.

Wheres the rest of your team the referee ask.

Someone shrugs. Transfered maybe. Or stopped playing. Who knows. Havent seen them for weeks. 

The referee thinks for a moment. Ok give it your best shot, this is your chance to get bonus experience playing outnumbered!

 

[Cuks.8241]

I do agree that this could be a concern. For better or worse many if not most people do affiliate themselves to a server. 

What I am afraid is how the world communication and broader communities will be organised. Right now the server discord or team speak is a meeting  point where not only guilds but also randoms come together and form a community.  And regardless of the transfers and all the fluidity there is a stable core, an anchor for everyone that wants to join; guilds, randoms, open tag commanders. 

With alliances this will be reduced to much smaller units of 500 people. They even said they don't want people to get attached to worlds/teams as they will change often. This is fine for everyone of us that are part of WvW guilds. For everyone else that anchor will be gone. So every rematch they will need to reorganize and find the community and this could be detrimental to the game mode.

[enkidu.5937]

7 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

No I'm sure the premier league would be far more exciting if Liverpool comes onto the field with 3 players.

Yup, they should have disabled the transfer option after re-link. Years ago, when they introduced server linking.

 

Ofc, deleting the servers doesn’t solve anything, in fact it even facilitates time zone stacking.

 

7 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Wheres the rest of your team

They are doing a private alliance raid, with private voice chat and private tag on a private map that has huge queue. So yes, deleting the servers will also play out badly on this aspect. What we are already see on the level of private guild raids, will sweep over to the zerg level as well.

 

7 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Ok give it your best shot, this is your chance to get bonus experience playing outnumbered!

They will rather leave the game. Atm there is an incentive to defend when outnumbered, which is to support your server. When servers are deleted, I guess no one will even repair walls or scout. Chooo-Chooo, a big K-train is coming my friends 😝

[obastable.5231]

On 12/10/2021 at 2:44 PM, Ashantara.8731 said:

WvW needs a new map with new mechanics. Reshuffling the WvW population is barely a "rework" in my book - you still get to do the same boring thing day in and day out. It's not what I consider an update, leave alone new content.

That said, I wonder what the point of such beta weeks is when half the population gets scattered randomly across server shards and therefore stops playing. Doesn't a weekend suffice for this kind of experiment?

New maps or mechanics doesn't address the issues that World Restructuring will (hopefully) allow us to solve, and it's also not supposed to be "new content" in the way that PvE gets new content. 

 

WvW is a PvP game mode. What is content in PvP? It's interactions with other players. If there are no players for you to interact with you're just playing PvE, which is unfortunate for a game mode that's supposed to be a form of large scale open world PvP.

 

World Restructuring is, in simple terms, a new way for the game to sort people on to servers and (eventually) create more balanced & dynamic matchups. Think through the process of the beta this past week. You chose a group of people to play with (or you went solo) & then were sorted to a new server. At reset the systems generated matchups and paired the new worlds together with their newly minted citizens.

 

It's dishonest to say the population was randomly scattered. There was plenty of notice for people to get in to or form a Guild so they could trial the new systems with their familiar friends. Quite a few Guilds took it another level and banded together in to mega Guilds so they could go to the same server. Of course every player has a different approach to how they interact and manage these aspects of their game but - we have to be honest and fair - the information was out there, whether or not some players chose to pay attention to or heed it.

 

As to length, this wouldn't have work for a weekend event. WvW matchups are a week long, if the beta was only a weekend we'd have had two resets - one to bring the new systems and worlds online for the beta & then one when they were taken offline and everyone returned to their regular worlds & new matchups were made. I'm going to make some assumptions here, but I think a week long event also gives them better data about how their preliminary systems fared in creating the matchups in terms of population balance & activity level both overall and across different time zones & probably lots of other things we don't even think about.

[Ashantara.8731]

8 hours ago, obastable.5231 said:

World Restructuring is, in simple terms, a new way for the game to sort people on to servers and (eventually) create more balanced & dynamic matchups.

I get that. It's still no biggy in my book, because it won't solve the issue I have with WvW, which is quickly getting bored with this game mode. PvP is a lot more dynamic and exciting, but unfortunately so unbalanced and toxic that it's unplayable - now, that game mode could use an overhaul.

I don't see how reshuffling WvW's population will make the game mode more fun as it tears apart communities and leaves casuals who are not in a WvW guild (e.g., because they have no more slots left for one) to the gracious hands of the WvW gods. 😉

[obastable.5231]

6 hours ago, Ashantara.8731 said:

I get that. It's still no biggy in my book, because it won't solve the issue I have with WvW, which is quickly getting bored with this game mode. PvP is a lot more dynamic and exciting, but unfortunately so unbalanced and toxic that it's unplayable - now, that game mode could use an overhaul.

I don't see how reshuffling WvW's population will make the game mode more fun as it tears apart communities and leaves casuals who are not in a WvW guild (e.g., because they have no more slots left for one) to the gracious hands of the WvW gods. 😉

 

Don't disagree the lack of a dedicated Guild slot for this could and will be an issue if it isn't addressed before it goes to full launch - it's been brought up pretty frequently in related discussions and Anet is aware so hopefully we'll get at least one extra slot dedicated to Alliance server sorting or some other way for people who don't have a WvW Guild & no free slot to associate themselves with a server of their choosing.

 

Reshuffling the population should provide more balanced activity across servers. For NA this should mean less queues on the servers that have them and increased activity on the ones that don't. Since we need enemy engagement to have PvP content that should mean more content overall. We've been stuck linked with a full server that has 2 Guilds that run map queues, and they constantly try to swap maps without leaving the one they're in first, which creates a grid lock effect & we frequently end up with relatively small (10 deep) queue on 3-4 maps that can take an hour or more to get through sometimes. It's pretty ridiculous that this happens at all but with World Restructuring & the eventual Alliance system it'll happen far less. To the future intent of time zone pairings, it also means the few OCX & SEA groups that are currently spread across all of the servers will get to fight each other without having to constantly transfer so they can do something other than PvD. That's a thing that I think is often overlooked by NA players who don't suffer the same issues - people in other time zones are entitled to the same consideration as the rest of us.

 

I think back to when they did away with servers for PvE & introduced the megaservers & how upset people were about that but they got over it and moved on. Community forums & voice comms were replaced with content specific forums and comms & more specialized communities emerged - so now instead of the FA server itself trying to organize world events or fractals we have full blown world events, fractals, raids, farming, crafting, and all kinds of unique communities out there where people create connections. WvW and PvP have their own subset of community groups, too. Change is scary but it isn't bad just because it's different. 

[Knighthonor.4061]

Alliances will kill WvW. 

 

[Knighthonor.4061]

On 12/13/2021 at 12:48 AM, obastable.5231 said:

New maps or mechanics doesn't address the issues that World Restructuring will (hopefully) allow us to solve, and it's also not supposed to be "new content" in the way that PvE gets new content. 

 

WvW is a PvP game mode. What is content in PvP? It's interactions with other players. If there are no players for you to interact with you're just playing PvE, which is unfortunate for a game mode that's supposed to be a form of large scale open world PvP.

 

World Restructuring is, in simple terms, a new way for the game to sort people on to servers and (eventually) create more balanced & dynamic matchups. Think through the process of the beta this past week. You chose a group of people to play with (or you went solo) & then were sorted to a new server. At reset the systems generated matchups and paired the new worlds together with their newly minted citizens.

 

It's dishonest to say the population was randomly scattered. There was plenty of notice for people to get in to or form a Guild so they could trial the new systems with their familiar friends. Quite a few Guilds took it another level and banded together in to mega Guilds so they could go to the same server. Of course every player has a different approach to how they interact and manage these aspects of their game but - we have to be honest and fair - the information was out there, whether or not some players chose to pay attention to or heed it.

 

As to length, this wouldn't have work for a weekend event. WvW matchups are a week long, if the beta was only a weekend we'd have had two resets - one to bring the new systems and worlds online for the beta & then one when they were taken offline and everyone returned to their regular worlds & new matchups were made. I'm going to make some assumptions here, but I think a week long event also gives them better data about how their preliminary systems fared in creating the matchups in terms of population balance & activity level both overall and across different time zones & probably lots of other things we don't even think about.

PvP doesn't stand for contentless gameplay.

 

WvW should get new gameplay elements just like any other game mode. There a reason MMOs like WoW added new pvp modes and maps over the course of its 18 years. 

 

Even in WvW, new Borderland map was added as a form of new content.  Same with EoTM when it originally was added. 

 

A new world reshuffling systems isn't changing anything other than destroying the community aspect of WvW and replacing it with more toxic Guild politics that will just drive players away. 

 

What WvW needs was more gameplay features and more interesting maps. A EBG replacement map with new gameplay elements like Siege Turtles would have gone a long away. But now we have nothing new for the next 4 years until expansion 4 comes out with the hope that it at least attempt to add something new. 

 

If they going to kill WvW community, they could have at least fixed up EoTM and threw all the guild pvp there.

[enkidu.5937]

On 12/10/2021 at 6:04 PM, Mabi black.1824 said:

I totally agree.

but I want to be constructive and I really believe that there is a way to make alliances work and maintain a team identity. indeed I want to think that the final version of alliances already provides for it.

The one thing why WvW fascinates me is to be part of a big scale team, together with ppl that I even DON’T LIKE [sic] 😁 To experience how this team can indeed work out nicely.

 

I am fascinated to see how ppl with different attitudes and playstyles unite under one banner, aka their server, and thus make it work. On my server, EVERY community meeting has its controversials. 😉 We have blobbers and roamers, Karma-trains and PPKlers, Meta-gamers and PUG-manders, Roamers that have never been on voice chat and Commanders that demand everyone to be on voice chat etc.

 

Imo this makes WvW unique. I don’t want to just play with a group of friends, in a guild or alliance. Lots of other games already provide this.

 

So Anet, pls look proud on what you have created and ask yourself:

 

What are the good things in WvW that we should preserve, that shouldn’t be reworked?

 

I mean, there have to be some good things, aye? Ppl are still playing for a decade now. So we might ask ourselves: what are the good things in WvW that shouldn’d be touched during the rework. What are the things that you look proud on? 🙂

 

(PS: sry bad english, I gave my best 😁 )

Edited December 15, 2021 by enkidu.5937

[subversiontwo.7501]

21 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

The one thing why WvW fascinates me is to be part of a big scale team, together with ppl that I even DON’T LIKE [sic] 😁 To experience how this team can indeed work out nicely.

 

(PS: sry bad english, I gave my best 😁 )

Your english is fine.

However, let me see if I got this right: Your issue is less with alliances and more with the cap of 500? Would it matter if the cap was 2000 instead? Ultimately, whether it is 2000, 500 or 200 is simply a balance matter. That is something that the developers need to navigate whether they use the alliances/world system or the servers/world system.

Edited December 15, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[obastable.5231]

On 12/14/2021 at 4:35 PM, Knighthonor.4061 said:

PvP doesn't stand for contentless gameplay.

 

WvW should get new gameplay elements just like any other game mode. There a reason MMOs like WoW added new pvp modes and maps over the course of its 18 years. 

 

Even in WvW, new Borderland map was added as a form of new content.  Same with EoTM when it originally was added. 

 

A new world reshuffling systems isn't changing anything other than destroying the community aspect of WvW and replacing it with more toxic Guild politics that will just drive players away. 

 

What WvW needs was more gameplay features and more interesting maps. A EBG replacement map with new gameplay elements like Siege Turtles would have gone a long away. But now we have nothing new for the next 4 years until expansion 4 comes out with the hope that it at least attempt to add something new. 

 

If they going to kill WvW community, they could have at least fixed up EoTM and threw all the guild pvp there.

WvW has had all of those things. After every one of those updates it hemorrhaged players. Every single one. Throwing bandaids at a gaping wound is was not and is not a solution to the underlying and fundamental flaws with WvW.

Without question there is no argument that PvP requires other players. Without opponents there is no PvP. Without opponents WvW is a collection of PvE maps. Content in regard to PvP is not "new maps" or "gameplay elements" unless those elements are specifically tied to class mechanics and skill usage in the form of balance passes and expansion packs with new classes or specializations. There is a reason the only purpose EoTM served was karma farming for PvE players. There is a reason Red BL is avoided by most guilds and gone to as a last resort if every other map is queued or if it's the only map with enemies to chase down. There is a reason most WvW Guilds detest structure upgrades, siege, tactivators, infrequent balance passes, and especially mounts. None of these provide content in WvW. Every single one of them encourages and rewards avoiding enemies, not engaging with enemies, and actively contributes to the death of WvW. They are not a boon, they are not helpful, they are not "content".

You have absolutely no idea what's going to happen. You're totally entitled to your opinions, but then so is everyone else. You know, I think I'll make a new opinion and proclaim it the truth. The day Alliances launch pigs are going to fly and thousands of WvW players are going to return to the game. Simultaneously there'll be a series for rolling black outs, a unicorn will fly through Times Square and fart rainbows, and I will be crowned the Undisputed Eternal King of the Universe. Yes. This is a fact and this is what's going to happen when Alliances launch. Trust me, I know, it's my opinion and I'm flawless.

Edited December 17, 2021 by obastable.5231

[enkidu.5937]

On 12/15/2021 at 11:12 PM, subversiontwo.7501 said:

However, let me see if I got this right: Your issue is less with alliances and more with the cap of 500?

My issue is the change in the design of communities. It involves a lot of aspects, and at least for me, servers are much more than just “someone creates a mega guild so they can play together with their friends”.

 

As I said in another thread, to generate more puzzle pieces for matchmaking:

- keep the old NPC-servers (and their histories and communities)

- add some new NPC-servers

- add alliances as a new tool for new player-controlled servers

- add a mercenary-option where ppl and small guilds can decide to be matched completely independent from servers or alliances

 

In the live stream the Devs talked about the shift from NPC-servers to player-controlled guilds / alliances. So I don't have much hope that the Devs even look at it as an issue. But they should imo, since world restructuring is not just making smaller puzzle pieces for matchmaking and still have the option "to play with your friends".

 

On 12/15/2021 at 11:12 PM, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Ultimately, whether it is 2000, 500 or 200 is simply a balance matter. That is something that the developers need to navigate whether they use the alliances/world system or the servers/world system.

Imo this can’t be simply balanced. 1.000 ppl would be a nice number imo to keep the team spirit alive. This would still generate lots of new puzzle pieces for a more balanced matchmaking, by ppl that don’t care about their server, or ppl that want to create their own server under their control (aka alliance).

 

 

On the other hand, 200 ppl forming a well-organized alliance could already be devastating. Thinking of alliances like “lets make an alliance where everyone meets at 6 pm, to steamroll the maps”. Or another alliance “lets make an alliance where playtime is spread across the off-hours, from 11 pm to 11 am, to dominate the war score”.

 

 

The Devs can’t balance this, even if they consider “time zones” in their matchmaking. There won’t be a enough alliances like those mentioned above, so the Devs could spread them equally over all the teams. EDIT: PS: and this is not a theoretically possible outcome, this already happens in some cases, bandwaggoning, and imo there is no need to facilitate this aspect of WvW 😗

Edited December 17, 2021 by enkidu.5937

[kash.9213]

18 hours ago, obastable.5231 said:

WvW has had all of those things. After every one of those updates it hemorrhaged players. Every single one. Throwing bandaids at a gaping wound is was not and is not a solution to the underlying and fundamental flaws with WvW.

Without question there is no argument that PvP requires other players. Without opponents there is no PvP. Without opponents WvW is a collection of PvE maps. Content in regard to PvP is not "new maps" or "gameplay elements" unless those elements are specifically tied to class mechanics and skill usage in the form of balance passes and expansion packs with new classes or specializations. There is a reason the only purpose EoTM served was karma farming for PvE players. There is a reason Red BL is avoided by most guilds and gone to as a last resort if every other map is queued or if it's the only map with enemies to chase down. There is a reason most WvW Guilds detest structure upgrades, siege, tactivators, infrequent balance passes, and especially mounts. None of these provide content in WvW. Every single one of them encourages and rewards avoiding enemies, not engaging with enemies, and actively contributes to the death of WvW. They are not a boon, they are not helpful, they are not "content".

You have absolutely no idea what's going to happen. You're totally entitled to your opinions, but then so is everyone else. You know, I think I'll make a new opinion and proclaim it the truth. The day Alliances launch pigs are going to fly and thousands of WvW players are going to return to the game. Simultaneously there'll be a series for rolling black outs, a unicorn will fly through Times Square and fart rainbows, and I will be crowned the Undisputed Eternal King of the Universe. Yes. This is a fact and this is what's going to happen when Alliances launch. Trust me, I know, it's my opinion and I'm flawless.

What features are you saying hemorrhaged players? A new map would be great, unless it's poorly designed, people don't avoid Desert because it's new. New and engaging features would be great, unless they're poorly thought out. Raid guilds avoid a lot of stuff that's not flat open ground, that doesn't mean most people avoid them (or that mass amounts of players leave the game mode because of them, get real).

People stop playing if they know they're not going to make it for the big three way window and that tags will likely not support a map like Desert if it's home or any map really if there's any resistance or blobs that aren't fodder. Guilds who can pay up reshape a server and matchup will as consequence influence the playerbase by either packing theirs in and squeezing others out or by not showing up at all. That's a deciding factor in how many people will bother with a match more so then a new map or feature. 

[obastable.5231]

On 12/17/2021 at 8:08 AM, enkidu.5937 said:

My issue is the change in the design of communities. It involves a lot of aspects, and at least for me, servers are much more than just “someone creates a mega guild so they can play together with their friends”.

 

As I said in another thread, to generate more puzzle pieces for matchmaking:

- keep the old NPC-servers (and their histories and communities)

- add some new NPC-servers

- add alliances as a new tool for new player-controlled servers

- add a mercenary-option where ppl and small guilds can decide to be matched completely independent from servers or alliances

 

In the live stream the Devs talked about the shift from NPC-servers to player-controlled guilds / alliances. So I don't have much hope that the Devs even look at it as an issue. But they should imo, since world restructuring is not just making smaller puzzle pieces for matchmaking and still have the option "to play with your friends".

 

Imo this can’t be simply balanced. 1.000 ppl would be a nice number imo to keep the team spirit alive. This would still generate lots of new puzzle pieces for a more balanced matchmaking, by ppl that don’t care about their server, or ppl that want to create their own server under their control (aka alliance).

 

 

On the other hand, 200 ppl forming a well-organized alliance could already be devastating. Thinking of alliances like “lets make an alliance where everyone meets at 6 pm, to steamroll the maps”. Or another alliance “lets make an alliance where playtime is spread across the off-hours, from 11 pm to 11 am, to dominate the war score”.

 

 

The Devs can’t balance this, even if they consider “time zones” in their matchmaking. There won’t be a enough alliances like those mentioned above, so the Devs could spread them equally over all the teams. EDIT: PS: and this is not a theoretically possible outcome, this already happens in some cases, bandwaggoning, and imo there is no need to facilitate this aspect of WvW 😗

I feel like you're misunderstanding or not realizing how the new server structure will work, and given the amount of information out there I'm not feeling the need to reiterate it all here, but I genuinely suggest you go back and read through as much of it as you can, because there's parts of it that you've clearly missed entirely. 

 

On 12/17/2021 at 5:30 PM, kash.9213 said:

What features are you saying hemorrhaged players? A new map would be great, unless it's poorly designed, people don't avoid Desert because it's new. New and engaging features would be great, unless they're poorly thought out. Raid guilds avoid a lot of stuff that's not flat open ground, that doesn't mean most people avoid them (or that mass amounts of players leave the game mode because of them, get real).

People stop playing if they know they're not going to make it for the big three way window and that tags will likely not support a map like Desert if it's home or any map really if there's any resistance or blobs that aren't fodder. Guilds who can pay up reshape a server and matchup will as consequence influence the playerbase by either packing theirs in and squeezing others out or by not showing up at all. That's a deciding factor in how many people will bother with a match more so then a new map or feature. 

 We have 4 less tiers in NA & EU both. Early WvW was on much higher population servers across multiple time zones. We are literally playing a half dead game. A clear half of the games population has vanished and not come back and it wasn't because they couldn't find a tag to follow - hard to use that excuse when tags are a big segment of the population that left.

 

[enkidu.5937]

6 hours ago, obastable.5231 said:

I feel like you're misunderstanding or not realizing how the new server structure will work, and given the amount of information out there I'm not feeling the need to reiterate it all here, but I genuinely suggest you go back and read through as much of it as you can, because there's parts of it that you've clearly missed entirely.

So lets read your high-quality post about what will happen at world restructuring . . . 😎

 

On 12/17/2021 at 4:41 AM, obastable.5231 said:

I'll make a new opinion and proclaim it the truth. The day Alliances launch pigs are going to fly and thousands of WvW players are going to return to the game. Simultaneously there'll be a series for rolling black outs, a unicorn will fly through Times Square and fart rainbows, and I will be crowned the Undisputed Eternal King of the Universe. Yes. This is a fact and this is what's going to happen when Alliances launch. Trust me, I know, it's my opinion and I'm flawless.

. . . pls stop posting stupid nonsense on the forums and go play your fight club memes, thx. 😘

[subversiontwo.7501]

On 12/17/2021 at 2:08 PM, enkidu.5937 said:

Imo this can’t be simply balanced. 1.000 ppl would be a nice number imo to keep the team spirit alive. This would still generate lots of new puzzle pieces for a more balanced matchmaking, by ppl that don’t care about their server, or ppl that want to create their own server under their control (aka alliance).

 

On the other hand, 200 ppl forming a well-organized alliance could already be devastating. Thinking of alliances like “lets make an alliance where everyone meets at 6 pm, to steamroll the maps”. Or another alliance “lets make an alliance where playtime is spread across the off-hours, from 11 pm to 11 am, to dominate the war score”.

The Devs can’t balance this, even if they consider “time zones” in their matchmaking. There won’t be a enough alliances like those mentioned above, so the Devs could spread them equally over all the teams. EDIT: PS: and this is not a theoretically possible outcome, this already happens in some cases, bandwaggoning, and imo there is no need to facilitate this aspect of WvW 😗

Well, these are the reasons I phrased it as a question to you as these are the issues that the developer are juggling and try to consider.

They need to do something about the static nature of servers because it simply isn't tenable. I'm not sure if you ever saw the graph they released a number of years ago (the slope diagram) but the differences in populations between servers was absolutely massive. We're talking about needing to maintain some notion of balance around 25% to be within even a ballpark grasp of what can be tolerable to where I think most people understand that if a server is twice the size (100%) of another things are massively imbalanced, to the reality of the graph where the real differences between the servers was in the 2000% (or 20x). So for some sense of balance that isn't gravitating towards "everyone plays here and no one plays here" they have to do something. That something also involves dealing with caps because caps, same as servers, always were placeholders to ship the product that had big day 1 issues, making sure friends couldn't play together. That is that second aspect which you also aknowledge. So while we do have the server caps they have failed to balance the system to that 1/20 difference which is just absolutely ridiculous.

Past that it simply comes down to exactly what you're surmising: They could have pieces of 1000 players to better let existing communities stay together but pieces of 200 players have already proven dominant enough. The smaller you go, the more granularity you get and the better balance. The piece of 500 just strikes a balance inbetween the social and the match balance (on a figure that the developer already had in place with the guild mechanic). They have not yet considered either the social or balance aspects of it beyond that at this point in the development process (this beta, etc.). The piece right now is 500 simply because the existing guild cap is 500 and because it is a tolerable starting point to calculate community building (social) versus tolerable matchups with better content than we have (balance) all wrapped into a system that is easier for the developer to work with and do changes in going forward.

Me, for example, I believe that the piece will come to shrink in the future simply based on how dominant some EU communities have been with smaller numbers or just how volatile the server communities are: Where for the past two years we've seen server communities declare themselves dead or actually empties out at the loss of a single important guild. I think those last examples are necessary for someone who enjoys their server community to take in because that is the reality for many other servers and your own server is not far from ending up in the very same spot (I've seen this among some of the most- and some of the least server-oriented communities). That's why I point out that I think think there is alot of naivity among people who celebrate their servers. They only do that up to the point where their server "dies" because they too have guilds or individuals who are disproportionately important for that server "community". You could see this in many of the posts complaining about the beta where "they" could not find "their usual public commanders". There is alot of presumption built into that from a weak perspective where "they" are not "the commander". Either that or they just don't care about the mode as a mode that was meant to match servers up on a ladder and maintain balance to do so. Balance isn't measured in absolutes, it's measured in toleration: Whether things are better or worse and good enough. Two people need not the exact same weight to use a see-saw.

The problem arise when we can't play with the see-saw and the server system is arguably there both in the weight of communities but also in the available tools to let players form new communities and let new players come play.

Edited December 19, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[enkidu.5937]

4 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Well, these are the reasons I phrased it as a question to you as these are the issues that the developer are juggling and try to consider.

I appreciate your comprehensive reading and reply! 👍 And I'd very much like to discuss any possible solutions . . . but from what I've heared from the Devs, I doubt that they really "try to consider".

 

In their recent live stream in September, they said that they collect our feedback from many sources (which is great to hear!), but they only rarely consider our suggested solutions, they primarily want to focus on our complains, and try to find a solution (which is common for Devs in general I guess, but unique that Anet communicates this so clearly . . . honest thx for sharing, Anet ! ).

 

I personally find this unfair and unapropriate, to just look at the complains. Imo its better to focus on the players suggestions, because suggestions usually consider both, the problems (that demand for a change) and the good things that should be preserved !

 

So I've created this thread, that Anet first should look proud on what they've created, cause I feel a lack of this attitude right now. Not everything is bad, I don't want an overhaul of WvW, I want an IMPROVEMENT. I see a many good things that are worth to be kept. 🙂

 

Quote

They need to do something about the static nature of servers because it simply isn't tenable. I'm not sure if you ever saw the graph they released a number of years ago (the slope diagram) but the differences in populations between servers was absolutely massive. We're talking about needing to maintain some notion of balance around 25% to be within even a ballpark grasp of what can be tolerable to where I think most people understand that if a server is twice the size (100%) of another things are massively imbalanced, to the reality of the graph where the real differences between the servers was in the 2000% (or 20x).

I know this graph very well, cause I've quoted and linked it at least 2 times iirc, on forums some years ago. On the basis of this graph, Anet introduced server linking.

 

PS: To be honest, back then I feared “the end of WvW as we know it” . . . but gladly, I was proven to be wrong (to a degree) 😁

 

Quote

[...] I think think there is alot of naivity among people who celebrate their servers. They only do that up to the point where their server "dies" because they too have guilds or individuals who are disproportionately important for that server "community".

For me, a server will never die (until Anet deletes it), cause every server has its own history. Very dedicated ppl have shaped that history (and still do 😘), others like me were "just" part of it, some quit WvW forever, some died in real life, some left . . . and returned years later. Some have never joined voice chat, or community meetings, or resident guilds . . . but in my definition they are part of that community as well.

 

Thats the unique fascinating thing of WvW for me personally.

Edited December 20, 2021 by enkidu.5937

[ZeroTheRuler.7415]

14 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

So lets read your high-quality post about what will happen at world restructuring . . . 😎

 

. . . pls stop posting stupid nonsense on the forums and go play your fight club memes, thx. 😘

This is for your edification, but it sounds like you have made up your mind already. Phase 1 of the beta was a "stress test," was mostly a backend test and wasn't a full sample of what alliances will actually be.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/studio-update-world-restructuring-and-the-future-of-world-vs-world/

Also MightyTeapot has a hour and a half teatime where he talks to ANET devs about the direction that WvW Alliances might go in.

Personally I am excited for the potential changes, but fully knew that what we experienced last week wasn't the "full" product for where Alliances will end up. I do understand the resistance to change, but am hopeful that things will turn out great.

[obastable.5231]

17 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

So lets read your high-quality post about what will happen at world restructuring . . . 😎

 

. . . pls stop posting stupid nonsense on the forums and go play your fight club memes, thx. 😘

The only posts you should go read are Anet's posts explaining the point and purposes of both World Restructuring and Alliances so you aren't making a bunch of false statements and claims.  That's on you, no one can understand it for you, and it's no one's responsibility but your own to educate you. 

 

Trying to insult me doesn't help your argument or rebut anything I said, not sure why you'd bother with that unless you're trying to make yourself look bad.

[enkidu.5937]

14 hours ago, ZeroTheRuler.7415 said:

This is for your edification, but it sounds like you have made up your mind already. Phase 1 of the beta was a "stress test," was mostly a backend test and wasn't a full sample of what alliances will actually be.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/studio-update-world-restructuring-and-the-future-of-world-vs-world/

Also MightyTeapot has a hour and a half teatime where he talks to ANET devs about the direction that WvW Alliances might go in.

Personally I am excited for the potential changes, but fully knew that what we experienced last week wasn't the "full" product for where Alliances will end up. I do understand the resistance to change, but am hopeful that things will turn out great.

When you look at the headline of this thread and my opening post, we hopefully agree on one point at least. This thread is about the good aspects of the current server system, and that Anet shouldn't foolhardy kill this.

 

This thread is NOT about speculations how world restructuring will look like, its NOT about the evaluation of the recent alpha test, so I guess this leaves you the option to discuss NPC-server based communities, and if you like them or not or whatever. 😏

 

For my part, I came to WvW, to play world vs world (surprise), not just 15 vs. 15 (guild vs. guild), not just 50 vs. 50 (alliance vs. alliance), but 200 vs. 200 (world vs. world). To be united as a team of 2 servers that have their own history and profile, it is possible for me to enjoy the world vs. world experience. Ppl tend to seperate them and do their own version of WvW, some do voice-chat-only, some PPK-only, some Karma-Train without fighting, some only use Meta builds, some never defend keeps, some do private guild raids, some speak english, german, french etc. But still we are united as one server. Even when community meetings sometimes drift into "you PPT guys suck" vs. "you PPK guys suck even more". 😁

 

So I didnt come to WvW to just play with friends in a small group. There are lots of other games where I can do this. I came to WvW to play as a world vs. another world. And not get matched with and against random dudes in nameless teams every 1-8 weeks. 🙂

Edited December 20, 2021 by enkidu.5937

[Mabi black.1824]

I personally find this unfair and unapropriate, to just look at the complains. Imo its better to focus on the players suggestions, because suggestions usually consider both, the problems (that demand for a change) and the good things that should be preserved !

 

I find myself once again completely in agreement .............. and if I were responsible for the development of a company like arenanet......... I would seriously consider many topics here............ but I'm sure they do.

[Svarty.8019]

On 12/10/2021 at 2:29 AM, enkidu.5937 said:

Admittedly, UK Premier League of Football might become more exciting, score-wise, if we mix the players from ManCity, Liverpool, and Newcastle every few weeks, and give those clubs random names, like “FC Run-a-Lot” vs. “FC Make-that-Goal”. 

Hang on, this is a poor example - People who play for Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle have zero connection with the local communities or loyalty to them, and transfer to the flavour-of-the-month team at the drop of a [s]hat[/s] lucrative fee.

 

Oh my mistake, it IS just like WvW! 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Svarty.8019