WvW Constructive Discussion - Share Thoughts/Improvements

[Mabi black.1824]

8 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Why do you think people would be happy to break up their "safe home" after 12 months? They've been together for 12 months after all. How is prolonging the inevitable any better from breaking it up after 2 months?

Also what you are essentially saying is that for example the situation with Gandara today isnt bad enough, 12 months of being stuck like that is better.

Do you disagree with that? Well there is a reason every 2 months is better to redistribute the worlds...

Also if we assume all worlds are 3 smaller combined worlds you are getting awfully close to... *drumroll*... the world restructure system with player made "safe homes" (ie alliances) that Anet has designed.

So whats the point? At least alliances doesnt have a 12 months countdown to the death of your "safe home" - it last as long as you are in it. Sounds far more like a home to me.

then let's see if I can make myself understood. the point is not to break the server after 12 months, the point is to have a server for 12 months. around 36 servers you can build a leaderboard to climb and a tournament to win. I am talking about giving a broad, inclusive motivation, something that helps, stimulates initiative and competition. 8 weeks is really too little, 2 months in one team and 2 months in another squad. how can you expect a player to be more competitive and stimulated in such a situation.

Today's strange gandara situation has nothing to do with my proposal and tomorrow's gandara. we will have alliances we will have a new mechanic, each player must select a guild wvw arenanet will have so many small and very small pieces that can build teams really really really similar. they are all full, there is no longer the concept of high or medium etc.

and in the end the guild or a group of guilds can not even come close to what is a server. I have already explained it in another post. it would all be much more reductive would be not very inclusive and would be too unstable.

 

[Mabi black.1824]

13 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

When we are designing something though, shouldn't we ensure we have pathways for handling all the different user cases we know exist that can be pain-points for them? 

this phrase gave me to think quite a bit.  we should ask this question to arenanet, if with alliances thought of all users. maybe yes and we still do not know what he drew around alliances. what worries me is that the user will no longer have a server to compete with others.

someone replied to me that it is the competing alliances , have you thought of the users who do not have an alliance? others have told me that it is the competing guilds, have you thought of users who do not have a guild? or have you thought about users who used to have a guild and now didn't? in short, I always think that you are designing in a way that is not very inclusive and very very exclusive.

[Mabi black.1824]

in a competitive pvp mode the competition must be your star center, it is the only thing that is really essential. even our current system is in trouble precisely because competition is being questioned. every time you see something like gandara , you question the competition of all servers, every time you see a k+d that is 40% lower than the others you question the competition of all servers.

to tell you with an example it is as if in the football league two teams clash one of 11 players and the other of 6 players. the first team wants to play and wants to win, maybe for the first 15 minutes and then realizes that that game does not make sense and if it is a league game consequently the championship does not make sense.

 

now with alliances you will be guaranteed to have 11 players against 11 players, but no longer you have that great league you had before, it is just a nice charity game, Sunday after Sunday once in the team of famous actors and the following Sunday in the team of famous singers and so on. until you realize it doesn't make any sense, it's just a beneficial event.

[Mabi black.1824]

the alliance system itself is winning is smart, the pieces are small and you can put them together very easily to get very similar teams. now you have to contextualize alliances within this mode . if this update is to be a success I have to put the competition between the players at the center again. finding a way to have teams that can participate in a seasonal championship I thought it could somehow help.

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

now with alliances you will be guaranteed to have 11 players against 11 players

No you are not. If your basis for "competition" is perfect mirrored teams then that is not how world restructure work because that is impossible under any system outside of a very organized matchup within a very short timespan. That would be sPvP. Or a football match if that is the comparison you want to make.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Dawdler.8521

[Mabi black.1824]

4 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

No you are not. If your basis for "competition" is perfect mirrored teams then that is not how world restructure work because that is impossible under any system outside of a very organized matchup within a very short timespan. That would be sPvP. Or a football match if that is the comparison you want to make.

with this statement of yours we move the discussion to another topic, and that's fine, it will be interesting to think about this too. perhaps anet has already decided, defined and prepared everything already, I do not know and it would be nice to have a feedback of what the situation is the work in progress.

I consider your incorrect statement, or at least uncertain because everything depends on what anet chooses to do, what are its objectives, what it has in mind. in this mode the teams confront each other for a long time 24/7 is true but you can safely guarantee that all the teams have the same potential or at least a very similar potential.

 

in my opinion you can achieve the same result in two different ways, and I try to explain them.

the premise is that with alliances you have a lot of small and very small pieces at your disposal to build your teams + or - potentially equal.

so you can use a dynamic logic to build, just have numerically identical teams, constantly count players online, compare them, and apply the relative coefficient to the points that the teams generate. it takes a bit of work to get it because you need to create a cyclic algorithm that counts and calculates in a constant and automatic way (dynamic system).

or you can use a static logic, also for this reason it is still quite a bit of work. you have to learn the first and last names of all players and check how much time they devote to their favorite game throughout the 8-week period. a lot of data to manage every 8 weeks. at that point you can assign a value to each player (using statistical logic) and then fill the teams to get equal or very similar values.

personally I prefer a dynamic method rather than a static method, I consider it more precise and smarter, but this is only my opinion. now mind you will continue to see while playing moments of superiority alternating with moments of inferiority is normal and is not supportive, as long as you have the awareness that your opponents have the same potential as you, or at least a potential very similar to yours.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Mabi black.1824

[Chaba.5410]

I read @Mabi black.1824's description as something akin to the current server system.  Seemed like individual players would be randomly assigned to a server.  Then three servers would get linked together to form a team.  That team would fight other teams for 8 weeks then the servers would get relinked and shuffled into different combinations.  After 12 months everyone is randomly assigned again.

It does nothing for keeping communities together.

[Mabi black.1824]

6 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

It does nothing for keeping communities together.

does nothing? doesn't it do enough? I don't know. mine is just an idea to have alliance, with its teams balanced and maintain a concept of team competition, even if only for a 12-month season, get a great end-of-season event, create expectation, enthusiasm and motivation.

[Chaba.5410]

8 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

does nothing? doesn't it do enough? I don't know. mine is just an idea to have alliance, with its teams balanced and maintain a concept of team competition, even if only for a 12-month season, get a great end-of-season event, create expectation, enthusiasm and motivation.

I mean, what do current guilds get out of that system if their players all get placed randomly?

[Mabi black.1824]

no chaba maybe I was misunderstood. with alliances anet builds new servers for the season, every year you have completely new servers. it is clear that the servers will be filled with guilds, groups of guilds, and individual players. you and all your guild friends will continue to play together, and you will be randomly placed (all together) on a new server every 12 months.

[Chaba.5410]

7 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

no chaba maybe I was misunderstood. with alliances anet builds new servers for the season, every year you have completely new servers. it is clear that the servers will be filled with guilds, groups of guilds, and individual players. you and all your guild friends will continue to play together, and you will be randomly placed (all together) on a new server every 12 months.

That wasn't clear.  Thanks for clarifying.

So in your proposal, individuals, guilds, and alliances (groups of guilds) get placed on a server for 12 months.  Three servers get linked together for 8 weeks to form a team.  Three teams compete against each other.  Is that correct?

[Mabi black.1824]

23 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Non era chiaro. Grazie per il chiarimento.

Quindi, nella tua proposta, individui, gilde e alleanze (gruppi di gilde) vengono posizionati su un server per 12 mesi. Tre server vengono collegati tra loro per 8 settimane per formare una squadra. Tre squadre competono l'una contro l'altra. Giusto?

yes, perfect.

[Kelly.7019]

with the broken queue bug- maybe let people join the queue when they log on and grab a number so idk ten thousand-ish 😄 people aren't clicking join at reset at the same time?

[Malus.2184]

Eu language soecific Alliances. ANet might as well make official ones as else players will make their own and it'll suck for people who accidentally gets placed in an Alliance where they can understand no one.

When ticked for shared participation Support also needs to get XP from kills or else doing support is just gimping yourself despite it being sorely needed in large groups.

[captrowdy.9561]

On 6/26/2022 at 7:31 AM, Danger Ferret.6342 said:

I hate WvW. It's tedious and pointless. The ONLY reason I play is to get the reward tracks, and I firmly believe ANET stuck the gift of battle in WvW because otherwise no one would play. As long as you force PvE players into WvW, WvW is going to suck because most of us don't want to be there in the first place. It's like ANET goes out of its way to breed animosity among the players, and customer service refuses to take feedback, so we're forced to deal with more hostility in these forums to get the point across. STOP MAKING US DO THIS TEDIOUS BS TO AVOID A $150 Pay per Play on legendary weapons.

I don’t like some pve stuff that I have to do for rewards but I still do it and have a positive attitude. A lot of mmos have rewards in all game types. 

[Leger.3724]

Outside of primetime NA this has been incredibly lopsided in terms of player population.

 

It's primetime again right now and while it seems all teams can field full rosters... there's more "strategy" then before so my team or server or whatever you want to call it is living with the other 2 teams spending the entirety of primetime attacking only our objectives. In some instances literally camping outside our main spawn and our spawn tower. Maybe part of this is some of the dedicated players are less interested in WvW and just want to zerg fight over nothing. So we have two enemy zergs meet up at our spawn tower at the start of primetime (because we lose outside of primetime hours so horrifically).

 

This might be a short term win for people who love the idea of alliances but this is going to be a longterm failure and in the short run is going to decimate the casual population. Bad idea overall.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Leger.3724

[aspirine.6852]

I do hope they just put together a bunch of teams and not given it any thought about the balance. Because if they did, they dont get it at all..

[Polar.8634]

On 6/26/2022 at 3:31 PM, Danger Ferret.6342 said:

As long as you force PvE players into WvW,

Anet please force them even more

[wowMuchGuildWars.6125]

@Mabi black.1824While I admire the spirit behind your idea, what you are describing (if I'm understanding correctly) is fundamentally flawed because team creation is only done once a year. This doesn't account for player activity or relationships between communities, guilds currently transfer away from servers (or don't play at all) if they are linked with people they don't like so not being able to do that will create a negative experience for many people. While the current World Restructuring/Alliance system might kill server identity it allows people to create new identities around Alliances and guilds.

There's 2 things that I see a lot on the forums that bother me a little and that's:

• Alliances is going to kill communities and
• Alliances are bad for solo players

When infact those things just aren't true,

• Its rare that an individual knows 500 players on their server, 500 is alot and to my knowledge there are very very few capped alliances
• Just because you are a solo player doesn't mean you can't be in a guild with other solo players

The system as currently presented gives us alot of tools to group and manage players ourselves and then takes those choices and creates "good" match ups, coming up with creative ways of solving some problems using these tools is something that we as players will have to deal with, because whether people like it or not the system is good for the long term health of the game.

[yourexcellency.1458]

On 6/26/2022 at 8:31 AM, Danger Ferret.6342 said:

I hate WvW. It's tedious and pointless. The ONLY reason I play is to get the reward tracks, and I firmly believe ANET stuck the gift of battle in WvW because otherwise no one would play. As long as you force PvE players into WvW, WvW is going to suck because most of us don't want to be there in the first place. It's like ANET goes out of its way to breed animosity among the players, and customer service refuses to take feedback, so we're forced to deal with more hostility in these forums to get the point across. STOP MAKING US DO THIS TEDIOUS BS TO AVOID A $150 Pay per Play on legendary weapons.

I hate map completion. It's tedious and pointless. The ONLY reason I do it is to get the gift of exploration, I firmly believe ANET stuck the gift of exploration in open world because otherwise no one would do it.  STOP MAKING US DO THIS TEDIOUS BS TO AVOID A $150 Pay per Play on legendary weapons.

[Leger.3724]

3 hours ago, wowMuchGuildWars.6125 said:

@Mabi black.1824

• There's 2 things that I see a lot on the forums that bother me a little and that's:

• Alliances is going to kill communities and
• Alliances are bad for solo players

• When infact those things just aren't true,

 

Except it is. Communities can vary in the intensity and dedication they display. Take a look at PvE content, open world. Very casual to the point where sometimes people don't form teams.

 

This alliance idea is going to concentrate the most dedicate players in WvW Guilds on teams at the expense of everyone else. And while that might sound great if you're in one of those guilds... a lot of your fun right now depends on meeting up with those more casual zergs or groups and fighting it out.

 

I don't know for sure how this beta will turn out if it's pushed out of beta and into "live" but I suspect it will result in casual players decreasing their playtime and even some of the smaller dedicated guilds fracturing with some members moving to other WvW guilds and others giving up or reducing time spent on WvW.

 

And all of that is bad for the longterm health of WvW because unlike PvE there is no scaling. The bigger, more dedicated guilds will steamroll the smaller, less dedicated ones night after night and the game continues to bleed players as it fails to bring new ones in.

 

[Nyghtslave.6152]

On 8/14/2022 at 1:32 PM, wowMuchGuildWars.6125 said:

There's 2 things that I see a lot on he forums that bother me a little and that's:

• Alliances is going to kill communities and
• Alliances are bad for solo players

When infact those things just aren't true,

• Its rare that an individual knows 500 players on their server, 500 is alot and to my knowledge there are very very few capped alliances
• Just because you are a solo player doesn't mean you can't be in a guild with other solo players

The system as currently presented gives us alot of tools to group and manage players ourselves and then takes those choices and creates "good" match ups, coming up with creative ways of solving some problems using these tools is something that we as players will have to deal with, because whether people like it or not the system is good for the long term health of the game.

Just my 2 cents here as a casual player, who likes to roam WvW sometimes, so take that as you wish. But what I see right now during this beta looks a lot like "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

I understand Anet's wish to listen to players who's grievance was that they weren't (always) able to play with their guild mates, because they were assigned to different servers, which makes being in a guild together kind of moot, from their point of view. After all, why would you be in a guild together if you can't play together? And that's fair enough I suppose. So there's your good intentions.

The Road to hell in this case, lies in the problem that, from what I've seen, a significant portion of the WvW player base is homed in relatively few guilds, and the luck of the draw is all that remains for the casuals. Sometimes one or two worlds are barely populated, with the the other(s) having an overwhelming alliance.

This essentially then ends up in a gridlock/stalemate; one faction greatly outnumbers the others, and with control over almost every cappable point on the map, large groups lie in wait for anything to do. Roamers are easily faced with 10-15 people from an opposing faction with nothing left to do but essentially gank them, unless they've been fortunate enough to be sorted in with the organized faction and can tag along.

So while it's great Anet wants to meet the issues raised by those in guilds and alliances who can't play with their own, the way it currently is in this beta, it only benefits those organized, and the rest is to suffer, eventually leaving less people to play WvW as it is thoroughly unenjoyable.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Nyghtslave.6152
Clarification

[Dawdler.8521]

57 minutes ago, Nyghtslave.6152 said:

So while it's great Anet wants to meet the issues raised by those in guilds and alliances who can't play with their own, the way it currently is in this beta, it only benefits those organized, and the rest is to suffer, eventually leaving less people to play WvW as it is thoroughly unenjoyable.

I still really dont understand how this issue is any different from normal WvW. Every post I see describing their problems this week apply just as well to last week and will be the same problems next week. WvW will ALWAYS benefit those organized while the randoms "suffer".

Is the WvW community suddenly struck by collective amnesia over boonballs, stacked servers and the flaws of the link system?

[Nyghtslave.6152]

34 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I still really dont understand how this issue is any different from normal WvW. Every post I see describing their problems this week apply just as well to last week and will be the same problems next week. WvW will ALWAYS benefit those organized while the randoms "suffer".

Is the WvW community suddenly struck by collective amnesia over boonballs, stacked servers and the flaws of the link system?

By no means do I mean to imply the problem doesn't already exist, merely that the current way of restructuring exacerbates the issue

[ManiacMika.9851]

 

Quote

 

What’s the goal of this beta event?

As mentioned in our June 24 WvW update, this event will allow us to test several back-end changes that we’ve been working on over the past few months. Most of these changes won’t be visible to players [...]. It will also give our new WvW team members (myself included!) our first experience with running a WvW World Restructuring beta event.
[...]

Which changes are NOT in this beta event?

The Alliances component of World Restructuring and the recently announced Objective Scaling Rewards feature are still in development and aren’t ready for public consumption quite yet.

 

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/wvw-world-restructuring-beta-4-begins-on-august-12/

 

If you are NOT seeing any positive changes, it's because it hasn't started yet. Basically, you can compare this to a baby learning to walk. First, you have to stand up, make sure you are stable. Then put on foot in front of the other. They are making sure that servers are currently stable before implementing Alliance system. And as you can see, we are still tripping and falling, as some players are sent to another match-up while there is a queue in theirs. Maybe there will be Phase 1 beta #5 and 6. Then I think there will be like 2 or 3 phase 2 betas before full release. Only after that, we will see other new improvements like the reward changes for example.