hooks for devs to follow:

[nafeesh al dija.8972]

(1) REGION parameter (client - login server)

there is communication and there are logs, because whenever my isp gives me a different, unknown login location i have to confirm it.

-> there is a database related to the login servers, which shows my region.

-> use it for wvw to create populations of the same region and ofc time zone!

 

(2) LANGUAGE parameter (client - game server)

there are language settings in the client to forward to the game servers, so that the desired language output is delivered (ingame npc or cutscenes).

-> there is a database related to game servers, where content of desired language is selected and from there delivered.

-> use it for wvw to create populations with the same language!

 

these two points would be the minimum requirements for me to enjoy wvw again. i want to play with people, who talk my mothertongue, who play often at the same time zone with me and who share hopefully almost the same cultural background of my region. no beta was fun and satisfying regarding these three points, wether in a beta with a guild neither in a beta without membership in a guild!

 

but there are other parameters also possible to check as a kind of nice to have, for example:

 

(3) the difficult question of SKILL (account - game server)

only vague indicators and without order:

- own death vs killing others ratio,

- wvw rank,

- played time in wvw per character or account wide,

- time with commander tag and being followed by a group of at least 5,

- leader of an active wvw guild (doing tasks in wvw vs tasks and achievements in pve), participation and spent time actively in wvw!

- member of an active wvw guild (doing tasks in wvw vs tasks and achievements in pve), participation and spent time actively in wvw!

[Dawdler.8521]

Point 1 and 2 are easily met: It's called you putting in some effort and joining a guild suited for your needs. 

Point 3 is far too specific to determine "skill" on a world scale but yes I believe Anet has the intention to at least try to weigh the strength of alliances/guilds. Whether they succeed is anyones guess.

[nafeesh al dija.8972]

it's a common misconception, that you only need to join a guild to solve all these issues, because a guild is a far less sized part of a population (alliance). the population as a whole needs to meet these points to work together towards a common goal.

such thinking ("stubborn, stupid players only need to join a guild") is a blank cheque for devs to make their work for themselves easier and to blame the players, if things work out wrong. a population must be formerd

- actively by the players when joining a guild,

- passively by game options how guilds can be grouped and also

- passively by game rules when single players are grouped to alliances to fill up empty spaces

it's not possible to restrict yourself only to communicate within a guild, because wvw is far different from a pve/ raid environement. such a wvw environement needs conditions to support group game play and for this is communication as well as understanding/ background crucial. well, such things might be seen differently wether you see it from a society perspective as in america or with a (group of different nations) european perrspective!

you can't limit your game play only towards a guild, if the mode isn't about a guild - works in pve, but we talk about wvw now.

wvw is about a population, formerly known as a server! such a population can work easier, if it has common standards like described in the innitial post. ...

this needs to be arranged and supported by devs/ anet better for wvw to be continued by players.

Edited November 26, 2022 by nafeesh al dija.8972

[Chaba.5410]

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/19675-world-restructuring-faq/

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, nafeesh al dija.8972 said:

it's a common misconception, that you only need to join a guild to solve all these issues, because a guild is a far less sized part of a population (alliance). the population as a whole needs to meet these points to work together towards a common goal.

Mentioning misconception and then confusing alliances (same size as guilds) with teams (the world) is highly ironic. 

And I didnt say it solved all the issues. It solves your issues though.

[Chaba.5410]

56 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Mentioning misconception and then confusing alliances (same size as guilds) with teams (the world) is highly ironic.

You mean aside from the irony of posting to ask for something in a slightly condescending manner that they already said they are going to consider?  Wish people would read the FAQ more to gain a fuller understanding of "The Plan" before posting.

As a dev, why bother with these other placement parameters when the basic functionality of getting placed on the correct team has to work 100% yet still?

Edited November 26, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[nafeesh al dija.8972]

guilds form an alliance. a population might be formed by some alliances depending on their size and might be filled up with solo players to meet certain numbers. > conclusion: a guild is a far less sized part (what did i mess up? infact, you didnt read/ understand correctly!)

none of my issues were solved by joining one guild! i might be able to talk with guild mates like pple do in pve - but man, we discuss wvw! i tested beta as a member of a guild and i went solo in a beta - none of the issues were solved!

just relax, let guild focussed player reign and we will see peak times once per day - but the remaining 21 hrs per day will be a lonely way with empty maps. a game mode like wvw will not survive this, but hey, enjoy as long as it works 😉

so, the focus needs to be on forming a healthy wvw population rather than supporting yet another field for guild experiences, which are already supported by pve.

Edited November 26, 2022 by nafeesh al dija.8972

[Custodio.6134]

17 hours ago, nafeesh al dija.8972 said:

so, the focus needs to be on forming a healthy wvw population rather than supporting yet another field for guild experiences, which are already supported by pve.

another one that completely ignores one very important fact for the players, that don´t play in a progressive guild: 

guilds ALREADY are the backbone of almost every server. So, what does the average player, that is NOT part of a progressive guild do? It´s quite simple.

One part is running around alone or with a few faces they know (aka roaming). This part is not really affected by guilds/commanders/heck to some extent even the server they are on doesnt even matter. They are capable to do their stuff alone. 

The other (biggest) chunk of players will be zerg-players (non-guild players, and sometimes even guild-players) that follow a public commander. 

So, where do you think the commanders are coming from? 

Let me give you an answer based on what i expierienced on our server and our link-partners: 
~90% of public tags are opened by commanders, that are either 1: a player of a WvW-focused guild or 2: the raidlead of a WvW-focused guild. 

So now imagine: all the guilds would be suddenly gone. what do you expect to happen? right, public tags will also mostly be gone. 

 

 

17 hours ago, nafeesh al dija.8972 said:

i tested beta as a member of a guild and i went solo in a beta - none of the issues were solved!

what type of guild? because that heavily matters. progressive raidguild? community-guild (mass-guild)? PvE-guild? casual WvW-guild?

And keep in mind: the current Beta-system doesn´t remotely reflect on how the teams will be built (since the majority of players currently stacks in a single guild, rather than their "actual" WvW-guild that would be part of an alliance). The "puzzle pieces" that servers are intended to become broken down into (from Servers into a patchwork of  Alliances, that are broken down into guilds and solo players) are NOT even part of the system yet.

So neither you, nor i, nor anyone can actually judge the system that is yet to be tested, as neither of us has actually expierienced it yet. 

Edited November 27, 2022 by Custodio.6134

[enkidu.5937]

22 hours ago, nafeesh al dija.8972 said:

you can't limit your game play only towards a guild, if the mode isn't about a guild - works in pve, but we talk about wvw now.

wvw is about a population, formerly known as a server

If I were you I would just stop to try to explain it to these people. They've never understood WvW and will never understand. As you described, some servers manage to assemble as a team, not just some friends in the same guild, but people with even different attitudes and playstyles. They might even not like each other and have arguments in community meetings etc. But thats the point in WvW, to bring those PPTlers and PPKlers together, roamers and blobbers, elitists and casuals, cause thats how you make your server win high tier matches constantly.

 

And then you have these other people that cry about the mode, "winning is meaningless", "PPT is for noobs", "WvW is so unfair, cause they have a night active guild and we don't", "my link is noob", "the players on my home server is noob", so they stack a server and when they lose their link, they transfer to the next one or do second account hopping.

 

19 hours ago, nafeesh al dija.8972 said:

the focus needs to be on forming a healthy wvw population rather than supporting yet another field for guild experiences, which are already supported by pve

Anet seems to have a different plan that is: join a guild and join an alliance or gtfo. From what you suggest, only language is doable imo. But for the other things, Anet plans to do the exact opposite. If there is an alliance on the team with e. g. PPKlers that stack at 6-8 pm then Anet will use randoms as filling mass that do not play at 6-8 pm, have a low K/D, do not blob and so on. Pretty save that most will just quit, but ok, its an " exciting experiment" 😝

[Dawdler.8521]

10 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

If I were you I would just stop to try to explain it to these people. They've never understood WvW and will never understand. As you described, some servers manage to assemble as a team, not just some friends in the same guild, but people with even different attitudes and playstyles. They might even not like each other and have arguments in community meetings etc. But thats the point in WvW, to bring those PPTlers and PPKlers together, roamers and blobbers, elitists and casuals, cause thats how you make your server win high tier matches constantly.

And you give a pretty good explanation for alliances too, instead of just having a singular guild - a guild may be casual, a guild may be hardcore, a guild may have only roamers and a guild may only be PPTers, etc... but they can all join the same multi-faceted alliance without leaving their individual guilds. Of course, they might not like each other, have arguments and may leave/join another, but they can still be brought together by a common goal despite their different attitudes and playstyles.

I mean, I know you intended to describe that as anti-alliance but you're actually describing the very reason for their existence and why they are a core function under the world restructure system that form the foundation of the new worlds.

[Chaba.5410]

12 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

If I were you I would just stop to try to explain it to these people. They've never understood WvW and will never understand. As you described, some servers manage to assemble as a team, not just some friends in the same guild, but people with even different attitudes and playstyles. They might even not like each other and have arguments in community meetings etc. But thats the point in WvW, to bring those PPTlers and PPKlers together, roamers and blobbers, elitists and casuals, cause thats how you make your server win high tier matches constantly.

This is some extreme irony.  Alliances are the replacement organized server team after servers are removed and the more successful alliances will be the ones who build for playstyle mixture and coverage, not just some friends in the same guild.  How can you say we (some of us former server community organizers) don't understand WvW and then write this silliness?

I recall the guy, a server leader, who built up Blackgate and their organization, the kind of "team" that wins "high tier matches constantly", then went on to create an alliance of guilds that all transferred to another server in a bid shake up the tiers and drive more competition.  These server leaders already were creating alliances before world restructuring.  And it will be these same organizers who create alliances after restructuring.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Mabi black.1824]

On 11/28/2022 at 12:57 AM, Chaba.5410 said:

This is some extreme irony.  Alliances are the replacement organized server team after servers are removed and the more successful alliances will be the ones who build for playstyle mixture and coverage, not just some friends in the same guild.  How can you say we (some of us former server community organizers) don't understand WvW and then write this silliness?

I recall the guy, a server leader, who built up Blackgate and their organization, the kind of "team" that wins "high tier matches constantly", then went on to create an alliance of guilds that all transferred to another server in a bid shake up the tiers and drive more competition.  These server leaders already were creating alliances before world restructuring.  And it will be these same organizers who create alliances after restructuring.

I don't see all this irony. When you talk about WWW you are actually talking about teams, you are talking about servers, I think we could all agree on that. I guess all the servers we had good guys, some much more active, others very good at transporting everyone who likes to be transported. This certainly did not make them the leader of any server, because the server is not controlled by any good guy. on my server I saw really many (we were lucky) I've seen so many abandon, I've seen so many transferred, but the server goes on anyway, always and anyway. Probably with alliances it will be different , because in fact a single player can have some control, and make decisions that affect other players, and this may not be ironic but unpleasant.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

 This certainly did not make them the leader of any server, because the server is not controlled by any good guy. on my server I saw really many (we were lucky) I've seen so many abandon, I've seen so many transferred, but the server goes on anyway, always and anyway.

I still see zergs telling people to gtfo of the border. I've been tagged with a tiny 5ish man squad for an hour only to have one of those commanders descend upon the border and take his position on the throne of bent over zerglings and demand I tag down because this is now his border.

But you know what? They dont control me. 

Whether I had been in his guild or alliance or not is irrelevant. If I dont like it, I leave the guild. If my guild dont like it, we leave the alliance. If he as alliance leader demand obediance, we leave the alliance. Whats he gonna do, force us to remain?

You assume a level of "control" that does not exist, not now and not with alliances.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Dawdler.8521

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I don't see all this irony.

Enkidu describes players making alliances on a server, holding "community meetings", and how this is the point of WvW even when there's no formal structure within the game to support it.  Then he complains when Anet plans to formalize that activity.  If it's such the point of WvW, why is he so against it?  That's the irony.

[Mabi black.1824]

21 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I still see zergs telling people to gtfo of the border. I've been tagged with a tiny 5ish man squad for an hour only to have one of those commanders descend upon the border and take his position on the throne of bent over zerglings and demand I tag down because this is now his border.

But you know what? They dont control me. 

Whether I had been in his guild or alliance or not is irrelevant. If I dont like it, I leave the guild. If my guild dont like it, we leave the alliance. If he as alliance leader demand obediance, we leave the alliance. Whats he gonna do, force us to remain?

You assume a level of "control" that does not exist, not now and not with alliances.

I agree with you, and they are happy that you can enjoy this to the fullest. WWW that we know was designed exactly this way in the free form for every player. And I'm grateful to you and all the players who have initiative and try to put content into our favorite game mode. That said, inevitably alliances bring with them a series of changes. only hypothetically a player could join a group or guild. When you spend time and enjoy with some people, eventually you can also become attached, you can form special bonds between players, and spend time together in a really fun way with a certain harmony. If by chance that player no longer suits the leader of the guild or alliance for whatever reason you want to invent, today it would not make any difference, the leader takes him out of the guild, but he remains in that server and can still enjoy his special friends.

With alliances it could be different, because if they throw you out of the alliance you will not be sure of being reconnected on the same server the next game, and you could give up your special friends, just because someone else has decided to. The consequence could be that this player bends his will to use a class that he does not like (just for example) to please the leader in order to stay in the alliance and continue to enjoy a great time with his friends.

 So in effect, someone else's decisions can affect that player. With the result that WVW thought and designed to be played in free form, a little less free. And since as you know I am a democratic and extremely free person, like you, this aspect of alliance I must say that it annoys me quite a bit.

[Mabi black.1824]

21 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Enkidu describes players making alliances on a server, holding "community meetings", and how this is the point of WvW even when there's no formal structure within the game to support it.  Then he complains when Anet plans to formalize that activity.  If it's such the point of WvW, why is he so against it?  That's the irony.

dear chaba,

Now I understand, we are loyal players to this mode, and we poviamo to give back to Anet some good feedback. For this reason I want to tell you that you could be wrong, as WWW has always had its own ''formal structure'' which is called server. Li Dento, in an absolutely democratic way all the players put anything, have created Discord to better organize themselves, they have players who show up on time at meetings, they have other players who do not even know . Anet must not and cannot formalize all this, just leave that democratic container there and the players will think how and what to put inside it. Anet must instead worry about how to motivate its players, it must worry about making the competition credible again, constantly working on balance, to offer similar opportunities to all WWW players. It is every now and then bring small new things to keep interest and curiosity to the user.

Anet does not have to be afraid of the forum and its community, it has a game still at the top, and is lucky to have built a community of loyal players over many years, who can only threaten to abandon their favorite game, but you will see them return after a few months, because the market has nothing more to offer (fortunately for us). Anet should be here among us, share all the difficulties of development and make us better understand the will and objectives of development, with a cordial and constructive confrontation, as between good long-time friends.

[Chaba.5410]

3 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

WWW has always had its own ''formal structure'' which is called server. Li Dento, in an absolutely democratic way all the players put anything, have created Discord to better organize themselves, they have players who show up on time at meetings, they have other players who do not even know .

A server is not formal though.  It's just a container.  It has no organization as it functions in game.  There's no way to see who is coming and going.  Who is a member?  Which guild are they in?  How many members are there?  How many are currently online?  Did a player disappear from the game?  Are there enough?  It would be a mistake to think a server is a formal structure.

 

[enkidu.5937]

6 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

With alliances it could be different, because if they throw you out of the alliance you will not be sure of being reconnected on the same server the next game, and you could give up your special friends, just because someone else has decided to. The consequence could be that this player bends his will to use a class that he does not like (just for example) to please the leader in order to stay in the alliance and continue to enjoy a great time with his friends.

"could be different" ? You like understatements ? 😁 So, lets say there are 10 guilds with 100 players each, most are PvE friends, some additionally play WvW. The guilds form an alliance (but only 500 players can set their guild as "WvW guild" for the next season). First season, only 250 players decided to sign for that alliance (the rest has chosen another guild for WvW or is PvE-only at that time). So, the guild leaders and alliance chieftains have to find a solution. Maybe recruit some more guilds? The following season, suddenly 700 ppl want to sign for that alliance. Now the guild lords and alliance gurus have to decide which guild to ban from the alliance . . .  Oh boy, it will be sooo funny. Kindergarden drama baby 😆

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, enkidu.5937 said:

Oh boy, it will be sooo funny. Kindergarden drama baby 😆

Is that your goal?  To remove drama from all forms of human social interaction?  Well then let's remove guilds entirely.  Let's also remove all chat.  And forget about community meetings on discord.  Wew the drama there, boy!

And hey, guess what?  People can still play the game no matter if they are in an alliance or guild or chat or not!  They can still play as long as Anet doesn't ban their account.

Edited November 30, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Dawdler.8521]

I like the fact that everyone claim WvW is dead but somehow there will be 700+ new applicants for a random alliance. 

Schrödinger's WvW.

[Mabi black.1824]

18 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

A server is not formal though.  It's just a container.  It has no organization as it functions in game.  There's no way to see who is coming and going.  Who is a member?  Which guild are they in?  How many members are there?  How many are currently online?  Did a player disappear from the game?  Are there enough?  It would be a mistake to think a server is a formal structure.

 

Agree with what you write, we probably just have to explain ourselves better. When I say that the server is the ''functional tool'', I mean that for all intents and purposes it is the '' as '' of our WWW. It's the ''standard unit of measurement'' in short, it's the only piece you can use to allow large groups of players to compare themselves with others. The best thing is that any player has no way to interfere or pilot this container, so that Anet can guarantee equal opportunities to all (this only in theory unfortunately, for all the problems we know). The player can only choose his team and how to contribute to the common action of his team, in the most free form possible.

Single players, small guilds, large guilds and in the future alliances are just the expression the ''way'' in which players choose to contribute to this common action.

I hope that up to this point I have been clear and that you can agree with this. So I come to my personal concerns. With alliances, the development has informed us that they plan to delete the servers every 8 weeks, making this container useless in terms of competition, ranking, tournament etc etc. That's why I keep asking here what Anet has thought to give way to large groups to confront each other in the future. 

I also imagined that he is doing it on purpose, because he just wants players to participate in WWW, without giving the players themselves a chance to confront each other so that there is never one who wins and one who loses. It would be enough to say so that we can open a debate on the substance.

Or I imagined that he wants to use the Alleazne as a new tool to allow this comparison, although in my opinion it is a downgrade, because players will be forced to build alliances of 500 players to participate in the competition, my alliance of 100 players is clearly excluded, in addition to the risk that a single player could compromise the competition of an entire team.

But I almost lost hope of getting some sort of confrontation/dialogue with whom you probably have the answers

Edited December 1, 2022 by Mabi black.1824

[Chaba.5410]

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

The best thing is that any player has no way to interfere or pilot this container, so that Anet can guarantee equal opportunities to all (this only in theory unfortunately, for all the problems we know). The player can only choose his team and how to contribute to the common action of his team, in the most free form possible.

That's not going away.

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

So I come to my personal concerns. With alliances, the development has informed us that they plan to delete the servers every 8 weeks, making this container useless in terms of competition, ranking, tournament etc etc.

I strongly disagree that reforming teams makes the container useless for those things.  I'll go further and say ossified teams are what kill competition.  The fight is over before it has even begun due to foreknowledge of teams.

Practically every amateur sports league I've participated in forms and reforms their teams for every new season.  And they attempt to spread players out in a way to ensure competitive matches.  Even professional sports leagues have recruiting and trading rules in place.  I have yet to come across anyone who thinks this is the wrong way to operate a league.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Practically every amateur sports league I've participated in forms and reforms their teams for every new season.  And they attempt to spread players out in a way to ensure competitive matches.  Even professional sports leagues have recruiting and trading rules in place.  I have yet to come across anyone who thinks this is the wrong way to operate a league.

Professional sports league? 

Don't even have to go that far. Imagine in kindergarten school physical lesson, the teacher is fixing the teams to play some fun and friendly football. And assigns 5 kids to one team and 15 kids to another. Got a problem? Teams cant change, this is the original first setup! Any change will make those 15 kids loose their sense of pride by being on a team. You'll now have this setup for every school physical lesson until you graduate college. Oh wait did someone on that 5 man team move away from town? It's 4 vs 15 now. We cant change the original teams, imagine if some of those 15 had to leave their friends on their team they'd be scarred for LIFE.

This is pretty much the argument of people wanting to preserve monolithic servers in the name of "server pride".

Edited December 1, 2022 by Dawdler.8521

[Mabi black.1824]

2 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Practically every amateur sports league I've participated in forms and reforms their teams for every new season.  And they attempt to spread players out in a way to ensure competitive matches.  Even professional sports leagues have recruiting and trading rules in place.  I have yet to come across anyone who thinks this is the wrong way to operate a league

I completely agree with you, holy words, getting new teams for each new season I also find it healthy and much more dynamic and much less boring. The only thing I have asked for as a compromise is to have a little more time for these teams and for their season and competition.

I also know that you have already voted for the duration of the seasons, and you have established these famous 8 weeks, so I know that I am in the absolute minority, but since this is my humble thought, I ask you to reflect again on this, and reconsider whether giving a little more time to the seasons could bring more interest to the players. Because they have more time to build something good in the team where they will be randomly placed.

And on this premise Anet can build a seasonal ranking, and feed the interest of players for a good competition.

[Chaba.5410]

8 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

these famous 8 weeks, so I know that I am in the absolute minority, but since this is my humble thought, I ask you to reflect again on this, and reconsider whether giving a little more time to the seasons could bring more interest to the players. Because they have more time to build something good in the team where they will be randomly placed.

I personally voted for 1 month server links and 1 month got the most votes.  Anet decided to go with 2 months though since 1 month didn't get a majority, only a plurality.  I am only guessing that they will stick with 2 months for seasons.  Some of the earliest dev posts about it though indicate that they are open to changing the length.

How long does it take for players, guilds, and alliances to build a team?  What happens if the players decide the team doesn't work out?  Are they stuck?  How many matches are needed to settle the winners and the losers? These questions remain to be answered.

Edited December 1, 2022 by Chaba.5410