This week brought me back...

[Cyninja.2954]

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

This schematic description of yours is perfect and I think it is now clear to everyone. When we talk about these things for simplicity I write alliances, but I mean all the whole new system, so the new servers as you say alliances + guilds + players and I also mean the mechanics that plans to rebuild these new servers every 8 weeks, and I also mean the planned mechanics of limiting transfers during the expected period of 8 weeks,  Including the fact that you have to worry about selecting your alliance or a new alliance the week before the 8 weeks expiration etc etc. For all this stuff we often write ''alliances'' but we mean all this stuff.

So my suggestion to stop thinking about alliances or servers but start thinking about alliances and servers, in other words means getting all the development work that I described above, so finally we're going to get all very similar servers in terms of flow, we just have to start considering how we want to handle all these new servers.

What you are essentially asking for is a mediocre compromise between the current system and the way world restructuring is planned.

The main issue here, as I have stated in the past: your system results in having none of the benefits of either of the other systems.

You neither have the benefit of server identity, for what that might still be worth, or the stability of fixed servers. Nor does this proposal benefit from the flexibility and design of the planned restructuring system. One of THE main benefits of the new system is in fact the ability to add and remove worlds depending on player numbers.

I am going to repeat that: one of THE MAIN BENEFITS with world restructuring is the ability to add and remove worlds with (or without) the alliance system in place, and that benefit goes out the window at those time frames. Alliances are in fact not THE main reason why world restructuring needs to happen. It's the ability to adapt to changing player numbers over time and offering a cohesive experience as much as possible.

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I would like to have a transparent and honest discussion with you on this. If I propose a season of 6 months or 12 months what is your problem? Because for me making the server meaningless is a problem. I no longer have the tool that allows me to compete on a large scale with other players. In the medium term I no longer have a ranking to climb or a reference points board.

If alliances and world restructuring work, the ability or possibility to ACTUALLY have reasonable comparison tools is far higher than what we have with unbalanced servers right now. That depends on how far the developers want to go.

For example and idea: Eve Online has killboards, kill logs, etc. and corporations (guilds) and players compete for being the most efficient or highest value kill, performance, etc. The same could be incorporated here per guild or alliance

All of this would have far more meaning under the new world restructuring given player numbers would be better distributed and worlds would be made to fit the modes population. We already have such data on sites like gw2mists.com for example (which you don't seem to interested in given your lacking profile there) and that is only fan/partner made, not even developer provided.

There could be leaderbords not based around population on a server, but performance per alliance/world and any comparison there would have more meaning than now, because the population disparity and alliances/guilds sizes would/could be more similar.

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

With this I do not presume that my personal problem has more value than your personal problem. It's just that I'd like to understand how I'm putting you in trouble if I ask you to consider a longer period for the new servers we get.

I would also like to know the development thinking on this. Maybe they have some more information about the numbers and the players. How many of us are transported and put their content and time in this mode because it identifies itself in their server. And they find much of the fun by competing on a large scale, their server vs all other servers.

I don't have a personal problem. Somehow some here always assume that players who look forward to alliances and world restructuring dislike servers. That is not the case for most players (or at least it is not for me, I would have loved to have a working server based WvW mode. I loved DAoC just for that). It's 1 thing to want something, it's another to realize what is in the best interest of the mode. WvW has been in a constant decline for years (save the corona bump) and while that is not only due to server issues, those certainly are not helping the problem and have been adding to the issues at hand.

The developers have made their position very clear: they are trying to rework the ENTIRE system. They are not doing so because they want to, but because they seem to believe that they HAVE to (not unlike the megaserver system introduced to PvE in 2014, a flexible system which ensured that no player has to PvE on a dead server, and just like today there were outcries about server identity loss etc. Yet given that system, future design for content for PvE could be done WITH that system in place, instead of being held back by individual server limitations).

First results with the betas were promising from a distribution perspective and while yes, bugs were/are present, and not everyone got their match-up of choice, it was miles above where regular WvW is at now player population distribution wise. Pretty sure that also shows up in the developers metrics, otherwise they would have likely dropped the restructuring by now.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

First results with the betas were promising from a distribution perspective and while yes, bugs were/are present, and not everyone got their match-up of choice, it was miles above where regular WvW is at now player population distribution wise. Pretty sure that also shows up in the developers metrics, otherwise they would have likely dropped the restructuring by now.

I am convinced too that the new server construction system will lead us to an excellent result in terms of flow and content, much better redistributed.

 

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

The main issue here, as I have stated in the past: your system results in having none of the benefits of either of the other systems.

while I am not convinced of this. So, my suggestion is to take advantage of these new servers and build a seasonal competition around the same new servers. He doesn't really need much. 

Just for one example, suppose we grant a 6-month seasonal tournament. What is your concern? In 6 months do you predict that the new servers, well built by the new automatic system, will be completely ruined in terms of balance? How so? When did Anet state that you can't transfer until they rebuild the same servers?

Or is the ground shaking under your feet and you can't bear to stay in a server that is randomly assigned to you by the new system for six months? Do you want to transfer earlier because you don't win easily with the team that the new system has assigned to you? Help me understand.

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

which you don't seem to interested in given your lacking profile there

I could also be the last boot of this game, I could be really unable to press buttons, I accept any of your judgments towards me, and I will still sleep soundly. That is not the point. Everything you mentioned to stimulate my competition, has little meaning to me. Your guild has 500 players My guild has 200 players What number of kills do we want to compare? How could I be stimulated to put more content in wvw?What does it mean for me to capture a structure or defend it?

It would be completely different if I could participate in a server-based seasonal tournament. ANET rebuilds all the servers every season and ensures all of us that they are built in the best possible way. I accept this and consider it an excellent container (also for its size) to use because players of this mode can compete with each other on a large scale.

Although we share competitive seasons of 6 months, I think they are enough (better than nothing) to build a server community. You don't need years, what it takes to make a group and to get a common action between many players or many different guilds is a common goal.

Don't you also think that all those new servers we get could work better, and be much more stimulated, If we give them a goal? Could this competitive game mode help if we give meaning when you win or when you lose?

Edited February 7, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[TheGrimm.5624]

7 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

I don't deny that, but I see I don't really know how Alliances will work. So thanks for explaining. So if I understand you right Alliances can be one guild or multiple guilds with a max of 500 members. I assume that not every member is counted unless they sign up for WvW. As such servers will be replaced with, groups of Alliances + guilds + random players. Do these groups then change randomly each week?

 

Reference: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/world-vs-world-update-june-2022/

This is part of what the upcoming test should involve. When forming an Alliance a guild will need to declare how many members its bringing and that may not mean its full rooster. Yet there have been no limits when selecting each player's WvW guild they belong too. Assuming then, note assumption, that it will kind of act like a software license where you can state 10 but that 10 can be different people at any given time but not more than 10. But that's a big assumption that we need to see how it actually works off paper samples that were shared.

Edited February 7, 2023 by TheGrimm.5624
spelling

[Cyninja.2954]

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I am convinced too that the new server construction system will lead us to an excellent result in terms of flow and content, much better redistributed.

 

while I am not convinced of this. So, my suggestion is to take advantage of these new servers and build a seasonal competition around the same new servers. He doesn't really need much. 

Just for one example, suppose we grant a 6-month seasonal tournament. What is your concern? In 6 months do you predict that the new servers, well built by the new automatic system, will be completely ruined in terms of balance? How so? When did Anet state that you can't transfer until they rebuild the same servers?

Or is the ground shaking under your feet and you can't bear to stay in a server that is randomly assigned to you by the new system for six months? Do you want to transfer earlier because you don't win easily with the team that the new system has assigned to you? Help me understand.

Oh 6 months might work. What you are essentially asking for is a longer time on how often worlds are being remade.

The risk here is:

if you are in a world where you don't want to be, you will have to wait for 6 months to be able to switch.

Notice here:

we don't know if changing worlds will be possible. Chances are high that not, otherwise it defeats the entire purpose of changing the system.

Now you tell me: how will players react if they are "stuck" on a world they do not enjoy? You are only thinking in terms of players wanting to be on their world. Which is not to say that restructuring couldn't happen every 6 months, though I doubt that would go well with a majority of players, given the enthusiasm every re-link currently brings.

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I could also be the last boot of this game, I could be really unable to press buttons, I accept any of your judgments towards me, and I will still sleep soundly. That is not the point. Everything you mentioned to stimulate my competition, has little meaning to me. Your guild has 500 players My guild has 200 players What number of kills do we want to compare? How could I be stimulated to put more content in wvw?What does it mean for me to capture a structure or defend it?

Comparisons between alliances,guilds or worlds would already be more meaningful than now, given now there is nearly no restriction on stacking of players. In the new restructured system, at least some feasibility would be given by more equal numbers.

Even back when the WvW tournament was held in Spring 2014 there was no semblance of "competative equality". The stacked servers went up, the lower pop servers went down and that was during a period of high player engagement and where stacking wasn't even that prevalent .

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

It would be completely different if I could participate in a server-based seasonal tournament. ANET rebuilds all the servers every season and ensures all of us that they are built in the best possible way. I accept this and consider it an excellent container (also for its size) to use because players of this mode can compete with each other on a large scale.

Seasonal tournaments are not tied to servers. Tournaments would work perfectly fine with the new world system and would even lend themselves to be held more often at shorter intervals. A tournament held for 6 months is in no way more interesting than one held for 8 weeks.

You can take a look at the spvp seasons as reference in this very game. Imagine those went on for 3 times the time they did. Hardly more interesting or engaging.

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Although we share competitive seasons of 6 months, I think they are enough (better than nothing) to build a server community. You don't need years, what it takes to make a group and to get a common action between many players or many different guilds is a common goal.

Don't you also think that all those new servers we get could work better, and be much more stimulated, If we give them a goal? Could this competitive game mode help if we give meaning when you win or when you lose?

Giving goals is not tied to servers. Goals can be just as well provided to worlds, guilds or even individual alliances.

Since you are so hung up on 6 months though:

WvW goes through multiple high and low activity phases throughout the year. Summerbreak, Winterbreak, Fallbreak, new content releasing, balance patches, etc. all of which significantly impact player time. Something which at shorter intervals can be compensated for and at larger intervals can't. Unless you want to start searching for players who are willing to commit 6 months in advance a certain amount of time dedicated to WvW weekly and stick to that commitment.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

11 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Now you tell me: how will players react if they are "stuck" on a world they do not enjoy? You are only thinking in terms of players wanting to be on their world. Which is not to say that restructuring couldn't happen every 6 months, though I doubt that would go well with a majority of players, given the enthusiasm every re-link currently brings.

This observation of yours is important. And I agree that if things change even more quickly (e.g. every month) this game mode helps. My suggestion to support the 6-month season is this, and I try to explain myself with an example in reference to the EU platform.

Then the new alliance system automatically generates all new servers. There is no more low - medium - high - full. Because all servers will be ''very similar'' in terms of players and flow. If, for example, in Europe Anet chooses to keep 5 games, then we need 15 new servers very similar, but nobody prevents us from always automatically building 30 new servers very similar to match them to 2 to 2 every month. By what logic? 

I don't know let's choose it together, the servers are numerically very similar, so we could match the teams in reference to the ability ? Or in the most random way possible to make sure that all combinations between servers take place? In this way we can participate in a seasonal tournament based on the new servers in the medium term, and constantly renew it every month. your reference in terms of ranking is your server, Being combined with a server that is always different every month should not change anything. Each server will want to win to score more points and climb the leaderboard.

What do you think? Could it work?

[Mabi black.1824]

11 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Even back when the WvW tournament was held in Spring 2014 there was no semblance of "competative equality". The stacked servers went up, the lower pop servers went down and that was during a period of high player engagement and where stacking wasn't even that prevalent .

We have to turn this page my friend. With alliances and wr everything changes. Anet really has everything you need to build all the servers in a much, much better way. If we find the right way to take advantage of all the new servers in a big 6-month seasonal competition, it will be a different story than in 2014. The player cannot transfer, cannot stack on one side and empty another side. The player can only participate, put content and try to win.

Has the new automatic system that regenerates seasonal servers every 6 months given you a very competitive server? Good for you. Do everything you have to do and win the season and put your special prize in your pocket. Luck always turns in six months I could be luckier and get the seasonal server better than the others. and so on. Even if you have put together an alliance of experienced players, it is not obvious that you will win in any case. Reducing the threshold to 250 players per alliance would help a lot for my last thought. And Anet has already stated that he will consider that famous limit of 500. which we all know is wrong. It goes in the opposite direction to get very similar servers.

[Mabi black.1824]

12 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Seasonal tournaments are not tied to servers. Tournaments would work perfectly fine with the new world system and would even lend themselves to be held more often at shorter intervals. A tournament held for 6 months is in no way more interesting than one held for 8 weeks.

So, it's just my personal thought, I believe that if the competitive season takes on a duration of 6 months (or even 12 months) it keeps the player involved longer. Over time you can learn better how your server becomes more effective. You will learn when a group or guild goes into execution what you should do to be more effective. You get to know your opponents. In my opinion it makes things more challenging and interesting.

The end of season prize becomes more valuable because you have access to a maximum of 2 or 1 prize per season. But if you have something nice in mind to build tournaments and competition every 8 weeks hunger know. Stimulating the player for me is as fundamental as balance. So if you have new ideas I am absolutely open to listen to them and let our friends at Anet know.

[Mabi black.1824]

12 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Giving goals is not tied to servers. Goals can be just as well provided to worlds, guilds or even individual alliances.

Here too I would be curious to understand what you have in mind and how you would like to do it. My suggestion is to still use the servers as a reference to participate in a large-scale seasonal competition. How can we achieve this using giles or alliances? which by nature are numerically different from each other. And let's not pretend that there is no ''drama''. The new servers are guaranteed by ANET. They are there and remain there throughout the 6-month season. The Alliance? 

[Cyninja.2954]

46 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

This observation of yours is important. And I agree that if things change even more quickly (e.g. every month) this game mode helps. My suggestion to support the 6-month season is this, and I try to explain myself with an example in reference to the EU platform.

Then the new alliance system automatically generates all new servers. There is no more low - medium - high - full. Because all servers will be ''very similar'' in terms of players and flow. If, for example, in Europe Anet chooses to keep 5 games, then we need 15 new servers very similar, but nobody prevents us from always automatically building 30 new servers very similar to match them to 2 to 2 every month. By what logic? 

This one should be obvious...

The size of worlds/servers is not generated based on wishful thinking. There is an ideal balance based around:

- equal activity on borders versus avoiding queues (both empty borders/zones and large queues are signs of system failure because in both cases, some players are not able to engage with the mode)

- similar size across all 3 sides for even matchups (play count wise)

The reason you can't just go willy-nilly around pick world/server numbers at random is: because the mode requires a very specific amount of players at every given point in time to work. There is some leeway here, high and low activity time periods, but in the end, that is what this sandbox mode needs.

This is also one of the areas the game mode is currently struggling with and where the old server system fails in multiple areas.

Oh and you also sidestepped my question: what happens when a player is stuck for 6 months on a world/server they do not enjoy? Let me answer that for you: they leave and are gone for good most of the time. That's where the benefit of the current system, being able to transfer, alleviates the issues somewhat (though often players are gone either way).

46 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I don't know let's choose it together, the servers are numerically very similar, so we could match the teams in reference to the ability ? Or in the most random way possible to make sure that all combinations between servers take place? In this way we can participate in a seasonal tournament based on the new servers in the medium term, and constantly renew it every month. your reference in terms of ranking is your server, Being combined with a server that is always different every month should not change anything. Each server will want to win to score more points and climb the leaderboard.

What do you think? Could it work?

I am really not sure what you are trying to say here. I explained above what basic reasoning behind server/world sizes exists.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

2 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I am really not sure what you are trying to say here. I explained above what basic reasoning behind server/world sizes exists.

My thought is practically this: suppose that to work well this mode you need to get 3 similar sides that rotate around (just for example) to 1500 players. No one prevents us from getting that number from two different servers of 750 players and constantly matching them every month with each other. to make things more interesting as we said before.

[Cyninja.2954]

34 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

So, it's just my personal thought, I believe that if the competitive season takes on a duration of 6 months (or even 12 months) it keeps the player involved longer. Over time you can learn better how your server becomes more effective. You will learn when a group or guild goes into execution what you should do to be more effective. You get to know your opponents. In my opinion it makes things more challenging and interesting.

That is a very romanticized view of the game mode and in my opinion not grounded in reality. Player behavior indicates that the minority of players view WvW the way you think they do. Every single karma train, every single bandwagon onto a new server after a re-link, every single player rather sitting in spawn or boycotting a week versus certain opponents goes against your romantic vision of how things should be.

34 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

The end of season prize becomes more valuable because you have access to a maximum of 2 or 1 prize per season. But if you have something nice in mind to build tournaments and competition every 8 weeks hunger know. Stimulating the player for me is as fundamental as balance. So if you have new ideas I am absolutely open to listen to them and let our friends at Anet know.

I am not opposed to seasons as mentioned. I do not share your believe of this 1 or 2 great prizes after 6 months though. Very doubtful something like that would get implemented because it would directly encourage as destructive of a behavior as possible only to assure winning. Such rewards do not always mesh well with sandbox game modes and need to be implemented very carefully.

A more reasonable reward on a more regular basis would be far more encouraging and beneficial to the mode and even here, implementation would need to be done carefully.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Cyninja.2954]

5 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

My thought is practically this: suppose that to work well this mode you need to get 3 similar sides that rotate around (just for example) to 1500 players. No one prevents us from getting that number from two different servers of 750 players and constantly matching them every month with each other. to make things more interesting as we said before.

I already explained, if the ideal size per world/server is 1500, reducing that to 750 would DRASTICALLY impact the player experience in a negative way (in this case, a lot of lack of players on border).

If 750 is the ideal size for a world/server, then reducing that to 375, or increasing it to 1500, would have a very negative effect (either once again, lack of players or massive queues).

World sizes, and server sizes, have ideal player numbers (or rather active player hours) which are defined by as good a coverage as possible while avoiding map queues.

Every time a border is empty at the moment, the server system has failed. Every time there is a massive queue of 30-40+ (and let's not get into 100+), the server system has failed as well. Now not all of that can be fixed by world restructuring alone, but the possibilities of adjusting here are far higher.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

1 minute ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I already explained, if the ideal size per world/server is 1500, reducing that to 750 would DRASTICALLY impact the player experience in a negative way.

Maybe I explained myself wrong. We can have games with 3 servers: 1500 vs 1500 vs 1500 or we can have games: 750+750 vs 750+750 vs 750+750 The flows necessary to make the mode work well are guaranteed in both cases. You can get it with 3 servers or with 6 servers.

[Cyninja.2954]

2 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Maybe I explained myself wrong. We can have games with 3 servers: 1500 vs 1500 vs 1500 or we can have games: 750+750 vs 750+750 vs 750+750 The flows necessary to make the mode work well are guaranteed in both cases. You can get it with 3 servers or with 6 servers.

That's literally what the alliance system is....

EDIT:

Ah wait, I think I finally understand. You want "servers" as in people can join and that "entity" will remain stable as in: it just gets treated as another semi guild/alliance without actual leadership.

Sure that could work. The size would have to be limited at maximum alliance/guild size (currently 500), but in that case it doesn't make a difference. It would be a lower control, no one has any control over it, "server" where players who want to play together but don't want to guild or alliance up can all join.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Dawdler.8521]

4 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Oh and you also sidestepped my question: what happens when a player is stuck for 6 months on a world/server they do not enjoy? Let me answer that for you: they leave and are gone for good most of the time. That's where the benefit of the current system, being able to transfer, alleviates the issues somewhat (though often players are gone either way).

Its possible that transfers would still be there but yeah the issue is the time period we are talking about. Weekly matchups and 2 month shuffles, it is timed intervals that "reset" the game. Take a breath, start fresh. The weekly reset is an event. The relink is something people look forward to (for good or bad). If you start to go lower (such as daily matchups resets that some have suggested) it loose all meaning. If you go higher with relinks... people will go f* this I aint playing anymore sick of this team because "reset" is half a year away.

TL;DR dont mess with the timing thats worked for a decade. Its one of the core reasons WvW still survive. We know it, Anet knows it but some insist of changing it because they got other ideas.

 

[Cyninja.2954]

2 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Its possible that transfers would still be there but yeah the issue is the time period we are talking about. Weekly matchups and 2 month shuffles, it is timed intervals that "reset" the game. Take a breath, start fresh. The weekly reset is an event. The relink is something people look forward to (for good or bad). If you start to go lower (such as daily matchups resets that some have suggested) it loose all meaning. If you go higher with relinks... people will go f* this I aint playing anymore sick of this team because "reset" is half a year away.

TL;DR dont mess with the timing thats worked for a decade. Its one of the core reasons WvW still survive. We know it, Anet knows it but some insist of changing it because they got other ideas.

 

True, there could be something similar to current activity tracking which allows players to move to less active worlds in-between restructuring.

That of course would open the door to abuse once again, aka players could intentionally lower activity to open up their world, have others transfer over, then be over-stacked again. Still that could get monitored I guess.

Being "stuck" on a world you do not enjoy is actually a risk inherent in the restructuring system. The reason for this can be multi-fold: drama being the most likely one strait out the box or incompatible language barriers, especially on EU.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

Just now, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

That's literally what the alliance system is....

With this perspective, we can say that even with a competitive season of 6 months we can maintain a re-matching between the new servers that the new alliance system and WR generate automatically. The enthusiasm we see with relinks we can still have every month, even though we are participating in a big 6-month server competition.

[Mabi black.1824]

to summarize here ; It has been suggested how to take advantage of all the new servers that the alliance and WR system will give us the opportunity to get. through a seasonal competition of 6 months (or other period to be defined) between the servers themselves. We also shared that during the season we can still have close relinks every month, so as to maintain the enthusiasm it brings to players whenever it happens.

 

Wow it seems to me that we have taken a few steps forward to leave no one behind in WWW. Players I want to play with friends will be facilitated. Players or groups of players who use the server tool to compare themselves to others can still do so for limited periods defined by seasons/tournaments. Single players who go online to do something good for their server, can continue to do so, can still be carried away and put as many contrnuti as they want for their ''seasonal'' server. Different guilds will be stimulated to play with a common goal, because everyone will want to win the season and prove that they are the best seasonal server.

Doesn't someone from development want to participate in these considerations? Do you guys already have something in mind about it? Or do you have something totally different in mind?

Edited February 8, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[GutterRat.1269]

Unlike with the server system where you can't control who joins it or not, and where you have to try to find ways to get along with people you don't necessarily like, the alliance system enables guilds to kick those they don't want in their alliance, or people who run the wrong, "not competitive" classes. Guild leaders will effectively be server overlords, and you will play with people you know so long as it pleases the bosses.

[Mabi black.1824]

8 minutes ago, msalakka.4653 said:

Unlike with the server system where you can't control who joins it or not, and where you have to try to find ways to get along with people you don't necessarily like, the alliance system enables guilds to kick those they don't want in their alliance, or people who run the wrong, "not competitive" classes. Guild leaders will effectively be server overlords, and you will play with people you know so long as it pleases the bosses.

This is not exactly the case. And in any case, a seasonal view helps for what you describe. The new servers will still be like the ones we know. They still contain so many different things. Individual players - guilds - alliances. Outside of your guild or alliance the player will have no other control because it will only be chance to put everything together. A guild or alliance leader if he doesn't want to play with me will use his hidden tag as he does now. 

and will have no power to kick me from my seasonal server. No one can tell me how to find my personal fun or the best way to play this mode. Just like now. If that guild leader wants to win the season and if he is an intelligent person, and if I am just as smart, we will find a way to work together to be more effective than our enemies, because we will have a common goal anyway. Like it or not.

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, msalakka.4653 said:

Unlike with the server system where you can't control who joins it or not, and where you have to try to find ways to get along with people you don't necessarily like, the alliance system enables guilds to kick those they don't want in their alliance, or people who run the wrong, "not competitive" classes. Guild leaders will effectively be server overlords, and you will play with people you know so long as it pleases the bosses.

Last time I checked guild leaders can kick people right now for that (and has always been able to). Can the person still roam on the world? Sure, but he is not going to be as effective as in a 25+ man fight guild raid. Can the person still zerg on his world? Sure, but he is not going to be as effective as in that raid.

What would he do? Well maybe join another guild. One that accepts him without min-max demands. Maybe not as strong a guild... but probably a better guild for him.

Also alliances dont control its members from what we know. The alliance leader would have to kick the entire guild or the actual guild leader would kick its member and that guild leader can just say... no. Other guild leader would only control their members in the same way. 

Also alliances are not servers for the 4737288386th time on these forums.

[Mabi black.1824]

3 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Oh and you also sidestepped my question: what happens when a player is stuck for 6 months on a world/server they do not enjoy? Let me answer that for you: they leave and are gone for good most of the time. That's where the benefit of the current system, being able to transfer, alleviates the issues somewhat (though often players are gone either way)

dear cyninja,

We exchanged so many different opinions that I missed the detail of your question. It was not my intention to circumvent it. And I'll answer you with another question. What kind of WWW do we want in the near future? Anet will build for all of us always new and balanced servers (if it follows my suggestion every 6 months and in any case with an idea of seasonal competition still based on servers) the player remains the only opportunity to play the games that the new system offers him.

The player will be removed from the ability to transfer during the season (or at least only in an extremely controlled way 5% + or - ) so you can no longer evade the system to organize with your friends to win each game in an easy way by overcoming anything with numbers.

You argue that this condition will cause us to lose many players. Well what are we waiting for then? That they go to play another MMO that allows them to evade the system and win dishonestly. Will we be forced to reduce 3 games in Europe compared to the 5 games we have now? At least we will have 3 balanced matches and fun will be guaranteed for everyone equally. ( and this does not mean that everyone will have to win because the rules of competitions are always the same ).

[Mabi black.1824]

5 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

That is a very romanticized view of the game mode and in my opinion not grounded in reality. Player behavior indicates that the minority of players view WvW the way you think they do. Every single karma train, every single bandwagon onto a new server after a re-link, every single player rather sitting in spawn or boycotting a week versus certain opponents goes against your romantic vision of how things should be.

I don't think my vision is ''romantic'' and that it deviates so much from how this game mode was designed (or at least that's my hope) I think that the ''real'' behavior you see and describe, of players who oversize one side and at the same time empty the other side, or those players who boycott games to lose on purpose,  are only the natural consequence of a series of problems (which we all know well) that this game mode has been dragging on for a long time. But finally things are about to change, and I am sure that the attitude of the players will also change accordingly. Because in the end we all want to play to have fun honestly as WWW Preverde. Just an honest and competitive PvP on a large scale.

And this is demonstrated by the post next to this one complaining about dishonest players ''hacker'' because the average WWW player activates immediately as soon as he sees something that is flowers from the lines . The problem we have now is that it is the same mode that is out of line when you see that 30 players vs 3 maps in the queue has become something ordinary and normal.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Cyninja.2954]

3 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

dear cyninja,

We exchanged so many different opinions that I missed the detail of your question. It was not my intention to circumvent it. And I'll answer you with another question. What kind of WWW do we want in the near future? Anet will build for all of us always new and balanced servers (if it follows my suggestion every 6 months and in any case with an idea of seasonal competition still based on servers) the player remains the only opportunity to play the games that the new system offers him.

The player will be removed from the ability to transfer during the season (or at least only in an extremely controlled way 5% + or - ) so you can no longer evade the system to organize with your friends to win each game in an easy way by overcoming anything with numbers.

You argue that this condition will cause us to lose many players. Well what are we waiting for then? That they go to play another MMO that allows them to evade the system and win dishonestly. Will we be forced to reduce 3 games in Europe compared to the 5 games we have now? At least we will have 3 balanced matches and fun will be guaranteed for everyone equally. ( and this does not mean that everyone will have to win because the rules of competitions are always the same ).

So you are agreeing that based on your suggestion, the time frame of 6 month might be to long for reshuffle of players, if there is no way for player to switch teams down the road thus resulting in a player potentially leaving.

In essence basically confirming what I was telling you from the start: your idea is a mediocre compromise between what is now and the current known plans for world restructuring (not from a "but I want this to work this way"perspective, but from a look at the limitations of either approach in place from a design perspective).

As to the developers taking any advice, maybe but unlikely. I'm pretty sure they have their own ideas, goals and targets to meet. First and foremost actually get some type of world restructuring up running and working. I doubt servers will be part of that rework given the effort and work involved in actually moving away from such system.

Might there be some type of "open server which any one can join until full" next to guilds and alliances (working under he same rules as those entities), sure that can work. Will those "servers" be open 3 months, 6 months, permanently, who knows, that depends on how complex the system will be to make that work.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

35 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

So you are agreeing that based on your suggestion, the time frame of 6 month might be to long for reshuffle of players, if there is no way for player to switch teams down the road thus resulting in a player potentially leaving.

In essence basically confirming what I was telling you from the start: your idea is a mediocre compromise between what is now and the current known plans for world restructuring (not from a "but I want this to work this way"perspective, but from a look at the limitations of either approach in place from a design perspective).

As to the developers taking any advice, maybe but unlikely. I'm pretty sure they have their own ideas, goals and targets to meet. First and foremost actually get some type of world restructuring up running and working. I doubt servers will be part of that rework given the effort and work involved in actually moving away from such system.

Might there be some type of "open server which any one can join until full" next to guilds and alliances (working under he same rules as those entities), sure that can work. Will those "servers" be open 3 months, 6 months, permanently, who knows, that depends on how complex the system will be to make that work.

Seriously, I think not. Or at least I think that if the player is randomly assigned in a server to participate in a 6-month seasonal competition/tournament, it's not really a problem. You have to consider that it is with its guild or with its alliance. You have to consider that it still has even monthly reconnections so every month its seasonal server keeps changing the server matched to itself, so that you play every month with different people. 

And finally, if you have been unlucky and you have been assigned to a server that for any reason loses its games usually, you will still find a way to have fun in WVW, because you have the knowledge that in 6 months we will redo all the servers from scratch.

Seventh commandment: adapt.

We may be amazed to discover the ability of players to adapt and find any way to play and have fun. If you think that 6 months in trouble put you in a position to leave the game forever, what they should say Gandara's friends. They should have disappeared years ago. And instead are all still there. They are wonderful.

Personally I would go even further, to 12 months of season, and I am still convinced that we do not lose anyone on the way, indeed they will be stimulated to participate in a great seasonal and official event of Anet.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Mabi black.1824