Wasted resources on Alliances that we'll never see. (Updated)

[Cyninja.2954]

10 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

Let's simplify things a little bit.

My first premise is that if Anet were to double the number of servers, halve the number of players per server and double the number of servers per matchup, software wise nothing that works now would be broken.  I.e. there is nothing magic about the current server sizes.

Yes, smaller individual parts would make it easier to balance popualtion numbers. What are the issues in this step?

1. You provide no answer to which players should get moved and which remain on the "old" servers.

2. Remaking servers will not be seen favorable by server purists (though I imagine that some would prefer this to the world restructuring system)

3. Making servers smaller solves none of the existing issues in regards to player movement and server population differences

4. The system remains inflexible to react to population shifts over time, same as the current server system. We are in a state of (main server+link server) already. In essence we already have what you are proposing and have had for years (with the low point being pre covid where links in EU went as far as main+2link servers reducing tiers to 4)

5. Fixed servers allow players to target place alt accounts which they can play if they are unhappy with their main account, completely thworing off the matchmaking/pairing algorythm. This is already common practice for some WvW players

10 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

My second premise is that with a larger number of servers included in each side in a match the matching process would produce more balanced matches.  I.e. you can produce a better match if you have a larger number of smaller pieces to put together.

Server size and better matching is only one side of the issue. Player movement via transfers is the other (or strategic placed alt accounts). Without solving for player movements, the more balanced server pairings mean squat (as is the case now).

At the same time disallowing player movement between server leads to dissatisfied players who might not be able to play with whom they like/want. You have given 0 ideas here.

10 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

My third premise is that if you randomly assigned players on an existing server to two new empty servers the system software would continue to function, the only fundamental problem would be that some players that want to play together would be on different servers.  Exactly like the current system, players that want to play together can agree on a server that has enough room for them and transfer there.

If you have empty servers, your system is already flawed.

Empty servers are the best way for players to circumvent the relinks and shuffle large amounts of players around.

10 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

My final premise is that although some number of users will be unhappy with the reassignment the same sort of unhappiness will be generated if the current WR process is implemented anyway.

Except that world restructuring would be better at actually redistributing players while also tackling some of the other issues.

 

In short: if you have to make some players unhappy, at least do it with a good system to replace the disfunctional old one. Don't go half-assed, make players unhappy AND keep the problems.

10 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

If you think one of these premises is false please explain.

 

Either you disagree that the current system software would continue to function if there were a larger number of smaller servers or you disagree that having a larger number of smaller servers would result in better match ups.  Everything else is a distraction until those two points are resolved.

I disagree that splitting servers into smaller versions of themselves in any way solves many of the core issues at hand, especially when we consider that we already are in a sub-server system where no server functions on their own already.

Everything else is a distraction and your suggestion solves non of the issues at hand.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[blp.3489]

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Server size and better matching is only one side of the issue. Player movement via transfers is the other (or strategic placed alt accounts). Without solving for player movements, the more balanced server pairings mean squat (as is the case now).

Earlier in the thread I put forth the hypothesis that if each side in a three way matchup consisted of five small servers then it would be hard for transfers to mess up the balance.  Right now if you are convinced that Mag is the best server then you can simply transfer to Mag or whatever it's link is and you have a good chance of dominating.  If a small Mag server only makes up 20% of a five small server side then it is much harder to predict that joining one of those five small servers will lead to domination.  You would need to have information about all five servers, and the ten servers on the opposing sides in the matchup in order to know whether one side will dominate.  Statistically, the larger the number of things you mix together the higher the probability that the result will be average.

[Chaba.5410]

12 minutes ago, blp.3489 said:

Earlier in the thread I put forth the hypothesis that if each side in a three way matchup consisted of five small servers then it would be hard for transfers to mess up the balance.  Right now if you are convinced that Mag is the best server then you can simply transfer to Mag or whatever it's link is and you have a good chance of dominating.  If a small Mag server only makes up 20% of a five small server side then it is much harder to predict that joining one of those five small servers will lead to domination.  You would need to have information about all five servers, and the ten servers on the opposing sides in the matchup in order to know whether one side will dominate.  Statistically, the larger the number of things you mix together the higher the probability that the result will be average.

What the heck does Mag have to do with this?

What's unclear is why you're reinventing World Restructuring, using the same concepts but not the same terminology or technology.

"500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently (this is only using players we consider active WvW players). Therefore, a single alliance can be a significant size of a world population but not the majority."

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[xDumplinx.7983]

Maybe ANet should focus resources on balance and fixing bugs, defence rewards, known exploits, etc etc before they focus on Alloances.

 

It makes more sense to iron these out at a smaller scale before they do nothing and transfer existing bugs and issues over to a larger scale

[Xenesis.6389]

Meh who cares, population balance won't achieve much at this point. Playing wvw is always about taking advantage/double teaming the weakest enemy, actively looking for smaller and weaker skilled/organized groups to fight, trying to exploit combat systems to your favor, carrying more numbers for more boon spam. Shuffling pug populations isn't going to do much, except maybe help carry those "fight guilds" sitting in t4 farming pugs to higher tiers, oh and provide a healthy stream of pugs to the grinder.

This game mode was never competitive in every aspect, and never will be, no matter how much we try to fool ourselves that somehow even teams for a couple more hours out of a 24/7 match will make a difference.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Xenesis.6389

[blp.3489]

1 hour ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

This game mode was never competitive in every aspect, and never will be, no matter how much we try to fool ourselves that somehow even teams for a couple more hours out of a 24/7 match will make a difference.

I do have to wonder whether a 24/7 system in the current format isn't fatally flawed from the get go.  Something that allowed something like individual skirmish durations, 2 hours, would likely result in better game play, more like what happens after reset.

The problem of course is how to form the teams since the current server system wouldn't be suitable.  You would need a way for groups to form and either sign up for specific time slots or sign up to be included in the next dynamic spawning of the maps.  Either way it wouldn't be an instant join anytime you want unless there are queues like now.

I guess just forming squads would be fairly simple.  Unfortunately, even if you came up with a workable system it would end up competing with the current format for players, which would likely end up with the current system becoming an underpopulated wasteland.

Anyway, comparing post-reset play to off hours play strongly hints that a non-24/7 format would have some merit.

[Xenesis.6389]

2 minutes ago, blp.3489 said:

I do have to wonder whether a 24/7 system in the current format isn't fatally flawed from the get go.  Something that allowed something like individual skirmish durations, 2 hours, would likely result in better game play, more like what happens after reset.

The problem of course is how to form the teams since the current server system wouldn't be suitable.  You would need a way for groups to form and either sign up for specific time slots or sign up to be included in the next dynamic spawning of the maps.  Either way it wouldn't be an instant join anytime you want unless there are queues like now.

I guess just forming squads would be fairly simple.  Unfortunately, even if you came up with a workable system it would end up competing with the current format for players, which would likely end up with the current system becoming an underpopulated wasteland.

Anyway, comparing post-reset play to off hours play strongly hints that a non-24/7 format would have some merit.

The biggest problem was this game mode was trying to blend two different war modes. Most rvr game modes are not based on scoring, but on objective capturing with practically no time limits. Most instanced pvp game modes are based on scoring but with shorter times and player limits which player queues into even teams (spvp as a small example).

 

Trying to have a scoring system to determine winners of a match while letting it run for an entire week (at one point before release I think they were even thinking about having 2 week matches), through multiple time zones around the world, and massive fluctuations in populations with no way to even them out in shorter periods(like how the instanced versions would work), easy to manipulate through stacking(hello sos ocx for 10 years), was a mistake from day one. The very first Alliance of guilds showed that in the very first two weeks of play through the 3 day matches, after which they declared they won the game mode and disbanded.

 

This system would have only worked if the maps were all full for most of the day on all 3 servers in the match, and that kinda happened in the first 6 months of the game, where they had to make eotm to try and ease the queue pains. With get sniffs of that these days with 1-2 hours of reset. With the way combat and classes have evolved it has also pushed the game mode into the direction of stacking more to run over opponents, cause running more meta setups guarantees greater chance to win.

 

No one cares about prestige/achievements to kill bigger groups anymore, those same groups are now the big groups running over the little guys. Back in the day there use to be so many 25 player group fights going on in wvw, nowadays you're more likely to have a bad time running into the 40-50 player squads pretending to want a "fair" fight, but they actively hunt down guilds like ViP, train track them multiple times and then brag about it like it's a big competitive accomplishment for them. /slowclap be sure to nominate them for the best train track wvw guild of 2023. Just tonight I saw all 3 skilled groups from all 3 servers involved on 3 different maps away from each other, competition doesn't exist only farming.

 

Anyways I'm going too off course with that rant, the only way to get competitive play would be through like instanced battleground 25 group play. Amazon New World had sign ups for instanced group fights, but I think it's safe to say that game was a failure. Rated battlegrounds from WoW would also be a way to do it, and I guess the Fort Aspenwood mode from Gw1 which was like a 20v20 gvg mode or something?(I didn't play gw1 all that much, and none of the pvp). But they wouldn't be "wvw" in any sense. 🤷‍♂️

[Shift Focus.9083]

You won't see alliances, then there goes the honeypot. The sweet sweet transfer fees that guilds pay to transfer every few months or so because they get tired of their server they're on. That would be a massive loss of revenue for a game mode that they frankly don't care about, but keep up because of this. I actually think it's the only reason WvW is even still a thing.

[Cyninja.2954]

6 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

Earlier in the thread I put forth the hypothesis that if each side in a three way matchup consisted of five small servers then it would be hard for transfers to mess up the balance.  Right now if you are convinced that Mag is the best server then you can simply transfer to Mag or whatever it's link is and you have a good chance of dominating.  If a small Mag server only makes up 20% of a five small server side then it is much harder to predict that joining one of those five small servers will lead to domination.  You would need to have information about all five servers, and the ten servers on the opposing sides in the matchup in order to know whether one side will dominate. 

 

and your hypothisis is incorrect.

 

6 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

 

Statistically, the larger the number of things you mix together the higher the probability that the result will be average.

 

Listen, you can continue to ingnore everything I am trying to explain to you which contributes to the population issues, but that won't suddenly make your idea any better.

 

Better redistribution of players (even if inferior to the actual world restructuring system) still leaves the system with large issues. Issues we have seen and continually see at play.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Cyninja.2954]

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Meh who cares, population balance won't achieve much at this point. Playing wvw is always about taking advantage/double teaming the weakest enemy, actively looking for smaller and weaker skilled/organized groups to fight, trying to exploit combat systems to your favor, carrying more numbers for more boon spam. Shuffling pug populations isn't going to do much, except maybe help carry those "fight guilds" sitting in t4 farming pugs to higher tiers, oh and provide a healthy stream of pugs to the grinder.

True.

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

This game mode was never competitive in every aspect, and never will be, no matter how much we try to fool ourselves that somehow even teams for a couple more hours out of a 24/7 match will make a difference.

The world restructuring is not meant to make this mode more competitive (even if imrpoved population balance would contribute somewhat).

It's meant to improve this modes day to day gameplay experience while future proofing it.

Will there be uneven worlds and thus uneven sides? Absolutely. The only question is: will this be more fun for all involved with the world restructuring system (if it achieves improving on some of the server issues)?

That's also why a 50v50v50 spvp style system falls flat. It very well would be the most competitive  and balanced system, but it would be far less fun (if we go by spvp popularity). this never was about "WvW is a competitive game mode".

Edited March 20, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Shift Focus.9083 said:

You won't see alliances, then there goes the honeypot. The sweet sweet transfer fees that guilds pay to transfer every few months or so because they get tired of their server they're on. That would be a massive loss of revenue for a game mode that they frankly don't care about, but keep up because of this. I actually think it's the only reason WvW is even still a thing.

Is it a massive loss in revenue? Let's  assume 1,000 players transfering at 1,800 gems (which we know isn't happening since most transfers happen to mid or low servers). That's 1,000×1,800 = 1,800,000 gems. Which in turn is 1,800,000÷800×10= 22,500. A whooping 22,500$/€ per cycle. 45,000, 67,500 and 90,000 at 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 players respectively (at max transfer cost every single transfer period. So already far above what seems occuring). For a game which still makes millions per quarter. Literal drops in a bucket.

A single warclaw skin likely generates more revenue than a tranfer cycle. Having more players engaged and invested into WvW (and thus more likely to spend more money) would bring in far more money.

Players really need to stop investing into such hilarious ideas that transfer fees make a huge chunk of money. The main issue are the developer hours and effort which have to go into this.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

On 3/18/2023 at 6:48 PM, Chaba.5410 said:

How are friends that are split up going to get back together if one of these smaller servers gets marked Full?

They won't do this until that server is full. They will be able to do so when the population decreases. But how will they deal with alliances? How will those who are excluded from that group of 500 still play with their other friends?

The thought that our friend BLP suggested is not at all over the top , it is something that we should evaluate carefully. Even just double the servers (instead of 2000 players per server we will have 1000 per server) we give way to Anet to build its current games no longer matching 2 pieces but matching 4 pieces.

Getting more balanced matches in terms of flow, should improve in fact. We could add some sort of 5% max transfer limit for each 2-month period. There are still 50 players who can move between servers every 2 months.

We could really achieve much more, and perhaps to make it easier for Anet.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Mabi black.1824]

8 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Anyways I'm going too off course with that rant, the only way to get competitive play would be through like instanced battleground 25 group play.

I am not convinced of this. We can have healthy competition even in a logic of war prolonged by a week. The goal is to get similar teams, and eliminate anything that leads to too many server differences. In Europe it is very simple. Eliminating the condition 3 teams are treated differently every 2 months is already solving the problem for its 80% after which it is a matter of keeping the numbers under control. And I'm talking about server limits and transfers. 

Nothing impossible, if only someone had the will to do it I guess.

When Friday arrives before the reconnection and I go to read the streams in EU of the 5 games and I see as usual 120,000K+D server in T1 and I see 50,000K+D in T5 then the competition loses any meaning even if I'm playing T1, T2, T3, T4 or T5

In another post I reported the numbers before the various betas and show ratios up to 4 : 1 knowing that you can have servers with 4 times the number of players of other servers , makes the term competition really meaningless.

[Dawdler.8521]

7 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

That's also why a 50v50v50 spvp style system falls flat. It very well would be the most competitive  and balanced system, but it would be far less fun (if we go by spvp popularity). this never was about "WvW is a competitive game mode".

Also even if you by some magic manage this perfect player lineup at the start of a 2h skirmish, how on earth do you ensure its still 50vs50vs50 just 15 minutes after start? 30? 1h?

[blp.3489]

36 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Also even if you by some magic manage this perfect player lineup at the start of a 2h skirmish, how on earth do you ensure its still 50vs50vs50 just 15 minutes after start? 30? 1h?

Could you have a squad vs squad vs squad mode where squads could accept new players, via LFG or something similar?

[Dawdler.8521]

1 minute ago, blp.3489 said:

Could you have a squad vs squad vs squad mode where squads could accept new players, via LFG or something similar?

So people will sit around in PvE just waiting for a WvW slot to randomly open up for a random squad on a random team?

Yeah... not gonna happen.

[Mabi black.1824]

15 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

At the same time disallowing player movement between server leads to dissatisfied players who might not be able to play with whom they like/want. You have given 0 ideas here.

This aspect that you are rightly reporting, you have to think that we are considering teams composed of 4 servers . Your server every 8 weeks ends with 3 new servers. This should mitigate the fact that you have some issues with players on your server. 

And then we have to consider that we can still have transfers. 5% max every 2 months. There are still 50 players allowed to move to other servers every 8 weeks.

[Mabi black.1824]

15 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

5. Fixed servers allow players to target place alt accounts which they can play if they are unhappy with their main account, completely thworing off the matchmaking/pairing algorythm. This is already common practice for some WvW players

This really is something I wouldn't know where to start to try to solve.

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

In short: if you have to make some players unhappy, at least do it with a good system to replace the disfunctional old one. Don't go half-assed, make players unhappy AND keep the problems.

I would really like you to confront alternative solutions to alliances and WRs with less bias. Nothing wrong with prejudice, as we are all exactly our prejudice (philosophy lesson of many years ago here on the GW2 forum) I am Italian, I was born in my city of Monza, I studied in Monza (Formula 1) I made my acquaintances in Monza, so I built my truth my way of being of thinking,   and therefore my prejudice.

This does not mean that it is the right one, but only that it is mine. So my prejudice is my way of being. So can I face anything in life without prejudice? No, because it would be like denying oneself. You just have to carry your prejudice consciously, righteously, and know that someone else, totally different from you, could lead you to a better truth than your own. In short, an attitude  predisposed to confrontation and above all to change, our mind likes to cabiare, continuously, when this does not happen it is a bad symptom. etc etc.

You say you only ''make some unhappy players''. So I say let's make sure that no one is unhappy. BLP's suggestion could give us more balanced matches. It could reduce Anet's work. Could make the term server continues to have a meaning. Should we all be happy? or not.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[blp.3489]

3 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

So people will sit around in PvE just waiting for a WvW slot to randomly open up for a random squad on a random team?

Yeah... not gonna happen.

I was thinking 1 squad per side so no random teams.  Obviously this would not be played across four maps.

I was picturing commanders forming up squads and optionally using random people to fill up slots when they are short or when squad players leave.  It would be up to the commanders whether to take on a random player to fill an empty slot or play on with fewer players.  Or maybe they have some guild friends that are willing to be on standby.  Depending on how many instances were running random players might not have to wait long for a spot to open up.

For players that want less randomness, Commanders would have the option to, for example, tell their guild that they will be forming a squad at 8pm on Tuesday, guild members only until 7:50 after which randoms will be accepted to fill the squad, or not.  Guild members that consistently quit 5-20 minutes into a match can be shunned from guild member inclusion in next week's squad.

It wouldn't be wvw but it would have some of the fun elements of wvw and you could use the existing wvw assets like maps to minimize extra development.

[TheGrimm.5624]

11 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

I do have to wonder whether a 24/7 system in the current format isn't fatally flawed from the get go.  Something that allowed something like individual skirmish durations, 2 hours, would likely result in better game play, more like what happens after reset.

The problem of course is how to form the teams since the current server system wouldn't be suitable.  You would need a way for groups to form and either sign up for specific time slots or sign up to be included in the next dynamic spawning of the maps.  Either way it wouldn't be an instant join anytime you want unless there are queues like now.

I guess just forming squads would be fairly simple.  Unfortunately, even if you came up with a workable system it would end up competing with the current format for players, which would likely end up with the current system becoming an underpopulated wasteland.

Anyway, comparing post-reset play to off hours play strongly hints that a non-24/7 format would have some merit.

Prior WvW style games, take Warhammer Online as an example was also 24x7. They way the compensated for it was that there were end goals to meet to trigger a win event, though that just meant map resets and the fights continued a new. The population was "balanced", using it in indifferent tone mind you, was by having the same servers service all world regions together so there was no prime time, each time zone had their own primes but that also meant differing ping rates for people in different regions. In GW2 its moot since there is no reason to win yet. The fix in GW2 is that people will have to manage the clock themselves and we need them not just count player hours by total but by time zone if the we want the sorting logic to better balance sides. But having a 24x7 game is what draws some of us in. Can't sleep, get up, there stuff to take and hold and peeps to turn into bags out there waiting and there's a fight to win! .......well mentally there is a fight to win, kinda, not really but ...we won Yarrr!

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I would really like you to confront alternative solutions to alliances and WRs with less bias. Nothing wrong with prejudice, as we are all exactly our prejudice (philosophy lesson of many years ago here on the GW2 forum) I am Italian, I was born in my city of Monza, I studied in Monza (Formula 1) I made my acquaintances in Monza, so I built my truth my way of being of thinking,   and therefore my prejudice.

This does not mean that it is the right one, but only that it is mine. So my prejudice is my way of being. So can I face anything in life without prejudice? No, because it would be like denying oneself. You just have to carry your prejudice consciously, righteously, and know that someone else, totally different from you, could lead you to a better truth than your own. In short, an attitude  predisposed to confrontation and above all to change, our mind likes to cabiare, continuously, when this does not happen it is a bad symptom. etc etc.

Let me help you here for a second because you seem a bit confused as to my position. My personal preference would be a server system. Similar to the one I had in DAoC, similar to the one I had in Warhammer Online. I've played RvR type of games for close to 20 years now. Does that help?

Here is the thing though: I am not stupid enough to or willing to sacrifice this game mode (or look past the glaring flaws a server system has is this day an age) to look past the necessities which might be necessary to help this mode prevail. If this means a world restructuring system, then that's what it might take.

Leave your prejudice bs at the door please. I guarantee you, if anyone provided some idea/ideas which in any way achieved similar or close to similar results as the world restructuring, I'd be all for it. Here is the problem though: So far the only thing I've seen produced by any player is either strait up nonsense or mediocre (at best) ideas which most often only result in almost no solving of the issues at hand, or worse yet, blunt ignorance of the problems the mode faces (and it doesn't help that a majority of players don't even understand the concept behind restructuring and alliances). Most often rooted in some nostalgic attachment to some server identity (and again, we had the same sentiments before the mega server system went live. A system which pretty much outperforms any static server system in other MMORPGs). The current server system and the mode with it has been in decline for years and no happy singing and dancing or mantra about "we'll get through it" will help that.

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

You say you only ''make some unhappy players''. So I say let's make sure that no one is unhappy.

Right....

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

BLP's suggestion could give us more balanced matches. It could reduce Anet's work. Could make the term server continues to have a meaning. Should we all be happy? or not.

Depends, are you willing to stake all of this game mode on it? That's what this is right now because I can guarantee you, there won't be another "rework" for WvW (if this one even happens). That's it. If this fails, this mode goes the way of the dodo. So, you are saying you are willing to go with a half-way solution and hope that, even though the system essentially remains the same, magically this will be the correct step forward?

That's where you and I differ. I actually prefer taking the risk with the restructuring, given the ideas behind it are sound and the initial betas were promising, willing to risk new issues. You seem not to.

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Chaba.5410]

3 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

They won't do this until that server is full. They will be able to do so when the population decreases. But how will they deal with alliances? How will those who are excluded from that group of 500 still play with their other friends?

The thought that our friend BLP suggested is not at all over the top , it is something that we should evaluate carefully.

If the purpose of having mini-servers is so that groups of friends can transfer there to play with each other, then the system fails when they can't do that because the mini-server filled up and have to wait until the population decreases.  The system needs to be able to handle those use cases.  We know it doesn't because a mini-server is just another server and the static server system has this same limitation.

As for alliances, the WR system will re-evaluate population on a schedule (theoretically 2 months).  The agency to pick and choose who you play with is given to players, not a server's status.  There's no waiting for population to decrease on a mini-server.  You "queue up" to be placed with friends for the next reshuffle.

I don't think BLP's suggestion is over the top.  I think it's just not being evaluated as carefully as it needs to be.  He's tried a little to answer specific use case scenarios, but also has somewhat avoided them too.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

12 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

You would need a way for groups to form and either sign up for specific time slots or sign up to be included in the next dynamic spawning of the maps.  Either way it wouldn't be an instant join anytime you want unless there are queues like now.

Conceptually, how is this "sign up" any different from being placed on a team based on your guild or alliance?  A player "signs up" with their guild and guilds "sign up" optionally with an alliance.  The leaders of the guilds and alliances all manage what specific time slots they play in.  They get placed together on the same team in the next dynamic spawning of teams.  It's not instant join.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, blp.3489 said:

It wouldn't be wvw

Thats the keywords.

If Anet takes this long making changes to WvW, how long do you think it will take to make an entirerly new mode? 

Will you still be playing GW2 in 2072?