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

[Mabi black.1824]

39 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

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.

On the merits, let's not call them mini-servers. They are still gentlemen servers. In my hypothesis we are talking about servers limited to 1000 players instead of 2000 players. Only hypothetically does Anet define the date of judgment day. And that day guilds (and if it were possible even alliances, why not) are randomly redistributed to homogeneously fill twice as many of our current servers. Then with time if some groups of friends are not together they can still move.

in a controlled way and with some new rules, but they can still transfer.

In the name of balance with some numbers you will have to clash. Alliances do too. Of course it is the players themselves who ally themselves, but the limit of 500 is there in any case. If you're out of that number, what do you do? In 8 weeks we will still delete all servers but the problem remains. You're still out of those 500. What are you doing?

[Dawdler.8521]

5 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

On the merits, let's not call them mini-servers. They are still gentlemen servers. In my hypothesis we are talking about servers limited to 1000 players instead of 2000 players. Only hypothetically does Anet define the date of judgment day. And that day guilds (and if it were possible even alliances, why not) are randomly redistributed to homogeneously fill twice as many of our current servers. Then with time if some groups of friends are not together they can still move.

in a controlled way and with some new rules, but they can still transfer.

In the name of balance with some numbers you will have to clash. Alliances do too. Of course it is the players themselves who ally themselves, but the limit of 500 is there in any case. If you're out of that number, what do you do? In 8 weeks we will still delete all servers but the problem remains. You're still out of those 500. What are you doing?

These "hypothetical" scenarios completely ignore the mechanics needed for them to practically work.

The first part is literally world restructure, because it needs what world restructure is - the sorting algorithm based on WvW guild selection. You cant say "guilds are randomly distributed" just as is how it works now, because it doesnt work period unless you imply players exist in a quantum state of being multiple players at once since we have 5 guilds.

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

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

I certainly don't have any truth in my pocket, but no, I'm not willing to bet everything on this. And no, I don't think that if it didn't have to work properly it would be the death of this beautiful game mode. Let's say that we have been playing it for a long time in ''difficult'' conditions. We are all aware of these ''conditions'' but we take our time, go online, and play. So probably this community can overcome any big or small changes, that it does not achieve the objective it has set.

We can try it, and see how the system responds. I think that is a good idea. We bring smaller pieces to put together. We still do this every 8 weeks. The server environment is still guaranteed even if with a reduced capacity of half. And if all this is a simple job for Anet, why not try it. At this point the community is looking forward to something changing in WVW. Mentally she is ready for any change. 

P.S. I know that you are a passionate and competent player, for what I read here on the forum and that I continue to read with interest.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Chaba.5410]

19 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

On the merits, let's not call them mini-servers. They are still gentlemen servers. In my hypothesis we are talking about servers limited to 1000 players instead of 2000 players

Ok, but I'm using BLP's description of a mini-server that's at most 20% of a full team, which would be around 500 players if the Anet dev's comments in the FAQ about alliance sizes is still true.

[Mabi black.1824]

9 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

These "hypothetical" scenarios completely ignore the mechanics needed for them to practically work.

The first part is literally world restructure, because it needs what world restructure is - the sorting algorithm based on WvW guild selection. You cant say "guilds are randomly distributed" just as is how it works now, because it doesnt work period unless you imply players exist in a quantum state of being multiple players at once since we have 5 guilds.

You are right friend, the ideal would really be to give the opportunity to those 5 guilds to ally themselves. So they will know that they are all redirected together.

It would take that last 10% of work to complete the project which is worth 80% of the work of the whole project, as someone wrote.🤭

Edited March 20, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Cyninja.2954]

17 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I certainly don't have any truth in my pocket, but no, I'm not willing to bet everything on this. And no, I don't think that if it didn't have to work properly it would be the death of this beautiful game mode. Let's say that we have been playing it for a long time in ''difficult'' conditions. We are all aware of these ''conditions'' but we take our time, go online, and play. So probably this community can overcome any big or small changes, that it does not achieve the objective it has set.

We can try it, and see how the system responds. I think that is a good idea. We bring smaller pieces to put together. We still do this every 8 weeks. The server environment is still guaranteed even if with a reduced capacity of half. And if all this is a simple job for Anet, why not try it. At this point the community is looking forward to something changing in WVW. Mentally she is ready for any change. 

See and that is where you and I are in disagreement. I disagree that redoing the same thing over and over (technically, when we had 4 tiers in EU, we were close to the population numbers your "new" system is built around with 3 server paired) will yield a better result.

I do not agree that the situation is a rosy as you want to paint it, even if we are in a sudden spike of players thanks to increased rewards. I know a lot of players who over the years did not "go online". If they had, the WvW population would not have been in constant decline.

In the end though I think the issue of world restructuring and alliances will rest on if the studio can pull it off or not. Which is what I have been saying from day 1: the biggest danger to wr and alliances is the complexity of the system and the developers ability to deliver or not. I highly doubt that any other discussions or suggestions are a factor in this matter.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[blp.3489]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

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.

I think that you were thinking about a scenario where a player wants to join their friends on the server their friends are already on, which is a problem if that server is full, while I was thinking that the group of friends would mutually decide on a non-full server and all move there.  If the friend's servers isn't full it's easy, if it is then your friends have to want to play with you enough to be willing to move servers.

I don't think it is possible to allow an unlimited number of people to move to their "friend's" server without creating stacked servers, so I don't think that is a problem that I, or WR, or anyone else can solve.  

[Mabi black.1824]

5 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

See and that is where you and I are in disagreement. I disagree that redoing the same thing over and over (technically, when we had 4 tiers in EU, we were close to the population numbers your "new" system is built around with 3 server paired) will yield a better result.

 

I do not agree that the situation is a rosy as you want to paint it, even if we are in a sudden spike of players thanks to increased rewards. I know a lot of players who over the years did not "go online". If they had, the WvW population would not have been in constant decline.

 

In the end though I think the issue of world restructuring and alliances will rest on if the studio can pull it off or not. Which is what I have been saying from day 1: the biggest danger to wr and alliances is the complexity of the system and the developers ability to deliver or not. I highly doubt that any other discussions or suggestions are a factor in this matter.

So, to support my opinions a little. I'm in T4 and yesterday I watched a video on Twitch to understand something more about my current opponents (Green Team) I saw that they had 4 maps in the queue, 10 years later, and in T4. Just to give us an idea of what GW2 - WWW really is. Better that I don't go to see what happens in T1 because my poor server without links could get too scared.

 

And then servers with population limits halved, we never had them. teams built from 4 smaller pieces, we never had them. And I would add if Anet grants it, transfers under control, we never had them. We're not talking about nothing, it seems like a lot of new stuff to me.

[blp.3489]

Duplicate post.

Edited March 20, 2023 by blp.3489

[Chaba.5410]

10 minutes ago, blp.3489 said:

I think that you were thinking about a scenario where a player wants to join their friends on the server their friends are already on, which is a problem if that server is full, while I was thinking that the group of friends would mutually decide on a non-full server and all move there.  If the friend's servers isn't full it's easy, if it is then your friends have to want to play with you enough to be willing to move servers.

But why wouldn't I think of that scenario?  As I wrote earlier, people come and go all the time due to various reasons.  So a guild moves to a non-full server to all get together and then a few weeks later that mini-server goes full because maybe it got bandwagoned (players don't have visibility into transfers).  Now anyone else in that guild that suddenly returns to the game is locked out.

Why aren't YOU thinking of that scenario for your system?  It's a scenario that happens currently and splits players up.  What is your system going to do to let them get back together?

[blp.3489]

1 minute ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Why aren't YOU thinking of that scenario for your system?  It's a scenario that happens currently and splits players up.  What is your system going to do to let them get back together?

Because for me this little thought experiment was aimed at suggesting a way to address the specific problem of producing better matches with the least possible commitment of development resources and therefor the least possibility of  keeping us waiting for another five years.  The idea was to modify the existing system in a straightforward manner that we could be somewhat confident could be completed and ready to go in the near future.  If one tries to solve all the problems people have with the current system in one go the solution is very likely to take years to implement.

And as I said:

 

24 minutes ago, blp.3489 said:

I don't think it is possible to allow an unlimited number of people to move to their "friend's" server without creating stacked servers, so I don't think that is a problem that I, or WR, or anyone else can solve.

 

[Mabi black.1824]

1 minute ago, blp.3489 said:

Because for me this little thought experiment was aimed at suggesting a way to address the specific problem of producing better matches with the least possible commitment of development resources and therefor the least possibility of  keeping us waiting for another five years. 

And that's exactly the strength of your suggestion. Actually I had indicated something very similar, some time ago, but you made it more readable than me apparently.

[Chaba.5410]

8 minutes ago, blp.3489 said:

Because for me this little thought experiment was aimed at suggesting a way to address the specific problem of producing better matches with the least possible commitment of development resources and therefor the least possibility of  keeping us waiting for another five years.  The idea was to modify the existing system in a straightforward manner that we could be somewhat confident could be completed and ready to go in the near future.  If one tries to solve all the problems people have with the current system in one go the solution is very likely to take years to implement.

The least possible commitment of development resources is how we got server linking to begin with though.  It produced better matches for awhile, but ultimately why it fails is because it's a static system that doesn't handle the dynamic nature of the playing population.  If you don't identify and handle the root cause of a problem, you're still waiting years for a fix.

[blp.3489]

20 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

It produced better matches for awhile, but ultimately why it fails is because it's a static system that doesn't handle the dynamic nature of the playing population.

I'm sorry that I'm not understanding your point.  Please list the specific requirements that need to be satisfied to "handle the dynamic nature of the playing population", preferably in priority order.

Wrt being able to play with your friends, unlimited transfers to a server and avoiding stacked servers are mutually exclusive.  That said, the larger the number of servers that are combined into a side in a matchup the less advantageous stacking is and therefore the less of a problem it is.

[Chaba.5410]

26 minutes ago, blp.3489 said:

unlimited transfers to a server and avoiding stacked servers are mutually exclusive.  That said, the larger the number of servers that are combined into a side in a matchup the less advantageous stacking is and therefore the less of a problem it is.

Exactly.  Removing servers all together avoids the problem of stacking servers.  Picking a guild you are going to play with is basically unlimited transfers without the stacking.  No one needs to deal with a static number of servers no matter how many there are when the system instead manages with a dynamic number of guilds and alliances.  None of what you wrote here is an argument in favor of mini-servers.

 

26 minutes ago, blp.3489 said:

Please list the specific requirements that need to be satisfied to "handle the dynamic nature of the playing population", preferably in priority order.

I thought the questions I've been asking of you with regards to how your system is going to handle specific scenarios would provide a clue.  The playing population changes over time.  It shrinks and grows and shrinks again.  That's the biggest requirement: handling population volatility.  Then you'll want a system that lets players manage themselves without restricting them from playing with each other and while avoiding the bandwagon.  Then you also need a method by which winners are determined if we're sticking with the concept of teams competing against each other for tier movements.

I asked you what you do with mini-servers when their population drops too much.  I asked you what your system does when friends come back and the mini-server their guild is on is Full.  You never really answered.  Open more mini-servers?  Consolidate mini-servers?  How is your system going to combine 5 mini-servers into one team to create "better matches" if you have a lopsided amount of population on these mini-servers and no way to manage that population?

Edited March 20, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[blp.3489]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Then you'll want a system that lets players manage themselves without restricting them from playing with each other and while avoiding the bandwagon.

I think we are operating on different assumptions.  One of my assumptions is that none of the issues you mention will get any worse if the population per server is reduced.  I don't think I have seen any explanations of why things would get worse with lower population servers and more servers per side in matchups.  I don't feel I need to defend any of the issues with the status quo, all I'm trying to find is a way to incrementally improve the current system in the short term, not a panacea.

Just based on the subject line of the thread, some people believe that a project that has been under development for five years without a working system, and that the developers don't expect to complete this year, may well never come to fruition.

I need to think about your argument that using guilds will solve everything, and whether that's a preferable approach given the apparent time frames.

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, blp.3489 said:

I don't think I have seen any explanations of why things would get worse with lower population servers and more servers per side in matchups.

Why would it need to get worse if it's just going to stay the same as now: a system unable to handle population volatility?  When the population drops on a handful of mini-servers, what would make players move there so there are enough mini-servers with enough population, especially when relinks are done?

I'm not going to disagree that making smaller "slices" of the population makes it easier (for a dev) to create linked teams that end up with lower population disparities between all teams.  That's the primary basis of World Restructuring too.  We know from the betas that even less disparity can be created than with server links.

Have you read these old threads at all?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Hypothetically-Speaking-New-Worlds/page/1
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/New-Worlds

 

[Mabi black.1824]

10 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I'm not going to disagree that making smaller "slices" of the population makes it easier (for a dev) to create linked teams that end up with lower population disparities between all teams.  That's the primary basis of World Restructuring too.  We know from the betas that even less disparity can be created than with server links.

That's the point. BLP's suggestion is really interesting. Let's try it. We reduce by 50% the limit of all servers (including BB) we get twice as many current servers. We give Anet the ability to build teams with 4 smaller pieces. This inevitably leads us into a better condition in terms of more similar flows. Communities are already ready for this. We have already seen during betas that people have created community guilds.

able to group the largest number of players who want to be together (500). It really would be something to organize and try, in the general interest of this modality. However you want to put it would be a nice step forward. If only Anet wants to give us some transfer updates that would be perfect.

Anet, development guys, please, how about scabiare 4 words on this topic? It is an open dialogue, we are doing it in the interests of this modality and in the interests of the work you are carrying out. One hand washes the other. Let's give each other a hand and give us an exchange of ideas with someone in the field. Help us help you.😉

 

[Mabi black.1824]

P.S but how do you talk to someone about the development in this game? Do you need to use other platforms? Are we writing in the wrong place? Just to have an exchange of views, maybe I need to add a revenue stamp? 🤭

[Dawdler.8521]

44 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

That's the point. BLP's suggestion is really interesting. Let's try it. We reduce by 50% the limit of all servers (including BB) we get twice as many current servers. We give Anet the ability to build teams with 4 smaller pieces.

How are you supposed to try it?

The static version of it would rely on the good graces of random players and guilds to volontarily move to new worlds. Yeah... I'm sure that will go down well because we all know every player can make the responsible choice to spread out on worlds for the good of WvW and achieve perfect balance.

The dynamic version of it would require everything that is world restructure.

Once again, a hypothetical scenario without a shred of thought on how to actually do it.

[Mabi black.1824]

26 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

How are you supposed to try it?

The static version of it would rely on the good graces of random players and guilds to volontarily move to new worlds. Yeah... I'm sure that will go down well because we all know every player can make the responsible choice to spread out on worlds for the good of WvW and achieve perfect balance.

The dynamic version of it would require everything that is world restructure.

Once again, a hypothetical scenario without a shred of thought on how to actually do it.

No my friend, we can definitely discuss how to do it (do not try it, a little courage in life is needed) , if you want I'll tell you how I would do it. The player does not choose anything, only his Guild , just as we have seen with betas. You join your Alliance Guild to group all the players who want to stay together. 500 is the limit, and it would still be the limit in any case even for the alliances we have imagined until now.

Anet makes an official communication on mail and defines the date. Players and guilds will be randomly redeployed to fill the new servers. smaller and more numerous. The redistribution uses the same mechanics that it used to redistribute us during betas.(The communities are already ready, both mentally and practically, indeed they can't wait, the title of this post also says it, let's do it now.)

We know it's not perfect, we know it makes mistakes and someone won't end up in the right place. But transfers will still exist. Let's decide together in what form. But they are still one thing. precisely to allow the adjustments following this great redistribution. Or if you prefer, let's call it a revolution.😉

Mine is absolutely not a hypothetical scenario. It is something concrete that we can achieve in a reasonable time (1 month? 2 months?) It all depends on how much work it involves for Anet's friends.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Dawdler.8521]

12 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

No my friend, we can definitely discuss how to do it, if you want I'll tell you how I would do it. The player does not choose anything, only his Guild , just as we have seen with betas. You join your Alliance Guild to group all the players who want to stay together. 500 is the limit, and it would still be the limit in any case even for the alliances we have imagined until now.

Anet makes an official communication on mail and defines the date. Players and guilds will be randomly redeployed to fill the new servers. smaller and more numerous. The redistribution uses the same mechanics that it used to redistribute us during betas.

We know it's not perfect, we know it makes mistakes and someone won't end up in the right place. But transfers will still exist. Let's decide together in what form. But they are still one thing. precisely to allow the adjustments following this great redistribution. Or if you prefer, let's call it a revolution.😉

Ok so we implement world restructure and alliances then.

Dont know what I expected. 🤷‍♂️

[Mabi black.1824]

4 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Ok so we implement world restructure and alliances then.

Dont know what I expected. 🤷‍♂️

I'm sorry but for that you'll have to wait a few more years 🤷‍♀️

[Ya Ya Yeah.7381]

They will never do it, put in alliances that is. They know that if they do it, it kills the very last thing that WvW has and that is server pride and wvw community. When that is gone you can start a time clock on how long it will take for wvw to just be a ghost town with a few of us hard cores running around. But, if they added some incredible rewards and maybe a new map, it might keep it going. 

Wasted resources? lol. You make it sound like they had to cut down a forest of trees or import some steel from Japan or something...lol. It is a bunch of nerds pushing keys on a PC. What else are they going to do with their time? Get Starbucks and tell everyone what they did on the weekend as they relax from a stressful day of designing new fashion in game. Wasted resources...LOL.

Thank you, sir, you made my day. 🙂

[Mabi black.1824]

38 minutes ago, Crazy.6029 said:

But, if they added some incredible rewards and maybe a new map, it might keep it going. 

These are things that will always be appreciated by the whole community, regardless of what mechanic you want to use to build matches.

 

38 minutes ago, Crazy.6029 said:

They know that if they do it, it kills the very last thing that WvW has and that is server pride and wvw community.

You won't be so sure of this. I also consider the Community aspect to be fundamental in this way of playing. But with this last proposal, most communities can still remain united. Also you should consider that you will still have the servers. The fact that they are smaller could stimulate this sense of belonging. Each community could be stimulated to better express its character and its way of being together.

And you don't have to underestimate the competition. If we get more balanced matches, if the numbers improve and climbing a ranking returns to being something credible, you will have hit the mark, because it is a great way to stimulate the player to put his content . And it is around the curiosity and the desire to try of that player that communities merge.

Doubling our current servers does not mean erasing the community concept we have now. it means modifying it. Delete the community concept based on the container that Anet provides (server) already thinks alliances and wr , every 8 weeks.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Mabi black.1824