Let's be real and honest about World Restructuring.

[Xenesis.6389]

Its not going to change current gameplay.

It's not going to change groups blobbing.

It's not going to change boon spam combat.

It's not going to change the meta in any area.

It's not going to help with outnumbered, it will still happen.

It's not going to help with desert map problems.

It's not going to help with celestial problems.

It's not going to help with over tuned specs.

It's not going to help challenge 50 squad boon balls rolling over your map.

PPT will still dictate wins.

Mismatched coverage due to time zone differences will dictate wins.

There will still be one really good world, and one really bad world, and a bunch in between as usual.

With the added bonus of destroying old server communities as big or little as they may be today, forever, after.

It's an auto shuffler to ship single players around and pretend it makes a difference, but it's just making sure all worlds will have enough pugs to farm.

Everything inside the mode will play out the exact same way as it does today.

The queue bug will probably still be around, as it hasn't been fixed in seven betas.

 5 years we wait for this population system, while the mode and fun is being destroyed by balance updates anyways.

🤭🍦

[Chaba.5410]

World restructuring supposed to change combat metas and map favoritism?  What?  You want honesty, but that list is extremely misleading bordering on being disingenuous.

Why don't you measure it by the actual problem it attempts to address?  As you said, it's an auto-shuffler.  It's designed to reform teams dynamically over time as they grow and shrink.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Xenesis.6389]

2 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

World restructuring supposed to change combat metas and map favoritism?  What?  You want honesty, but that list is extremely misleading bordering on being disingenuous.

Why don't you measure it by the actual problem it attempts to address?  As you said, it's an auto-shuffler.  It's designed to reform teams dynamically over time as they grow and shrink.

I'm just saying there's a ton of other problems with the mode that could actually stop people from playing, and this one problem which isn't going to do much at this point (this past week matchup hasn't felt any different than normal matchups same up and downs), is taking up so much time to develop. Hope it's worth it in the end. 🤷‍♂️

Edited June 17, 2023 by Xenesis.6389

[enkidu.5937]

3 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Let's be real and honest about World Restructuring

lets be really real:

It makes current gameplay worse.

It facilitates group blobbing over randoms.

It makes boon spam combat even more dominating.

It's makes the meta absolutely mandatory (if you want to win vs. alliance raids).

It makes outnumbered even worse.

. . .

[Custodio.6134]

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Its not going to change current gameplay.

Which is not a thing WR is intended to solve

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

It's not going to change groups blobbing.

nothing you cold possibly do will prevent this

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

It's not going to change boon spam combat.

It's not going to change the meta in any area.

this is absolutely not related to WR at all. That´s the skill-balance, handled by an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TEAM

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

It's not going to help with outnumbered, it will still happen.

Of course it will. It´s a 24/7-mode across a lot of timezones. There is no 100% suitable solution that will ALWAYS work. But, accounting for timezones upon team creation COULD reduce the impact of timezone-differences
 

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

It's not going to help with desert map problems.

It's not going to help with celestial problems.

It's not going to help with over tuned specs.

Again, nothing WR is even intended to solve, and completely unrelated to WR

 

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

It's not going to help challenge 50 squad boon balls rolling over your map.

As you wrote "challenge them": i assume you refer to attempting of stopping a full blob with less people. That is (once again) completely unrelated to WR, since it´s a game-design and balance-"issue" (and, btw: numbers will always be an imbalanced factor). Also: defenders have an advantage on all maps. You just need to.... defend.... You can repel attackers for years, even when outnumbered. assuming you use all the  tools you have at your disposal. 
 

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Mismatched coverage due to time zone differences will dictate wins.

WR is intended to account for timezones in the future (though ofc, in the current beta it isn´t a thing yet). So, this point is completely invalid

 

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

There will still be one really good world, and one really bad world, and a bunch in between as usual.

With the added bonus of destroying old server communities as big or little as they may be today, forever, after.

You cannot even call that yet, as you don´t know how the communities will react in the end. From a guild-perspective: stacking in one alliance with all the "good guilds" is actually a thing the guilds will NOT want to do. They'll starve of content, and regret that decision very quickly. 
And the server-communities can just.... make an alliance, with all the guilds and non-guilded players to "replicate" their server into an alliance. Your precious "server identity" a lot of people try to convince that is still a thing (hint: it´s a thing that is already steadily dying) will just become an "alliance identity". 
 

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

It's an auto shuffler to ship single players around and pretend it makes a difference, but it's just making sure all worlds will have enough pugs to farm.

This one makes no freaking sense. 
 

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Everything inside the mode will play out the exact same way as it does today.

From a perspective that excludes population-balancing: yes. because WR is exclusively intended to touch population in the first place. Other additions may still come with it, but are mostly independent of WR itself (the team-building and matchmaking algorithm, aka WR)
 

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

The queue bug will probably still be around, as it hasn't been fixed in seven betas.

While it is annyoing, and more visible in the betas, this is a bug that is NOT there because of the beta. ANet themselves told us already, that it is a bug that existed in the game for, like. an eternity. But it becomes more visible for some reasons in the beta, and ANet is actively attempting to fix it. 
 

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

5 years we wait for this population system, while the mode and fun is being destroyed by balance updates anyways.

ANet (despite all the past announcements) hasn´t actively worked on WR for 5 years. It´s basically just about 1,5 years of active development. 
On the balance-side: i partly agree. ANet has no idea how to balance WvW properly, and a lot of choices are... questionable... at best. But again: skill-balance is completely unrelated to WR

Edited June 17, 2023 by Custodio.6134

[Xenesis.6389]

Thanks for the explanation I really didn't know what world restructuring was about.  😏

You missed the entire point.

WvW will play exactly inside the mode the same as it does today. This beta had every old fault of regular wvw, from combat to population to ppt. All this effort to shuffle people around cause groups have ants in the pants, is it going to be worth the effort in the end I wonder.

Overall this beta is just like the last bit of food to digest and sit back and look at the whole wvw situation. The amount of effort going into pleasing organized guilds, from combat balancing issues that lopsidedly benefit them, to reorganizing all servers into worlds around them, because of bandwagons, a problem they helped create and maintain to this day. All the lesser people are just on the rollercoaster ride watching everything they're use to and enjoy, being destroyed one way or another. What kind of mess is wvw gonna look like in a year or two from now as we continue down this path. 😏🍦

Edited June 17, 2023 by Xenesis.6389

[Mabi black.1824]

On 6/17/2023 at 5:32 AM, Xenesis.6389 said:

There will still be one really good world, and one really bad world, and a bunch in between as usual.

A healthy and credible competition is exactly what you described. It shouldn't cause you problems. The winning team is only one. Even the team that comes last will be only one. In between there will be many teams. Never mind. What matters is participation, and ensuring that all teams have the same rules and opportunities. You will always find someone better than you, and it should not be a problem to recognize him and congratulate him if he has won with merit.

 

On 6/17/2023 at 5:32 AM, Xenesis.6389 said:

With the added bonus of destroying old server communities as big or little as they may be today, forever, after.

In my opinion, this is the best point I have read. That's why you should agree with me when I suggest that the WR and the Alliance should allow more time, to allow all those new groups (facilitated by alliances) to participate in a seasonal competition. This would also solve your other interesting point. WWW would still not be the same WWW as before, win or lose means nothing. if you allow all new teams to participate at the seasonal tournament, then you will have really granted WWW something more, the feeling of change will be evident, and certainly engaging for everyone.

[LetoII.3782]

All is vain.

[misterman.1530]

22 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

A healthy and credible competition is exactly what you described. It shouldn't cause you problems. The winning team is only one. Even the team that comes last will be only one. In between there will be many teams. Never mind. What matters is participation, and ensuring that all teams have the same rules and opportunities. You will always find someone better than you, and it should not be a problem to recognize him and congratulate him if he has won with merit.

 

In my opinion, this is the best point I have read. That's why you should agree with me when I suggest that the WR and the Alliance should allow more time, to allow all those new groups (facilitated by alliances) to participate in a seasonal competition. This would also solve your other interesting point. WWW would still not be the same WWW as before, win or lose means nothing. if you allow all new teams to participate at the seasonal tournament, then you will have really granted WWW something more, the feeling of change will be evident, and certainly engaging for everyone.

All I know is my "alliance" has been grossly outnumbered for the past two weeks. Was away, so not sure when this WR beta started, but since I came back, every time I've checked, we were ticking almost nothing. Just now, 30+ blue took our green garri - not much we could do to stop them. We've been outnumbered in our own BL for most of the morning.

So,  there doesn't appear to be "..healthy and credible competition...". It's just more of the same, only worse. This isn't winning with "merit" - it's winning because of a massive difference in the number of players.

Wasn't that supposed to be what WR was going to fix?

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

56 minutes ago, misterman.1530 said:

All I know is my "alliance" has been grossly outnumbered for the past two weeks. Was away, so not sure when this WR beta started, but since I came back, every time I've checked, we were ticking almost nothing. Just now, 30+ blue took our green garri - not much we could do to stop them. We've been outnumbered in our own BL for most of the morning.

So,  there doesn't appear to be "..healthy and credible competition...". It's just more of the same, only worse. This isn't winning with "merit" - it's winning because of a massive difference in the number of players.

Wasn't that supposed to be what WR was going to fix?

 

This is one the items I hope we get feedback on, have they already started to capture time zone of play so that can also be factored in when sorting.

[Dawdler.8521]

28 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

This is one the items I hope we get feedback on, have they already started to capture time zone of play so that can also be factored in when sorting.

The question is where does "balancing" end (put ~20 people vs ~20 people in a match, or put someone that has a skill level of "above average" vs another "above average") and match manipulation begin (hmm I see here that you only play at 17:40-18:25 on tuesdays and Team X has a gap there so I intentionally put you there just so the team has a better chance at winning)...

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

The question is where does "balancing" end (put ~20 people vs ~20 people in a match, or put someone that has a skill level of "above average" vs another "above average") and match manipulation begin (hmm I see here that you only play at 17:40-18:25 on tuesdays and Team X has a gap there so I intentionally put you there just so the team has a better chance at winning)...

Match manipulation will still occur and it's still a valid tactic to play outside of even a single player's normal play time if they are looking gain more for their side. It's also a bad idea since sure they might help with that skirmish but then they also may make it worse for team mates if that results in a Tier move and they stop their own playing outside of the time zone. Leaving now not only that time zone with less but also may apply pressure in another time zone due to a more active tier of play by the other server in the tier they move to. Knew server mates in the past that would ask for praise about them taking everything over night and then we would get artificially pushed into the next tier up just to face sides really did have the time zones covered and then outnumbered on most maps during primetime as well as off hours.

Balance, we won't really have that, but I do think time zone added into the mix might help for the matches and some servers have off hours coverage and others not. But even saying that, the more proactive Alliances will be looking to have those guilds in their mix to ensure they have coverage so that is one of the reasons I think ANet wasn't planning on needing it figuring players would handle that themselves.

Edited June 20, 2023 by TheGrimm.5624
expanded off hour play impacts

[Cyninja.2954]

Most of the issues for WvW will not be solved with World Restructuring and even worse, new ones will get introduced.

That was never the goal though because the few issues which are meant to get solved with the new system might very well be solved or at least alleviated. Which is a good foundation to start with.

There is a lot more potential to address issues under the new system versus the old one which was far more restrictive design and balance wise.

Will world restructuring launch with time zone sensible matchmaking? No. Could this get added retroactively? Yes. Could this get added with a server system? No.

Will language matchmaking be a thing? Again, very likely not. Could it be? Absolutely.

Plus it makes for a great amount of buzz and could get sold as a revamp in an attempt to reinvigorate the mode.

Will all this happen? Probably not, but at least there is a chance for improvement instead of clinging to a dying system because of romanticism for past days.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Match manipulation will still occur and it's still a valid tactic

By players. 

But you where talking about Anet doing it. That's what I meant, how far is Anet supposed to micromanage teams in order to make them... well for lack of better description - help them win. Because that's the ultimate goal of having perfect coverage, right?

I would argue that's not on Anet.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[Banchou.5628]

10 hours ago, misterman.1530 said:

All I know is my "alliance" has been grossly outnumbered for the past two weeks. Was away, so not sure when this WR beta started, but since I came back, every time I've checked, we were ticking almost nothing. Just now, 30+ blue took our green garri - not much we could do to stop them. We've been outnumbered in our own BL for most of the morning.

So,  there doesn't appear to be "..healthy and credible competition...". It's just more of the same, only worse. This isn't winning with "merit" - it's winning because of a massive difference in the number of players.

Wasn't that supposed to be what WR was going to fix?

 

I can relate a lot with this due having the same experience so far on the beta: outnumbered almost all day, mostly of the people on my team are pugs or from small guilds and we barely have any commanders at all (and some unfortunately doesn't understand how boons works). All that while fighting against 2 teams with huge and well coordinated guilds who are active 24/7.

Of course we try to do something, but it's like picking up the scraps left from the other two teams.

Tbh the only change I can see with this whole restructuring is people being forced to join the big guilds to get a chance to at least be able to fight back and not be locked into a meh team for 2 weeks, potentially killing most of the medium and small size WxW guilds while making really hard for any new WxW focused guild to have a chance to grow.

[TheGrimm.5624]

21 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

By players. 

But you where talking about Anet doing it. That's what I meant, how far is Anet supposed to micromanage teams in order to make them... well for lack of better description - help them win. Because that's the ultimate goal of having perfect coverage, right?

I would argue that's not on Anet.

No, I wasn't saying or picturing ANet doing anything but coming up with logic and variables that are used to sort teams. If it was taken so, wasn't where I was going. If they are hand sorting people, that would be right out a failed program and we might as well stick with servers. Perfect is a state I think we both agree with will never happen. That's still not the same as attributing time zone along with hours played if it can used in the logic used by the sorting algorithm to try and address coverage. Again I think they are going to try and let Alliances solve that for them first. But if I was designing my database for future growth and setting up the architecture I would want to make sure I leave structure in place for that if that Alliance assumption doesn't work out.