September 2023 Studio Update

[Ashantara.8731]

On 9/14/2023 at 11:47 PM, MuscleBobBuffPants.1406 said:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/arenanet-studio-update-july-2021/ 

"Alliances When?

This year."

"In the past, development priorities shifted away from WvW, and unfortunately both World Restructuring and our players suffered as a result. Our new leadership team views WvW as a cornerstone mode of Guild Wars 2, and it will be a focus of ours going forward."

The same article also states: "World Restructuring features will be released in a multiphase beta. What this means is that we’ll release a part of the World Restructuring system, test it with you in the live game, gather your feedback, and then iterate on it for a future release."

[Ashantara.8731]

While

On 9/18/2023 at 6:59 PM, Burnfall.9573 said:

I know it's a different topic but, The implementation of The Holy Trinity, is the only way to bring the game back to order. So, Anet are there any plans, talks, update about returning Guild Wars 2 Philosophy back to its root?

GW2's "roots" were clearly anti-holy trinity. However, I prefer a holy trinity, it was so much fun in GW1 (which, admittedly, had a different engine -- fighting wasn't as dynamic and agile as in GW2).
 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Ashantara.8731

[MuscleBobBuffPants.1406]

11 minutes ago, Ashantara.8731 said:

The same article also states: "World Restructuring features will be released in a multiphase beta. What this means is that we’ll release a part of the World Restructuring system, test it with you in the live game, gather your feedback, and then iterate on it for a future release."

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/arenanet-studio-update-july-2021/ 

"Alliances When?

This year."

"for a future release."

🤨

"Our new leadership team views WvW as a cornerstone mode of Guild Wars 2"

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/studio-update-september-2023/
"We don’t have a timeline to share now, but we’ll keep you updated."

🤨

 

[Gibson.4036]

On 9/23/2023 at 3:17 AM, Vayne.8563 said:

Adding alliances does the same thing. You'll just have bigger meta guilds. The trick is to have balance, and while people think they need huge sides, it's not the case. Let a bunch of smaller guilds figure out how to work together. Let's see some good fights that are even, instead of one or two sides that are toally dominant and everyone is arguing on the best way to get away from them.

Alliances, according to the 2021 blog post, were going to be capped at 500, the same size as a max guild. That means if you have a 100% participation, max sized mega-WvW guild, Alliances do nothing for you. There'd be no way to form a bigger meta guild.

Alliances, as presented, would help those smaller guild work together. You could have 10 guilds of 50 people assured of ending up together every reset because they'd formed an Alliance.

[Vayne.8563]

6 minutes ago, Gibson.4036 said:

Alliances, according to the 2021 blog post, were going to be capped at 500, the same size as a max guild. That means if you have a 100% participation, max sized mega-WvW guild, Alliances do nothing for you. There'd be no way to form a bigger meta guild.

Alliances, as presented, would help those smaller guild work together. You could have 10 guilds of 50 people assured of ending up together every reset because they'd formed an Alliance.

All I've seen from the alliance scuffle is guilds fighting over who they're going to join. One guild wants to allie with another, and half the people don't want it, or half the people in a third guild don't want the second guild.  You really think 10 guilds of 50 people, WvWer's, are going to work together?  I mean I'll go make popcorn for the inevitable drama, but I'm almost 100% positive that there'll be wars over who gets to ally with who and who shouldn't ally with us.

[Gibson.4036]

3 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:

All I've seen from the alliance scuffle is guilds fighting over who they're going to join. One guild wants to allie with another, and half the people don't want it, or half the people in a third guild don't want the second guild.  You really think 10 guilds of 50 people, WvWer's, are going to work together?  I mean I'll go make popcorn for the inevitable drama, but I'm almost 100% positive that there'll be wars over who gets to ally with who and who shouldn't ally with us.

Okay, sure, people are dramatic people. But you were talking about smaller guilds working together, how would alliances make it any different. Other than that with restructuring, they need some way to make sure they are on the same side, which Alliances do. With restructuring but no Alliances, you're guaranteed not to be able to have smaller guilds work together because they never know if they're going to be in the same match up, let alone on the same side.

Back to your post I responded to, with the 500 player limit, how would Alliances make the huge WvW guilds more dominant?

 

[Vayne.8563]

2 minutes ago, Gibson.4036 said:

Okay, sure, people are dramatic people. But you were talking about smaller guilds working together, how would alliances make it any different. Other than that with restructuring, they need some way to make sure they are on the same side, which Alliances do. With restructuring but no Alliances, you're guaranteed not to be able to have smaller guilds work together because they never know if they're going to be in the same match up, let alone on the same side.

Back to your post I responded to, with the 500 player limit, how would Alliances make the huge WvW guilds more dominant?

 

Because I know some dominant 100 player guilds, that could ally iwth 4 more dominant 100 play guilds. There's no one guild that makes Maguuma so good at WvW. It's their whole style of play as a server. It's completely dominant. If all the major guilds on maguuma, most of which don't have 500 people, all got together in an alliance, I think we'd end up with pretty much the same thing we have going on right now., 

Keep in mind my knowledge of Maguuma is from a guildie who played a lot of TC and transferred there when it was open a few months ago.  He said the whole way that server approaches WvW is different. So you take 20 guilds from there, and make an alliance and what then happens to the balance?  The real trick would be to limit how many of the best guilds could be on the same server and alliances really screws that up.

[MuscleBobBuffPants.1406]

The purpose of the two changes was population balance and skill balance.  The idea would be that matches would have people more evenly distributed in terms of play times.  And the guild part was to also make sure they had equal distribution in skill.  Of course all guilds are not equal but it would significantly reduce the randomness of some random PvErs joining in a match versus a hardcore WvW guild.  Now we could hopefully be more balanced.  Now there might be some random PvErs or solo people, but their side will have a guild to match the other side's guild.  Again it might not be the highest level guild, but certainly better than the randomness of before.  And once you introduce that system, guilds can improve over time as they play WvW together and the skill gap would reduce significantly.  

But you need both systems for a more balanced game and match.  In addition to actual skill balance and reduction of boon balls etc.

Population Balance + Skill/Guild Balance + Balance Patches that reduce boon ball = Really fun WvW experience.

It can be done, it just needs the willpower to do it.

 

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Because I know some dominant 100 player guilds, that could ally iwth 4 more dominant 100 play guilds. There's no one guild that makes Maguuma so good at WvW. It's their whole style of play as a server. It's completely dominant. If all the major guilds on maguuma, most of which don't have 500 people, all got together in an alliance, I think we'd end up with pretty much the same thing we have going on right now., 

Keep in mind my knowledge of Maguuma is from a guildie who played a lot of TC and transferred there when it was open a few months ago.  He said the whole way that server approaches WvW is different. So you take 20 guilds from there, and make an alliance and what then happens to the balance?  The real trick would be to limit how many of the best guilds could be on the same server and alliances really screws that up.

Well, Maguuma swarming is not really guild dependant - it depends far more on the whole server (or at least majority of players on it) participating in the strategy. "Maguuma alliance" will likely not end up in majority (i am not sure what the population cap for each "server" Anet is shooting for, but they did mention more than once that it will be big enough to contain several full alliances). So, you take 500 maguuma players, form an Alliance, start playing and get rolled over because the rest of the server plays their game differently.

Besides, there will no longer be the "server" identity anymore. Not when every reshuffle 3/4 of the players your max size alliance gets to group with is completely different - and possibly the very same people you previously played against and ridiculed.

So, the Maguuma example was bad. Still, your general point is fair - the new change will make the bigger guilds more dominant - and it's specifically due to that core identity. Any and all servers that depended more on individual players and some overall unique playstyle (like Maguuma) will lose big time, but any guilds whose identity is bigger than the identity of servers they play on will carry on with no problem and may even get strengthened by this.

[Tiviana.2650]

Im just going to say im sick of waiting on alliances , every year its coming soon! and never happens. I have lost all faith that it will happen, you have led us around by the nose for years. Its long past time this should have become a reality.

[Grouwdi.6279]

It's sad that you'd use that photo of that zone and not fix the HORRIBLE performance issues out there 😞

 

[tyler.1653]

I want to see bounties implemented in WvW somehow! Like certain killstreaks will grant different tiered bounties on your head that will grant other players rewards if they defeat you. (memories of battle, gold, etc)

[Crimson Tear.2459]

How about an EoTM month event or something? I have so many unfinished achievements there because it is perma-dead. 

[Sarlan.7682]

An event that adds rifts for up to 10 people with wvw balance and pvp inside could be cool. also id love to get the on kill you get the enemies utility skills event back into wvw. some smallscale focused stuff could be also nice. stolen black lion stuff in ruins/jps on wvw maps. ruin event that breaks all doors on ALL structures if one team captures/recaptures ruins.

open world pvp enabled in certain zones in pve (outside of big metas prob bec that would just be annoying).

also in terms of rewards: backspace and black lion stuff from the recent stolen goods event could be a thing in all game modes... its kinda annoying that youre forced into pve if you wanna do those events and no equal thing is or was ever available in wvw/pvp. in general if you do events pls consider giving decent rewards to every game mode and not just your favorite child: pve 🙂

also competitive balance or atleast most urgent fixes like akeem: when? do you need feedback from roy for wvw balance to do sth stupid like remove more boon corruption and hes on vacation? 😄

[Tiviana.2650]

On 9/28/2023 at 2:02 AM, Crimson Tear.2459 said:

How about an EoTM month event or something? I have so many unfinished achievements there because it is perma-dead. 

This so much!!!

[Ashantara.8731]

On 9/30/2023 at 4:39 AM, Tiviana.2650 said:

> How about an EoTM month event or something? I have so many unfinished achievements there because it is perma-dead. 

This so much!!!

I second this! 🤩

[TheGrimm.5624]

WvW Halloween Event: Steve comes a callin.

During the Halloween event Steve from the Mad King Labyrinth appears in WvW to hunt any and all.  Since this is this short notice will make a short term request and a larger one for later consideration. 

Short Term: On the hour Steve appears between the inner and outer walls of SMC and attacks any targets they find. Players are awarded with ToT bags & WxP for killing Steve. Steve persists for 30 mins and than despawns. Steve should scale based on targets in the area to keep them in appropriate power to face multiple zergs and have them be the terror they should be. Steve should not target siege, just players.

Longer term: Same as SMC but Steve appears in each of the borderlands as well in any one of the three of the keeps with the same rules as above.

Note for new players: Steve: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Labyrinthine_Horror

Edited October 4, 2023 by TheGrimm.5624

[Leaa.2943]

On 9/25/2023 at 4:04 PM, Vayne.8563 said:

Because I know some dominant 100 player guilds, that could ally iwth 4 more dominant 100 play guilds. There's no one guild that makes Maguuma so good at WvW. It's their whole style of play as a server. It's completely dominant. If all the major guilds on maguuma, most of which don't have 500 people, all got together in an alliance, I think we'd end up with pretty much the same thing we have going on right now., 

Keep in mind my knowledge of Maguuma is from a guildie who played a lot of TC and transferred there when it was open a few months ago.  He said the whole way that server approaches WvW is different. So you take 20 guilds from there, and make an alliance and what then happens to the balance?  The real trick would be to limit how many of the best guilds could be on the same server and alliances really screws that up.

So what you are saying is that alliances should be about Magumaa and how to stop them. How does this involve EU? We are not facing Magumaa, we have some really rough problems on our own but they have nothing to do with NA at all.

Our problems in EU is  what alliances is suppose to turn out. EU already enforce this with guilds and groups decided every relink where to move and with who. And it does not work at all because the problem is more complex then just that. On top of that Arena Net decide what hosts get a link and what hosts do not get a link and also target specific server who wont get links for months and in cases year and are also close that long. 

This are two situation where EU can show that play driven is not working nor do Anet driven either. Both of this leave a carnage in EU. And yet you guys in NA want what we have in EU which again is how alliances will work just even more player drinven, more drastic, and NA also add it should be bases on Magumaa in which EU have no connection with. 

The complexity around alliances can be looked at through EU, it is not exactly the same but you can easy spot the disaster it will leave behind if pulled through.

Maybe we should try and think outside the box, for the whole WVW that is not messing it up even further?

[Vayne.8563]

1 hour ago, Leaa.2943 said:

So what you are saying is that alliances should be about Magumaa and how to stop them. How does this involve EU? We are not facing Magumaa, we have some really rough problems on our own but they have nothing to do with NA at all.

Our problems in EU is  what alliances is suppose to turn out. EU already enforce this with guilds and groups decided every relink where to move and with who. And it does not work at all because the problem is more complex then just that. On top of that Arena Net decide what hosts get a link and what hosts do not get a link and also target specific server who wont get links for months and in cases year and are also close that long. 

This are two situation where EU can show that play driven is not working nor do Anet driven either. Both of this leave a carnage in EU. And yet you guys in NA want what we have in EU which again is how alliances will work just even more player drinven, more drastic, and NA also add it should be bases on Magumaa in which EU have no connection with. 

The complexity around alliances can be looked at through EU, it is not exactly the same but you can easy spot the disaster it will leave behind if pulled through.

Maybe we should try and think outside the box, for the whole WVW that is not messing it up even further?

No, I can't comment on WvW that I've never played and haven't seen. But human nature is human nature and I'd be stunned if alliances didn't cause major issues in Europe too. We've already seen guilds dissolve over alliance fights in the US, and I can't imagine it won't be as traumatic in EU.

Edit: It wasn't just maguuma either. Back in the day, Tarnished Coast was the third best server in the US, stuck half the time on a server with Jade Quarry and Blackgate, and since we were not good enough to come in second, we'd always end up going down to tier two, then winning in tier 2 and jumping back up to tier 1, where we had little to no hope of winning. Honestly it was exhausting and not fun.

I'm saying bigger chunks of server are going to have this problem whether in EU or NA. There's no way you can convince me that some servers in EU don't have issues like this.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Vayne.8563

[Astralporing.1957]

4 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

No, I can't comment on WvW that I've never played and haven't seen. But human nature is human nature and I'd be stunned if alliances didn't cause major issues in Europe too. We've already seen guilds dissolve over alliance fights in the US, and I can't imagine it won't be as traumatic in EU.

Edit: It wasn't just maguuma either. Back in the day, Tarnished Coast was the third best server in the US, stuck half the time on a server with Jade Quarry and Blackgate, and since we were not good enough to come in second, we'd always end up going down to tier two, then winning in tier 2 and jumping back up to tier 1, where we had little to no hope of winning. Honestly it was exhausting and not fun.

I'm saying bigger chunks of server are going to have this problem whether in EU or NA. There's no way you can convince me that some servers in EU don't have issues like this.

From what we've heard, the server populations Anet is shooting for will be big enough no single alliance will be able to dominate them. Alliance cap is 500 people - no matter how many people guilds in alliance have, only 500 can get in total. There is supposed to be at least 2-3 alliances per side on each matchup, in addition to smaller guilds and individual players - and those alliance groups will change on regular basis.

Consider also, that 500 is also a cap for a large guild, and so far no single guild has ever managed to completely dominate a server. As such i don't see a reason to believe this situation will suddenly change now.

Notice, though, that it does not mean Alliance system will not have its own issues, because, of course, it will. For one, the change will completely kill any lasting server identity. It may strengthen/create guild/alliance identity for WvW, but (as i have already mentioned) it will be less impactful and less visible for most players. This will be especially noticeable for those that aren't be part of those big alliances - and as far as i know they form a really significant part of WvW population currently (perhaps even majority, although i am not really sure about that one). In short, a significant number of WvW players that have the feeling of belonging and identity in the current system will no longer have it after the change. How it might affect their WvW participation and enjoyment rates remains to be seen.

[Vayne.8563]

4 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

From what we've heard, the server populations Anet is shooting for will be big enough no single alliance will be able to dominate them. Alliance cap is 500 people - no matter how many people guilds in alliance have, only 500 can get in total. There is supposed to be at least 2-3 alliances per side on each matchup, in addition to smaller guilds and individual players - and those alliance groups will change on regular basis.

Consider also, that 500 is also a cap for a large guild, and so far no single guild has ever managed to completely dominate a server. As such i don't see a reason to believe this situation will suddenly change now.

Notice, though, that it does not mean Alliance system will not have its own issues, because, of course, it will. For one, the change will completely kill any lasting server identity. It may strengthen/create guild/alliance identity for WvW, but (as i have already mentioned) it will be less impactful and less visible for most players. This will be especially noticeable for those that aren't be part of those big alliances - and as far as i know they form a really significant part of WvW population currently (perhaps even majority, although i am not really sure about that one). In short, a significant number of WvW players that have the feeling of belonging and identity in the current system will no longer have it after the change. How it might affect their WvW participation and enjoyment rates remains to be seen.

 Server identity is the relic of the past, though. When the game launched, servers existed. Now they just exist in Guild Wars 2. ALl I care about right now, is that everyone in my guild has the choice to WvW with us, without necessarily worrying about what server they're on. That' doesn't exist right now. So I don't run WvW events for my guild. I used to, when we were all on Tarnish Coast when the game started. Now, with WvW being the only part of the game locked into server, this makes sense to me. I'm sorry that some people dislike that. I still think it's better for the game. It means full servers are no longer really an issue for example and you can play with your friends. And I think Guild identity is more important than server identity anyway.

People say guilds have no meaning in this game. Now they'll have more meaning, since that's your new server identity. But I've already seen guilds breaking up over alliances and it's not even in the game yet. We haven't even had a beta for it yet. I don't know that server identity would survive alliance identity anyway. The nature of MMOs is change. This game has changed when it went to the megaserver and it's been going that way ever since.  At the end of the day, that change should be completed because, I believe it's better for the game. Whether it's better for every individual in the game, that's another matter. 

I was a big fan of server identity once, until a bunch of guilds transferred from TC and our server identity changes. We're not the same server anyway. I even own the legacy name Tarnished Coaster for my WvW character. But yeah, not the same server. So what good was server identity to me. There are people who want to hold onto what they have, in spite of the fact that they haven't seen what they're getting. If feel like many MMO players fall into this category.

[Drake.4152]

In the Spring 2023 update you wrote the following:

Quote

After the allied visual-effect filtering feature releases on June 6, the team primarily responsible for core game updates will be turning their attention toward completing their most ambitious project yet—a rework of an existing core game reward system.

Is this system the Wizard's Vault we got with SotO or something different we will learn about in a future studio update?