Jump to content
  • Sign Up

FINAL(possibly) World Restructuring Beta In Q1 2024


Recommended Posts

Stickied post no one reads. Stickied World Restructuring News

The real news post. https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/wvw-update-guild-hall-arenas-and-world-restructuring-beta/

The juicy information.

Quote

That beta will include bug fixes for WvW guild-selection visual issues, several queue failure bugs, incorrect map names being shown in the contact list and guild panel, players being redirected to the wrong map, and various UI issues at reset. We’ve also added some new metrics to our team-building algorithm to help create more balanced matches, taking into account commanders, time zones, and more.

Team Transfers: Once a match has started, there will not be a way for a player to initiate a transfer between teams. Players will need to wait until the next team-creation event or season to be placed with a different guild. To help mitigate this in the short term, we’ll be reducing the duration of a season from eight weeks to four weeks.

Queue fixes for like the 3rd time, 3rd times a charm as they say?

Time Zones will be included in the sorting metrics.

Transfer feature delayed with alliances, season duration from 8 to 4 weeks, woah!

Date changed again from Jan to Q1.

Discuss.

Edited by XenesisII.1540
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

The only question I have is this:

Who the kitten ever called the servers/worlds "shards"?

Baffled me as to why they would throw in different lingo for that. Like some people aren't confused enough about the entire system.

Edited by XenesisII.1540
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Arianth Moonlight.6453 said:

then mag makes a 500 man guild and dominate 27/7 with no opposition because the rest of us have lives an can't be there all day...

But Mag's 500 player guild will only be 1/5 of the team, based on an estimated 2500 players per team.  Even if they have 500 players that spend a lot of time online, they still have to compete for spots on the maps with the other 4/5's of the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Arianth Moonlight.6453 said:

then mag makes a 500 man guild and dominate 27/7 with no opposition because the rest of us have lives an can't be there all day...

Don't worry most of that 500 will be in ebg or waiting afk in the queue for it. Have fun on the other 3 maps. 🤭

Edited by XenesisII.1540
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Time Zones will be included in the sorting metrics.

This is the first novelty, and you forgot to report that they also added the presence of commander tags in those metrics. Another novelty.

Edited by Mabi black.1824
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Transfer feature delayed with alliances, season duration from 8 to 4 weeks, woah!

This is the second novelty. My impression is that they purposely want to force their hand to see how players react to the substantial change. And since at the bottom of the press release they are telling us that they have a future change to our points system in their sights, it gives me the feeling that they already have something in mind with respect to these reduced reshuffle times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Discuss.

For sure, once you've changed the mechanics of building teams, once you've changed the algorithm considering time zones and commanders tags (= organized guilds), you also add that transfers won't be allowed, WVW gets a drastic and indisputable improvement. in terms of balance/flow between teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I question whether 4 week rotation instead of 8 is needed, as the reason why you would recreate is to reshuffle the population imbalances.

But WR addresses this by recreating around those big groups and bandwagoners, so they have no reason to jump servers.

Since there's no transfers at all (until it's implemented down the line), there's basically no huge imbalance that would happen in order to have faster recreates.

It's only there for the new people that join WvW (vets should already be with their guild in their worlds).

So really, do we need 4 week disruptions because of new players? Is there really that much of an influx of new wvw players every month?

Another question related to this, are new players going to be able to pick a world to join? or randomly tossed into one as needed at the time they first join? I'm assuming there's going to be a function to keep the worlds closely balanced for new joiners.

Because players could just make alt accounts to jump to another server to get around transfers. Mind you ftp accounts aren't in good shape for wvw because of meta specs, and paying to upgrade to expansion every time would be insane, but it could still be a thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that there will be a lot of players that haven't got organized prior to the beta, and a lot of guilds that will want to join together into a single larger guild, and that having a few shorter "seasons" will allow all that to happen faster and reduce the number of complaints about having to wait eight weeks to set the right guild, organize into larger guilds, move from their long term guild to the larger guild that everyone else in their guild has already moved to, etc.

Allowing players to "choose" their team on initial entry would be a complete disaster, they almost certainly will be placed according to the team-builder algorithms.  If you want to choose your team you should join a guild on that team before your first foray into wvw.

Edited by blp.3489
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like that we are still on track for Q1 2024. The rest is old news though the details are appreciated as well as the fact that the developers do intent do keep working on the matchmaking algorithm after the initial launch.

Not being able to swap teams mid match-up will be a good test for how players react when they can't simply transfer to greener pastures. A long-term solution here remains difficult to implement which both allows flexibility for players to move as well as keep balance stable. I still am in favor of a  increasing multiplicative system of transfer costs (aka: the more you transfer, the more expensive it gets, significantly more expensive. With a cost reduction the longer a player doesn't transfer. Though this makes alt accounts a larger issue again).

Edited by Cyninja.2954
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, blp.3489 said:

My guess is that there will be a lot of players that haven't got organized prior to the beta, and a lot of guilds that will want to join together into a single larger guild, and that having a few shorter "seasons" will allow all that to happen faster and reduce the number of complaints about having to wait eight weeks to set the right guild, organize into larger guilds, move from their long term guild to the larger guild that everyone else in their guild has already moved to, etc.

Allowing players to "choose" their team on initial entry would be a complete disaster, they almost certainly will be placed according to the team-builder algorithms.  If you want to choose your team you should join a guild on that team before your first foray into wvw.

Yeah doing a few short seasons for people to get use to the new system, and get better organized on a shorter turn around makes sense. The question is how long before transfers become a thing, because the last "temporary" population measure they added(links) lasted 7 years. 🤭🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

So really, do we need 4 week disruptions because of new players? Is there really that much of an influx of new wvw players every month?

I would argue whether there is any point in changing 8 weeks, but at the same time I dont think it makes a lick of difference with 4 weeks. It's what the community voted for all those years ago after all, 1 months relinks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I would argue whether there is any point in changing 8 weeks, but at the same time I dont think it makes a lick of difference with 4 weeks. It's what the community voted for all those years ago after all, 1 months relinks...

That's back when links first started, I wonder how many would still think that 4 weeks is ok today(in fact it's poll time), especially the "server community" people, they already hate the idea of the WR washing machine.

Edited by XenesisII.1540
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

That's back when links first started, I wonder how many would still think that 4 weeks is ok today(in fact it's poll time), especially the "server community" people, they already hate the idea of the WR washing machine.

 

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

They still think it's the year 2012 before the population had dropped so low Anet had to make the links so it's before the poll, I dont count them.

Hey, I am right here. I am watching you two. 🙃 🙂😜😁

Edited by TheGrimm.5624
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...