[POLL] What do you think is the best schedule for World Recreations?

[Dawdler.8521]

25 minutes ago, blp.3489 said:

You have a point.  But... 😁  Are all 12 million or whatever players going to be assigned to teams regardless of whether they have ever played wvw?  If not, will they be assigned a team when they first enter wvw, even if it is mid-season?

It is unlikely to be common, but what about a guild made up of players that have never played wvw but have set their wvw guild?  Will that guild be assigned to a team at start of season?

Is everyone assigned a world today? How does the game tell a “full” world from “very high”? Is the “very high” world missing all its PvE members or something? Can the “full” worlds PvE members even join WvW?

Also it’s like 2 million players and 10 million WSR alt accounts.

Edited November 18 by Dawdler.8521

[blp.3489]

1 minute ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Is everyone assigned a team today? How does the game tell a “full” world from “very high”? Is the “very high” world missing all its PvE members or something? Can the “full” worlds PvE members even join WvW?

Also it’s like 2 million players and 10 million WSR alt accounts.

As far as I know every player has a world/server they selected at account creation or transferred to, so yes, I believe everyone is assigned to a team today.  It is certainly possible that the team making algorithm will assign every account a team and maybe they'll do that.  It is also possible that they will only assign guilds and individual players that have played wvw - possibly within some set timeframe, and then assign players and/or guilds with no wvw history when they first enter wvw.  If they wait until they first play then it opens the possibility of adding them to teams that are currently not performing well.  Whether that would be a benefit is hard to predict.

As far as I know the current system assigns everyone on a server to a team without regard to playing time.  I don't see a reason to conclusively presume that the new system will assign every account to a team at the start of each system.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, blp.3489 said:

As far as I know every player has a world/server they selected at account creation or transferred to, so yes, I believe everyone is assigned to a team today.  It is certainly possible that the team making algorithm will assign every account a team and maybe they'll do that.  It is also possible that they will only assign guilds and individual players that have played wvw - possibly within some set timeframe, and then assign players and/or guilds with no wvw history when they first enter wvw.  If they wait until they first play then it opens the possibility of adding them to teams that are currently not performing well.  Whether that would be a benefit is hard to predict.

As far as I know the current system assigns everyone on a server to a team without regard to playing time.  I don't see a reason to conclusively presume that the new system will assign every account to a team at the start of each system.

Either way it's pretty irrelevant. Worst case scenario, you have a "hidden" 500 man guild that suddenly activate, but that's just going to disrupt it for 4 weeks tops anyway, then it's going into the sorting algorithm again. Guilds constantly do the same with transfers today and Anet does the same with links every 8 weeks.

I'm guessing it's as simple as people not having selected a WvW guild and not having been in WvW for a full season get "unassigned" and becomes "PvE only" until they will join again and get assigned a random team. That way you cut down on the sorting algorithm ALOT instead of trying to fill out teams with people that hasnt been in WvW for like 3 years. Even if you tick your WvW guild before you enter you're still not going to be with that guild. It's still random until next reshuffle. Those who have selected their WvW guild probably have far more time but it wouldnt surprise me if there is a limitation too, like "you havent been in WvW once in 6 months, you need to join this season to be with your guild next or you're going to end up random until the next reshuffle!". Dont believe Anet has talked about that though.

But again, pretty irrelevant. We've had betas. This "cut-off" is somehow already in there because well the beta worked and I'm pretty sure anyone could join WvW even if they hadnt for years.

Edited November 18 by Dawdler.8521

[Custodio.6134]

Well, from what i´ve experienced, depending on who your get linked with the course of the linking often seems to go like this: 
 

• upon relink: lots of activity
• after the first ~2 weeks: activity starting to decline
• after 6 weeks: greatly decreasing activity, getting worse and worse especially in week 7
• week 8: basically dead (since no one really cares about the final matchup as it doesn´t matter anyway; which does make sense)
   

especially in the last 2 weeks, unless it's a massively positive linking from the start (for example because there´s lots of guilds knowing each other that align well, and the communities also really fit together in their playstyles) things usually get pretty rough, and people are starting to get tired of the current link. 

So based on that, i´d suggest 6 weeks (the same that was proposed by ANet in one of the first posts about WR)

[Arya Whitefire.8423]

I think the only schedule that would even begin to fix things is something like: 3-8 hour matchups during the week.  And maybe you could run some portion of the weekend as a long "old school wvw" matchup.

 

[Riba.3271]

9 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

18 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

There are 2 viable choices:

1) Every week. It will be proper fair matchmaking gamemode. Unfortunately score will be just fluff, but this applies to any system where servers aren't at least semi-permanent. Probably will lead to death of WvW as only people who will still play are people who tag up when enemy already has a commander, but that is clearly main goal of destructuring anyways.

2) Very rarely (6+ months or never). Community based WvW where you train the pugs, promote voice comm adress, share builds and try to fix your servers problems. Any shorter timeframe will just make it impossible to get decent amount of people outside your initial group on same page and voice comms.

Can you not just substitute "guild" for "server" and work on organizing your guild, including recruiting players - perhaps especially from your current team, and help with training the guild members?  All the results of your efforts with your guild will still be with you after the next round of team making.  With up to 500 players per guild there is a lot of room for building up a group, you probably wouldn't be able to work with more than 500 members of your server anyway.

If you're a good leader then any properly managed guild will grow so strong that it will become boring. Server based gameplay provides decent opposition around the clock, guild based not so much. There are reasons why pug tags still exist and strongest guilds tend to abadon the game. The timezone for competitive environment are just too narrow and matchups where there are tryhard opponents happen maybe once a month.

To combat this infrequent decent opposition, groups have always extended their influence to not just allied servers, but also enemy servers, by making rivalries and building competitive tiers. But all of this will be gone with completely randomized allies and enemies.

Part of joy of being part of a server is that you get to stand with the weak and there is possibility of compromise between different groups. If relinkings are very frequent, then the impact you to groups outside your immediate guild members are very little. In addition to this if the variance of quality within your and enemy groups is small, the game also becomes monotonous.

Overall building a guild is a great accomplishment for some players, but it is still a very small dream with very repeating gameplay. What is next? Throwing bigger dreams such as having key position in whole empire, building competitive tier or influencing other guilds choices out the window, will just be a big disappointment. You can dream big and build a star, but never get to shine.

Edited November 19 by Riba.3271

[blp.3489]

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

If you're a good leader then any properly managed guild will grow so strong that it will become boring.

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Overall building a guild is a great accomplishment for some players, but it is still a very small dream with very repeating gameplay. What is next? Throwing bigger dreams such as having key position in whole empire, building competitive tier or influencing other guilds choices out the window, will just be a big disappointment. You can dream big and build a star, but never get to shine.

You have far far more experience with this than I so I may be out in left field, but...  Are you sure that the dynamics of the guilds that you are familiar with compare to potential 500 player super-guilds that could potentially start being built once WR is in place?  Who knows if it will happen but there is the potential for quite a few very large guilds being created and matches involving those guilds might be quite different in scope than with typical guilds currently.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't imagine that you are dealing with more than 500 of the players on your server anyway?

[Dawdler.8521]

8 hours ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

I think the only schedule that would even begin to fix things is something like: 3-8 hour matchups during the week.  And maybe you could run some portion of the weekend as a long "old school wvw" matchup.

That would break the very core of what WvW is.

The idea of the 24/7 week matchups is that everyone can take part of the matchup. There's no "well I wasnt here for the last 10 3 hour matchups, why should I care about the next matchup?" 

But also - what exactly do you mean by matchups?

Reschuffles every 3 hours lol? Yeah that will surely fix things for server pride peeps. 

Otherwise we already have 2 hour skirmishes.

Edited November 19 by Dawdler.8521

[blp.3489]

5 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Otherwise we already have 2 hour skirmishes.

I wonder if there is a way to make people care about/more explicitly reward winning the 2 hour skirmishes?  Or at least making gains, or minimizing losses to the extent possible, during the 2 hour skirmishes.

If we accept that, beyond manipulating the 1up/1down system, people don't care that much about the match scores, and indeed are a little frustrated that anything they accomplish during their play time is more than likely to just be lost during off hours, maybe we need to narrow the focus down to a timeframe that is closer to the time that players are online for and at least have some degree of agency over?

[XenesisII.1540]

4 minutes ago, blp.3489 said:

I wonder if there is a way to make people care about/more explicitly reward winning the 2 hour skirmishes? 

Shower them with gold, apparently that's the way to get people interesting in "winning".

[Arya Whitefire.8423]

On 11/19/2023 at 3:50 AM, Dawdler.8521 said:

That would break the very core of what WvW is.

The idea of the 24/7 week matchups is that everyone can take part of the matchup. There's no "well I wasnt here for the last 10 3 hour matchups, why should I care about the next matchup?" 

But also - what exactly do you mean by matchups?

Reschuffles every 3 hours lol? Yeah that will surely fix things for server pride peeps. 

Otherwise we already have 2 hour skirmishes.

I mean remix every 3-8 hours during the week.  Dropping guild sizes to 30-50 would also be nice.

The WR + week long matchups will just turn into EOTM 2.0.  At least in NA, maybe EU is magically different.

 

I should add that a specifc purpose of the 3-8 hour matchups, is that you can increase and decrease the number of worlds based on the expected active playerbase during each time segment.

Edited November 21 by Arya Whitefire.8423

[XenesisII.1540]

At that point you might as well retire wvw and just run 25v25 instances.

[CrimsonOneThree.5682]

What you describe would be EoTM 2.0 though.

Quote

I mean remix every 3-8 hours during the week.  Dropping guild sizes to 30-50 would also be nice.

The WR + week long matchups will just turn into EOTM

 

Edited November 21 by CrimsonOneThree.5682

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

I mean remix every 3-8 hours during the week.  Dropping guild sizes to 30-50 would also be nice.

The WR + week long matchups will just turn into EOTM 2.0.  At least in NA, maybe EU is magically different.

Since you are suggesting something that “remix” 50 times more often than EoTM I’ll just assume the above was said as a joke.

[Yasai.3549]

Should be shuffled weekly. People who play WvW want to win, but don't necessarily wanna stomp the same matchup 4 weeks in a row and fall half asleep doing so. Having a reshuffle every week for a fresh fight experience with new Alliance matches will keep every week exciting to some extent. 

One week you can face an alliance with siege humpers. Next week you face people who are hellbent on using only Rangers for all you know. 

[Arya Whitefire.8423]

1 hour ago, Yasai.3549 said:

Should be shuffled weekly. People who play WvW want to win, but don't necessarily wanna stomp the same matchup 4 weeks in a row and fall half asleep doing so. Having a reshuffle every week for a fresh fight experience with new Alliance matches will keep every week exciting to some extent. 

One week you can face an alliance with siege humpers. Next week you face people who are hellbent on using only Rangers for all you know. 

Once a week would be cool too.  Being stuck on one of the bad teams shouldn't last 4 weeks.  Cause people just stop playing ....

But, 1 week matchups, even down to 1 day matchups, will still have a lot of people fighting doors during their play time.   If you want to fix coverage, off hours needs to have less matchups going.