World Restructuring Beta will run from January 12 to February 2!

[Khaldris.9026]

22 hours ago, Jokuc.3478 said:

Hey anet remember when you proudly announced

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

Anyway, I'm not that much of a wvw gamer so it doesn't matter to me I'd rather see resources put into instanced pve but hey at least it's good we're getting another beta now. Hopefully it will have some good results.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/studio-update-september-2023/

They told us they didn't want to lock the benefits of the world restructuring behind a UI update, my dude.

If you're gonna wag fingers, at least have your facts straight first.

[Leaa.2943]

So no alliances and only worldrestructions which means we get a eotm set up where we are green, red or blue. Noone will care about anything and guilds will gvg in eotm. But PvE players can play with friends in WvW now. But they wont because there is no tag and they don't have a tag, give me 200 gold and i tag up (the most usual respons in WvW to PvE players demand of comander).

 

So Anet why are we breaking the server system we have where at least 80% of the server care more or less in a way that they work together. Some better then others. Only a few servers do not care what so ever, actually i only know of 1 which is WSR, the rest of all EU and NA servers have some sort of care where they come to defend because there are fights involved or they run guild raids on home becaus they know enemie guilds will come there. But now with the red, green and blue eotm way, i mean we already know how that ended. WvW left and PvE took over and farmed it until you changed it and not even PvE wanted it any longer. So why are we adding world restruction only and break all the servers? 

[Dawdler.8521]

24 minutes ago, Leaa.2943 said:

So no alliances and only worldrestructions which means we get a eotm set up where we are green, red or blue. Noone will care about anything and guilds will gvg in eotm. But PvE players can play with friends in WvW now. But they wont because there is no tag and they don't have a tag, give me 200 gold and i tag up (the most usual respons in WvW to PvE players demand of comander)

... you know we've already had like 3 or 4 betas, right? And they had more WvW activity than the week before and after.

[TheGrimm.5624]

11 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

... you know we've already had like 3 or 4 betas, right? And they had more WvW activity than the week before and after.

I think you go too far here.

So where did you get your numbers that were without the Call of War numbers? Which beta did not include that? How did they compare to the non beta Call of War week? What sites are you using to define these details? What site is tracking numbers and versus bonus stats. Bringing up issues without details and supporting info does not help whether or not I agree or disagree. Being contrary without your own supporting facts just means being contrary. Sorry I disagree and can't even support witty here since the betas have been at best hit or miss at addressing good matches and creating worse matches. Activity that you are trying to use doesn't mean good matches and I would question those numbers all the same. Unless you have a site that removes Call of War players from players that a normal than activity numbers don't have a baseline. 

Don't assume and then try and apply it as fact here, or at least be honest and claim it as asummption or provide a source with number players can verify. 

Edited January 7 by TheGrimm.5624

[TheGrimm.5624]

12 hours ago, Leaa.2943 said:

So no alliances and only worldrestructions which means we get a eotm

Yes.

12 hours ago, Leaa.2943 said:

Noone will care about anything and guilds will gvg in eotm.

Potentially. They are hoping that players will group via Community Guilds to form "Alliances" to keep, players together.

12 hours ago, Leaa.2943 said:

So Anet why are we breaking the server system we have where at least 80% of the server care more or less in a way that they work together.

This is their gamble on how many see things in various points. Server pride, Guild pride, Pub pride. Hey you just attacked Krim, that player is toast.

12 hours ago, Leaa.2943 said:

Some better then others. Only a few servers do not care what so ever

This is where a lot will vary even internally in server.

12 hours ago, Leaa.2943 said:

NA servers have some sort of care

NA is also quite random and will vary between servers and on same server.

12 hours ago, Leaa.2943 said:

So why are we adding world restruction only and break all the servers? 

Because there is no good way to measure if it will add better or worse matches but it has the potential to address the issues that has allowed over stacked servers.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Don't assume and then try and apply it as fact here

It is still objective fact for the beta weeks regardless of you wanting to assume WR without call to war.

What I quoted was also objectivly wrong since WR is nowhere near the EOTM matchup design.

[Puma.5461]

On 1/5/2024 at 5:53 PM, Jokuc.3478 said:

I said instanced. Which gets like, no content at all. Read.

Especially after in instance like silent surf. A silly jumping puzzle followed by a boss that has more health than anything else in the game, and 3 mechanics. A fear, some spinning axes that are easy to avoid, and it teleports around the room. 

On the WvW topic. Its a game mode that's been neglected since they reverted 2/3 of the desert maps back to alpine borderlands. Then they release a GAME BREAKING glider that causes crashes in WvW. Instead of removing the glider, they PUNISH the WvW player and remove gliding altogether. . At the rate we're going, they're going to disable mounts next.

It feels like they're not even trying. Anet letting the WvW community down one day after the next. 

[Lithril Ashwalker.6230]

will we be able to have a new targeting/marking system expanded while in a squad/running one before finalized version?

want to call a target as commander but have entire squad see it regardless of subsquad, maybe make a Take Commander Target?
and/or => have a new subsquad #1-10 take target button so we can see where everyone is focusing targets?

if i have to i can break it down more to explain what i mean.

[Keaira.6943]

11:59 PST am or pm?

[Giaimo.3941]

On 1/6/2024 at 9:28 PM, Leaa.2943 said:

But PvE players can play with friends in WvW now. But they wont because there is no tag and they don't have a tag, give me 200 gold and i tag up (the most usual respons in WvW to PvE players demand of comander).

I dont think thats true, i can speak from my point of view. I have a Guild that mostly plays PvE content together (Raids, Strikes and Fractals). Some of the members do play alot of WvW. At the moment there is no way that we can play together. So im really happy and looking forward to the Beta so we can play together in WvW. Will it be perfect and Bug Free? Probably not, but to be honest, i dont care that much, i just like to play with my friends together. I will also Tag up for sure and im pretty sure im not the only one from PvE Guilds who will be doing this.

At the moment i think mostly Hardcore WvW players are commenting on this Topic, because yeah they obviously care about WvW. Wich is good and i understand why they may be scared about the changes. But i really believe that the longer this will be live in future the better the matchmaking will be and the better Game experience for everyone will be. You will have hardcore WvW Guild's fighting on top and casual Guilds or PvE Guilds playing in lower Tiers against each other. But this will obviously take some time, of course the matchmaking wont be perfect or even good at the beginning, but the longer it will go, the better it will be. 

[Tinker.6924]

Will this allow players to wvw with their guilds when they are on different servers?

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, Tinker.6924 said:

Will this allow players to wvw with their guilds when they are on different servers?

Yes. It should take all players with the same marked WvW guild and group them together for sorting and reassignments onto new worlds/servers. 

[Woop S.7851]

On 1/3/2024 at 11:58 AM, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

Hello Mist Warriors! We are very excited to hear your feedback during the beta and look forward to seeing you in the Mist War!  

Thanks for the hard work, enjoyed the previous betas, looking forward to the next one! 👍👍

Current comments:

1. Right after a players enters a WvW map, need auto-popup UI/guide that encourages joining of active squads/teams, currently commanders have to manually invite players 1-by-1 within range
2. In scenarios which involves multiple commander(s) with an active tag on a single map, auto 'numbering' of tags visually in-game + on mini-map would encourage teamwork. Currently two active commanders on the same map competes for # of soldiers instead of cooperation (internal competition)
3. Need more variety of commander tag designs/shapes, examples: https://symbl.cc/en/collections/symbols-for-nickname/
4. Upgradable commander tag icon skins (new WvW reward track) based on number of followers, battles won, and commanding 'x' number of hours, example styles: https://symbl.cc/en/collections/list-bullets/
5. Add a 'commander player/guild leader board' (similar to PvE) to encourage competition and guild/player prestige, this would encourage guild community building while promoting commanders to lead squads on maps
6. Enable mentor tags for small parties of 5-10 (only visible to party members) who don't yet have commander tags during low-population hours
7. Enable mentor tags inside a squad for lieutenants and scouts, managed by commander
8. Allow # based sub-tags for squad sub-groups in squad, a commander can then have in-squad team-1 to attack a camp while team-2 defends keep simultaneously
9. Need unique visual coloring/silhouette for sub-group teammates. Example: if I am in sub-group 3 in squad, the players the same group would have pink nameplates/silhouettes and appear as pink dots on mini-map, this would allow the group to stay together in big fights. Currently every player in the squad are blue
10. Lower the 5-player requirement for Champion Commander Siege razor to 1-2 players, and auto-activate the NPC when winning becomes 1-sided, preventing prolonged spawn camping by winning side
11. For commander markers, please add number markers (1-10) alongside current 'shape markers', it'd be much easier to coordinate multiple sub-groups on large maps, example: https://symbl.cc/en/collections/numerals/

Legacy suggestions+proposals (with images):

• Commander tag silhouette improvement in big fights: image
• Commander + Squad member 'out of range' visual indicators: image
• Squad Sub-group profession tags/icons/indicator: image
• Squad Sub-group tag using numbers: image
• WvW Commander command radial proposal: image
• WvW LFG panel for quick team-ups: image

*Legacy discussion post+notes:

 

[Mabi black.1824]

On 1/6/2024 at 2:57 AM, Misali.4750 said:

I've always wondered why the devs didn't lean into the name "Guild Wars" more - supporting gvg on a larger scale.

Because the landscape is much wider, compared to a ''miserable'' guild. Guilds cannot be compared, because one is different from another (mine has 10 players, yours has 100 players) and above all because WVW has been designed for extremely inclusive participation in a large room. Valid if you are a single player as if you are part of a guild of 50 players. The sense of belonging to your server is identical for both. 

Of course, the prerequisite, for everything to work at its best, is that the servers are all ''similar'' to each other, that's why many players have written pages and pages of reports and requests over the years. The development's response was WR, don't ask me how they got there, but that's what they chose. And WVW will become a less inclusive place. Everyone will look at their own small and insignificant green meadow. in spite of myself.

[Mabi black.1824]

On 1/7/2024 at 10:00 AM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Because there is no good way to measure if it will add better or worse matches but it has the potential to address the issues that has allowed over stacked servers.

Unfortunately, this is not enough. Even if the development achieves the goal in terms of balance (and we can also remove the ''if'') it still lacks a purpose, the players had a flag and a leaderboard (in the midst of all the problems we know and that the community has asked several times to be resolved. just to make WVW more beautiful.) participated in WVW in a team/server, their server. Don't underestimate the power of participation/belonging. 11 footballers have the power to carry millions of fans. And WVW has been working the same way for years.

P.S. Let's face it, the problem of stacking could have been solved years ago by putting transfers under control. Without making the WVW revolution.

Edited January 9 by Mabi black.1824

[Dawdler.8521]

38 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

participation/belonging. 11 footballers have the power to carry millions of fans.

Until they get bought up and transfer to another team and all those millions stop watching football, I guess? Just like how pro football works. Nobody watches it anymore.

[Mabi black.1824]

33 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Until they get bought up and transfer to another team and all those millions stop watching football, I guess? Just like how pro football works. Nobody watches it anymore.

You're missing out on the forest because you're just looking at the tree. What matters, the belonging and participation of the player/fan are for the jersey that those 11 players wear. The '82 World Cup was won by Italy. Not Paolo Rossi ( even if he made a goal truck ) just for example. Paolo Rossi is like a guild here, it doesn't count for anything. in terms of competition/league/comparison. With these last words, we are talking about purpose/motivation. 

Mind you, I'm just as eagerly awaiting you for WR. I consider it a necessary tool/update, probably indispensable. But, I'm also telling you that it's not enough. It is necessary to contextualize WR within our WVW. as you must be tired of hearing me say by now. Contextualizing it is probably even more necessary than the tool of alliances. Because the risk is to do more harm than good to our favorite game mode.

[Mike.7983]

Do not suppose we can get shared participation removed? Public commander has option to "sell" participation to inactive wall runners.  Therefor clogging up que for actual players wanting to WvW.  Believe the afk into wall and earning credit is looked down upon. Expecting to see negative reactions but someone had to say it.

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 1/9/2024 at 9:26 AM, Mabi black.1824 said:

Unfortunately, this is not enough. Even if the development achieves the goal in terms of balance (and we can also remove the ''if'') it still lacks a purpose, the players had a flag and a leaderboard (in the midst of all the problems we know and that the community has asked several times to be resolved. just to make WVW more beautiful.) participated in WVW in a team/server, their server. Don't underestimate the power of participation/belonging. 11 footballers have the power to carry millions of fans. And WVW has been working the same way for years.

P.S. Let's face it, the problem of stacking could have been solved years ago by putting transfers under control. Without making the WVW revolution.

Not wrong and I am a server side player. There is a whole other conversation that could be had on stats alone with or without leaderboards. Players like to chase numbers and have goals, and agree, most, like to participate. I also agree that transfers will need to be keep in check else any sort logic is doomed since it will be aiming at a moving goal as they try and refine data points that create better numbers and groups. I also hope that we don't see the WR drop and then there is no follow up and additional things add after else all we did is throw everyone out and yes all we got back was EotM V2. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

5 hours ago, Mike.7983 said:

Do not suppose we can get shared participation removed? Public commander has option to "sell" participation to inactive wall runners.  Therefor clogging up que for actual players wanting to WvW.  Believe the afk into wall and earning credit is looked down upon. Expecting to see negative reactions but someone had to say it.

My first thought was what? My second thought was to shake my head thinking yeah if a player can find a way to not use a thing in the way meant for it they will do it. But I think this could be its own thread if you want to try and push for this change. 

[Mike.7983]

58 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

My first thought was what? My second thought was to shake my head thinking yeah if a player can find a way to not use a thing in the way meant for it they will do it. But I think this could be its own thread if you want to try and push for this change. 

Shared participation[edit]

See also: WvW Reward Track

In World versus World maps, a commander or their lieutenants can assign shared participation to a few members, rewarding participation credit for captures even when not in the award zone. An example usage is to assign participation to scouts so that they benefit from the main group's escapades.

• 1 shared participation slot is provided for every 5 players in the squad. (Max: 10 slots)
• Players do not receive double participation for both having shared participation and standing in the reward zone.
• Players must be inside World versus World to receive any benefits.
• Players may receive benefits from within any of the WvW Borderlands; they do not need to be in the same borderland as the commander.

Players receiving shared participation are marked by a special https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/thumb/7/77/Squad_UI_shared_participation.png/16px-Squad_UI_shared_participation.png icon next to their name.

Effectivly you can leech credit and afk wall run entire day, why else do you see them hiding in corner when you zone into wvw.  They need to stop the inactive shared credit.  Let alone some sell it to people.

[multiwickingerhabich.9867]

Anet should leave it alone, the system as it is now is optimal, anet only needs to add the Pve ler achievements that can only be completed in WVW.  Otherwise the collection won't go any further from 1 to 2 wvw achievements per band and anet would have more people in wvw.

[TheGrimm.5624]

21 hours ago, Mike.7983 said:

Shared participation[edit]

See also: WvW Reward Track

In World versus World maps, a commander or their lieutenants can assign shared participation to a few members, rewarding participation credit for captures even when not in the award zone. An example usage is to assign participation to scouts so that they benefit from the main group's escapades.

• 1 shared participation slot is provided for every 5 players in the squad. (Max: 10 slots)
• Players do not receive double participation for both having shared participation and standing in the reward zone.
• Players must be inside World versus World to receive any benefits.
• Players may receive benefits from within any of the WvW Borderlands; they do not need to be in the same borderland as the commander.

Players receiving shared participation are marked by a special https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/thumb/7/77/Squad_UI_shared_participation.png/16px-Squad_UI_shared_participation.png icon next to their name.

Effectivly you can leech credit and afk wall run entire day, why else do you see them hiding in corner when you zone into wvw.  They need to stop the inactive shared credit.  Let alone some sell it to people.

I don't take shared participation even when offered while scouting since I don't need it and when I roam and scout. I understand how it works. My first thought was what tag would abuse it. Which is what made me stop and laugh since players will game the system and that's the part that made me sad to reply. I don't care if we keep it or remove it. But I don't think that this is an issue in the WR beta, hence the create a sperate thread for it.

[meerfunkuhtron.9725]

If someone would like to help me just understand this whole thing, that would be great. And just to clarify - I understand the concept of WR, but I'm finding contradictions within Anet's own announcements that's leaving me with question marks in terms of what to expect.

They said: "[WR will] also give players more agency in choosing who they want to play with on an ongoing basis and allows long-standing communities to continue playing together."
But, they also said: "[WR introduces] a team-building system to the game mode in which players and guilds are programmatically redistributed to new teams (previously known as shards) on a set schedule."

So we can choose our own communities that we can play with long-term, yet the teams we'll be in are programmatically redistributed on a set schedule. My question is, how can we actually choose to continue playing together if our own teams get redistributed from each other anyway?

I guess this is where the whole "you all need to be in the same guild in order to play together" thing comes into play. But here are my concerns with that:
-what if you're part of a guild that doesn't constitute 500 players? I'm assuming that means your guild will be paired with other guilds to complete that 500 player count, essentially similar to how the world linking works now? If so, that to me means that "playing within the community you choose" goes sideways when you're consistently teamed with others who are not of your own choosing. Again, essentially like how it is now. When our server gets paired with another that we don't do well with, a lot of our players become inactive for that duration. It is a constant consequence of Anet deciding who plays with who, instead of giving players full agency here. Is there anything in this system that addresses this?

-how is team distribution affected by guilds with inactive players? For example: a guild starts out strong with a good amount of players, but then half of its population drops from WvW (which happens for a myriad of reasons). Won't this end up in a similar issue that we've already been having, in which players end up in servers/teams that are not populated, especially if the system just bases its team composition on what's on the guild rosters? Unless of course I'm missing some crucial info here.

-connected to the above point, what happens to players who are part of guilds that become inactive in WvW, but with whom they'd like to continue being a part of? Will we have an expanded slot for guilds specifically for WvW teams, or will these players be left with no good choices?

(If some of my questions don't sound right, I'm sorry. I typed this all up in a hurry as I'm supposed to ...well be doing something else heh).
Thank you for any info that can help me understand what they're trying to do here!

[Custodio.6134]

1 hour ago, meerfunkuhtron.9725 said:

So we can choose our own communities that we can play with long-term, yet the teams we'll be in are programmatically redistributed on a set schedule. My question is, how can we actually choose to continue playing together if our own teams get redistributed from each other anyway?

by connecting with the people you met and joining their guild/alliance (or placeholder-guild for now)

 

2 hours ago, meerfunkuhtron.9725 said:

what if you're part of a guild that doesn't constitute 500 players? I'm assuming that means your guild will be paired with other guilds to complete that 500 player count, essentially similar to how the world linking works now? If so, that to me means that "playing within the community you choose" goes sideways when you're consistently teamed with others who are not of your own choosing

getting paired with new people doesn´t prevent you from staying with a consistent playerbase (your WvW-guild you chose to join in order to stick with them). 

 

2 hours ago, meerfunkuhtron.9725 said:

how is team distribution affected by guilds with inactive players?

inactive players do not count towards population. This is already the case, and even more granular with guilds

 

2 hours ago, meerfunkuhtron.9725 said:

connected to the above point, what happens to players who are part of guilds that become inactive in WvW, but with whom they'd like to continue being a part of?

as above: they don´t count for population, as only active players count towards population (this is already the case with servers, and continues to stay a factor with WR)