New WvW league structure proposal if WR doesn't work out

[XenesisII.1540]

1. Go back to original single servers, 24 NA 27 EU.

2. Open transfers, always, all day ever day, on every single server, set to one price 2000 gems, one week transfer and skirmish lockouts remain. If you stack a server and get queues 24 hours that's your problem, not anyone elses. If you super stack a server and absolutely beat up the other servers so you get empty maps to ppt, that's your problem, not anyone elses, transfer off if you want to, it'll cost you 2000 gems.

3. Do a round of 3 day matches like they did back at the start of the game in order to determine initial server ranks.

4. Then start a seasonal mode that lasts one or two months, depends what the players want.

5. Separate the servers into leagues, they will only face servers from those leagues for one or two months.

NA League1 - T1/2,  NA League2 - T3/4/5, NA League3 - T6/7/8.

EU League1 - T1/2/3,  EU League2 - T4/5/6,  EU League3 - T7/8/9.

6. Use 1U1D for the league promotions. After the one or two months for the season, the winning servers will get promoted to the higher league the next season, the losing servers will get demoted, you can apply this to the top/bottom two instead. You can either use points for placements and tally it at the end like the tournaments, or simple have it the last week the top winning server 1ups themselves to the next league, or the lowers 1downs themselves.

7. Add server weekly rewards again.  Winning server every player gets 25 tickets, second place gets 20 tickets, last gets 15 tickets. If your server gets promoted to a higher league, or wins league1 at the end of season you get a bonus of 20 tickets. 😏

8. Add a yearly server loyalty rewards for staying on there for 12 months in a row. Make up server logos after their names and add it to a tabard or cloak or finisher or glider or something.

This is a mixture of glicko with it's glicko walls, and tournament structure. Everyone gets to move where they want, everyone gets their "communities", everyone gets to police themselves, deal with the consequences themselves.

🖖

Edited January 16 by XenesisII.1540

[CafPow.1542]

1 hour ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Open transfers, always, all day ever day, on every single server, set to one price 2000 gems, one week transfer and skirmish lockouts remain. If you stack a server and get queues 24 hours that's your problem, not anyone elses. If you super stack a server and absolutely beat up the other servers so you get empty maps to ppt, that's your problem, not anyone elses, transfer off if you want to, it'll cost you 2000 gems.

I’m kinda pro this but….

It reminds me of classic wow. They had a massive bandwagon-movement on the „good servers“. (Or what people thought be good). This resulted in hourlong Qs just to log into the game. You can kinda compare it to the maguuma-phenomenon.

the Problem is, a lot of those „good servers“ are gone by now. It really is like a locust swarm. They bandwagon into the next server and destroy the next one.

this is fine as long as it’s not „my server“… but how do you prevent that? Cause one day, it will be „my server“…

 

maybe we should try to distribute wvw players once kinda equally and then block server switches entirely…? Dunno.

 

PS: in blizzards case, the devs didn’t do a good job of servermanagement additionally but what hopes can we have that anet does it better really?

[XenesisII.1540]

56 minutes ago, CafPow.1542 said:

I’m kinda pro this but….

It reminds me of classic wow. They had a massive bandwagon-movement on the „good servers“. (Or what people thought be good). This resulted in hourlong Qs just to log into the game. You can kinda compare it to the maguuma-phenomenon.

the Problem is, a lot of those „good servers“ are gone by now. It really is like a locust swarm. They bandwagon into the next server and destroy the next one.

this is fine as long as it’s not „my server“… but how do you prevent that? Cause one day, it will be „my server“…

 

maybe we should try to distribute wvw players once kinda equally and then block server switches entirely…? Dunno.

 

PS: in blizzards case, the devs didn’t do a good job of servermanagement additionally but what hopes can we have that anet does it better really?

Wow's classic problem was streamers.

How do you fix bandwagoning from destroying servers? - "World Restructuring". Everyone gets destroyed equally, then put back together for mostly similar population coverages, and you only have to wait one month instead of a year for a dead server to get revived..... but obviously that isn't working yet... 🤭

[CafPow.1542]

1 hour ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Wow's classic problem was streamers.

How do you fix bandwagoning from destroying servers? - "World Restructuring". Everyone gets destroyed equally, then put back together for mostly similar population coverages, and you only have to wait one month instead of a year for a dead server to get revived..... but obviously that isn't working yet... 🤭

I don’t know if it was only streamers. It’s a „flock minded behavior“… this is a very human behavior and understandable.

i just ask myself how i would deal with it properly, some of your ideas you posted seem good as far as i can understand them. But I’m just unsure about the problem overall and if it can be solved properly.

[Chaba.5410]

Wait a second...

Are you plagarizing here? This story sounds familiar.

[XenesisII.1540]

1 hour ago, CafPow.1542 said:

I don’t know if it was only streamers. It’s a „flock minded behavior“… this is a very human behavior and understandable.

Well a streamer with 50-100k viewers decides to play on a server(asmongold), and then other streamers with like 50k(sodapopin) decide to play on the same or different server, how many of those viewers you think will flood those same worlds. Yes players also tend to drift to popular servers for when the initial 2-4 week rush is over and players drop out, they hope they won't be on a dead world. But those streamers made it worse. 🤷‍♂️

[CafPow.1542]

They certainly did yes.

but the behavior stayed even after askongold quit, and for gw2, … well the maguuma-bandwagon works without streamers.

no doubt you have a point but i think both are essential, besides that: both Problems are a Player-made Problem and i doubt, devs can solve this entirely themself.

[XenesisII.1540]

10 minutes ago, CafPow.1542 said:

They certainly did yes.

but the behavior stayed even after askongold quit, and for gw2, … well the maguuma-bandwagon works without streamers.

no doubt you have a point but i think both are essential, besides that: both Problems are a Player-made Problem and i doubt, devs can solve this entirely themself.

There's been dozens of bandwagons over the years, Mag was probably one of the last big ones cause players were fed up getting beat up by them, if you can't beat'em join'em. Most of those T1 servers tend to stay closed for very long periods of time now.

But in any case there's really no point in them trying to make 12 perfect servers to function in one league these days, there's always going to be problems with this in a game mode that runs 24/7 with no real way to enforce same sized teams other than map caps which rarely happens throughout the day. Competitiveness died with this mode 5-10 years ago, most people just want to log on for their two hours for fights, get rewarded, and then be off, a lot are even clueless of their own server status, they just want a tag to lead them around the map, you can even see them posting how lost they are with the WR beta changes.

They could make 2-4 different leagues instead and let players settle their worlds in whichever league. You like the fat blobs and 24hr coverage get to the T1 server, you don't care for blobs and want the roamer life then pick a lower server. Of course there will be lazy guilds that just want to blob and farm people for bags in T4, but can't do much about that, other than avoid them and let their 40 get bored chasing singles.

I just don't know if it's even worth doing WR if they're not going to follow through with other things it's suppose to actually help with, and even if they do, it'll probably be another decade for them to finish whatever. 😏

[CafPow.1542]

I like to do everything really.

large well organized zergs, small clouds, roaming alone….

i come online and adapt to what is there. If there is no tag, i might tag up myself. I am happy with the things that are there, and i don’t know why i always have to have everything available asap. Cause that’s not how life works out mostly but well…

besides that: „winning“ or „losing“ is very irrelevant for me. Why should i care if my server goes up or down a tier? Cause as a single player, i can barely influence that.

if we lose a T3 keep i don’t get salty cause of „muh ppt“, or might just get slightly salty cause we lost a fight.

but especially now during WR, i see a lot of people in teamchat getting angry because in their opinion, nobody cares for ppt, or they care to much. Or whatever reason they pull out their a**…. Then they start blaming commanders, that maybe -just like me- only tagged up cause there was nobody else around at that time and start to flip stuff because they can…

it‘s really going over my head why one can be so sweaty… sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

the fun thing is, even if i lose, as long as i can play, i get all my rewards.

[TheGrimm.5624]

6 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

1. Go back to original single servers, 24 NA 27 EU.

2. Open transfers, always, all day ever day, on every single server, set to one price 2000 gems, one week transfer and skirmish lockouts remain. If you stack a server and get queues 24 hours that's your problem, not anyone elses. If you super stack a server and absolutely beat up the other servers so you get empty maps to ppt, that's your problem, not anyone elses, transfer off if you want to, it'll cost you 2000 gems.

3. Do a round of 3 day matches like they did back at the start of the game in order to determine initial server ranks.

4. Then start a seasonal mode that lasts one or two months, depends what the players want.

5. Separate the servers into leagues, they will only face servers from those leagues for one or two months.

NA League1 - T1/2,  NA League2 - T3/4/5, NA League3 - T6/7/8.

EU League1 - T1/2/3,  EU League2 - T4/5/6,  EU League3 - T7/8/9.

6. Use 1U1D for the league promotions. After the one or two months for the season, the winning servers will get promoted to the higher league the next season, the losing servers will get demoted, you can apply this to the top/bottom two instead. You can either use points for placements and tally it at the end like the tournaments, or simple have it the last week the top winning server 1ups themselves to the next league, or the lowers 1downs themselves.

7. Add server weekly rewards again.  Winning server every player gets 25 tickets, second place gets 20 tickets, last gets 15 tickets. If your server gets promoted to a higher league, or wins league1 at the end of season you get a bonus of 20 tickets. 😏

8. Add a yearly server loyalty rewards for staying on there for 12 months in a row. Make up server logos after their names and add it to a tabard or cloak or finisher or glider or something.

This is a mixture of glicko with it's glicko walls, and tournament structure. Everyone gets to move where they want, everyone gets their "communities", everyone gets to police themselves, deal with the consequences themselves.

🖖

I, am 5 hours late for sleep. You, have had coffee today and I went for just bird wine (water) as it snowed for 12 hours today. So knowing you lol, but holding the rest till some sleep and coffee. 😉 Stay warm.

[Mabi black.1824]

7 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

1. Go back to original single servers, 24 NA 27 EU.

2. Open transfers, always, all day ever day, on every single server, set to one price 2000 gems, one week transfer and skirmish lockouts remain. If you stack a server and get queues 24 hours that's your problem, not anyone elses. If you super stack a server and absolutely beat up the other servers so you get empty maps to ppt, that's your problem, not anyone elses, transfer off if you want to, it'll cost you 2000 gems.

3. Do a round of 3 day matches like they did back at the start of the game in order to determine initial server ranks.

4. Then start a seasonal mode that lasts one or two months, depends what the players want.

5. Separate the servers into leagues, they will only face servers from those leagues for one or two months.

NA League1 - T1/2,  NA League2 - T3/4/5, NA League3 - T6/7/8.

EU League1 - T1/2/3,  EU League2 - T4/5/6,  EU League3 - T7/8/9.

6. Use 1U1D for the league promotions. After the one or two months for the season, the winning servers will get promoted to the higher league the next season, the losing servers will get demoted, you can apply this to the top/bottom two instead. You can either use points for placements and tally it at the end like the tournaments, or simple have it the last week the top winning server 1ups themselves to the next league, or the lowers 1downs themselves.

7. Add server weekly rewards again.  Winning server every player gets 25 tickets, second place gets 20 tickets, last gets 15 tickets. If your server gets promoted to a higher league, or wins league1 at the end of season you get a bonus of 20 tickets. 😏

8. Add a yearly server loyalty rewards for staying on there for 12 months in a row. Make up server logos after their names and add it to a tabard or cloak or finisher or glider or something.

This is a mixture of glicko with it's glicko walls, and tournament structure. Everyone gets to move where they want, everyone gets their "communities", everyone gets to police themselves, deal with the consequences themselves.

🖖

I love you Xenesisll, finally, this post is like a breath of fresh air. The goal here is to imagine a more engaging WVW for everyone. and make it easy for development to deal with. I'd really like to find common ground, to leave no one behind, and embrace all the good ideas that can be added here. So let's start with your point 1.

Let us just pretend for a moment that Anet solves Europe's problem. How many servers do we want for WVW? If I reflect for a moment I tell you, compared to what we are going to today, and if we use a logic of single servers, we can't think of 24 servers, they would not be functional, they would not have enough players, better to consider 12 teams. And if I have to give my advice, I say that it would be better that the limit that defines a full server (for example 2500 players) should be reduced, so we make sure that all the teams fill up better. Unless, with the same logic of reducing the ''full'' threshold, we want to keep 24 teams, and match them again in pairs. From a competitive and community perspective, not much changes. The season and the score anyway affect the individual server and the identity of your server is still guaranteed, even when you have an ally dictated by chance and temporary.

So what do you think is more functional for WVW 12 servers or 24 servers? When and if you respond to this, don't underestimate the feeling of freshness that reconnections bring you on Friday nights. 

Edited January 16 by Mabi black.1824

[Cyninja.2954]

I think most of you are not paying attention. If any of you bothered with looking at ppt (or K/D or activity, etc.) distribution, you'd see that this week so far, even with all the issues (which some of are concerning), balance is miles ahead of regular WvW match-ups. I would also not be surprised if internal metrics showed a lot more even distributed in all areas.

Now pair that with the better future proof aspects of the new system, the adaptability to player numbers, and I doubt the developers will move away from world restructuring. For a mode with thousands of players, a couple of dozen voices is nothing and certainly nothing to listen to.

Going to repeat what I have said in the past: the only thing which will stop wr is the developers deciding they can't pull it off (and some of the issues which still persist to this day are concerning as mentioned). Your suggestions to stay with an dis-functional system are pointless.

Finally pair in the "reboot" nature of the new system, some of which this week has been fun (WvW has a far more less organized feel to it), and I'd be very surprised if wr got shelved. More and more players are also organizing and forming guilds, which indicates more and more players accepting and getting ready for the initial implementation of wr.

But just as with many of those failed cypto scams, everyone is obviously free to hope and believe in what every they want.

Edited January 16 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

balance is miles ahead of regular WvW match-ups

This is most likely true, at the end of the week we will analyze the numbers together.

 

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

the only thing which will stop wr is the developers deciding they can't pull it off

In this post, we're just thinking differently. This doesn't mean you have to abandon a project. We're a little further here. at least I speak for myself. WR is just a tool that you can take advantage of. Whenever you want to reset (restart) the matches the seasons of WVW. With the hope that we can still have a team/server-based WVW. Here we are trying to look at a little bit else.

 

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

a couple of dozen voices is nothing and certainly nothing to listen to.

This is a bit of a double-edged sword. Because I could tell you the same thing when you chose to do WR. or when you voted for the period of 4 or 8 weeks etc etc. as I have already written ( me too ) the whole article of this forum , even exaggerating , represents maybe 5% of 1 server. while we are 24+27 servers.

[CafPow.1542]

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I think most of you are not paying attention. If any of you bothered with looking at ppt (or K/D or activity, etc.) distribution, you'd see that this week so far, even with all the issues (which some of are concerning), balance is miles ahead of regular WvW match-ups. I would also not be surprised if internal metrics showed a lot more even distributed in all areas.

Hey… i didn’t check anything but just an hour or 2 ago, i thought about exactly that. And i tried to ignore my personal feelings about WR and was under the impression that it feels… „more balanced“ if this makes any sense.

so objectively…. The WR is not really bad. But we have to assume ofc, that bugs will be dealt with.

 

now the big downside for me personally is, that a lot of people i use to play with are somwhere else, cause we have a numerous amount of guilds on our server that didn’t coordinate to the same thing. This „scattered“ „my server“… which is kinda meh.

on the other side, i met a lot of new people now, a few are… let’s say toxic but most of them are cool to play with. It’s not just a downside.

restructuring the world will also imply that we restructure and re-organise Communities, Guilds, Teams, Players.

 

Edited January 16 by CafPow.1542

[Mabi black.1824]

59 minutes ago, CafPow.1542 said:

restructuring the world will also imply that we restructure and re-organise Communities, Guilds, Teams, Players.

I completely agree with that. Please make sure it's not every 30 days. 

[CafPow.1542]

Just now, Mabi black.1824 said:

I completely agree with that. Please make sure it's not every 30 days. 

Yeah or… i dunno.

like at the moment i have to join a different discord or teamspeak for every tag i join. I don’t mind really but it’s a bit annoying to not have „that one disc/ts“ you always use.

this will eventually prevent many ppl from joining and when it cones to zerg vs zerg, the one who is entirely in voice will probably win.

but… yeah that’s an issue, the playerbase will have to solve eventually.

[TheIceman.1039]

WR activity is much better if regular wvw had. But they should remove EU 5th tier.. EU midnight can be deadhouse. Way worse if NA off hours.

[Chaba.5410]

It seems like WR splits communities. Or looked at another way, it merges communities. We are all going to become one big WvW community as we get shuffled around and come to know each other. The WvW empire is coming! Pax Romana.

Edited January 16 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

7 hours ago, CafPow.1542 said:

Problems are a Player-made Problem and i doubt, devs can solve this entirely themself.

I don't expect devs to solve this per se. I expect them to fruatrate and/or mitigate these behaviors to keep them from undermining the competitiveness of the game. The choices the game gives to players shouldn't be easy win buttons all the time. Streamers will be limited to the 500 man cap on guilds for players they want to bring along, for example. And we know that a full 500 man is something like only 20-25% of worlds according to an old WR FAQ post.

Edited January 16 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

2 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

4 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

balance is miles ahead of regular WvW match-ups

This is most likely true, at the end of the week we will analyze the numbers together.

Where are you pulling your data from?  The site I usually uses doesn't appear to be working for the beta.

[XenesisII.1540]

6 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I love you Xenesisll, finally, this post is like a breath of fresh air. The goal here is to imagine a more engaging WVW for everyone. and make it easy for development to deal with. I'd really like to find common ground, to leave no one behind, and embrace all the good ideas that can be added here. So let's start with your point 1.

Let us just pretend for a moment that Anet solves Europe's problem. How many servers do we want for WVW? If I reflect for a moment I tell you, compared to what we are going to today, and if we use a logic of single servers, we can't think of 24 servers, they would not be functional, they would not have enough players, better to consider 12 teams. And if I have to give my advice, I say that it would be better that the limit that defines a full server (for example 2500 players) should be reduced, so we make sure that all the teams fill up better. Unless, with the same logic of reducing the ''full'' threshold, we want to keep 24 teams, and match them again in pairs. From a competitive and community perspective, not much changes. The season and the score anyway affect the individual server and the identity of your server is still guaranteed, even when you have an ally dictated by chance and temporary.

So what do you think is more functional for WVW 12 servers or 24 servers? When and if you respond to this, don't underestimate the feeling of freshness that reconnections bring you on Friday nights. 

WR doesn't affect me, I'm not tied to some big wvw guild or alliance, I'm not tied to a server community and pretend I have 500 friends on it, I'm not some big social fiend yapping my head off in chat and think it's my family around me, so if WR goes through so be it. But I am about compromises, and there's people that do fit into those areas of the game, and it's important we try not to displace people so that they lose complete interest in the game. I still think the proposals Anet made back in 2016 for additional small servers for more links made a lot of sense, and actually would work today.

Logically in todays game you need to have links. But some people don't think so and still insist on having single servers, and they want to delete servers with no regard for the players who want to stay on those servers, on the flip side those people that cling to having a server community but don't realize how dead their server would be alone. Well we can have single servers, and if you think your server is dead feel free to move to a higher one. Eventually the empty servers will float to the lower tier and fight those closer to their population ranks. 

I've also supported leaving the double links and stop doing relinks so that the pairs become permanent, so we keep the current structure and simple take off the server caps and open transfers, let the madness happen and let the players sort it out themselves when there's painful consequences. Eventually servers like BG figured it out, their guilds moved, took way too long because they held out hope they would open eventually and just rearm themselves. We should have just had the reverse, let the servers be open all the time, and watch them flee from the mega queues, would have solved the overstack problem in a couple weeks instead of a couple years.

I do think having a glicko wall of old to hold blobby T1 to itself is needed, with the tier promotion/demotions it would only last a month or two depending on what players want, not like a whole year that the glicko wall did, so even if there's anther bandwagon to a mid tier server they probably would work their way back up to T1 anyways. If we want to completely kill bandwagons WR is the way to do it. If we want to compromise on that then the additional smaller servers so guilds can stack their alliances on them, and leave the home servers to the homers is the way to do it.

I'm not touching EU problem it's obvious language barriers is a problem there, but the people in the forums don't want to admit that, every relink they come into the relink thread to complain why they didn't get a link, or why they linked with anther language. So I don't comment on EU stuff anymore, go back to single servers and you all stack wherever you want, move because of language or don't, I don't really care at least you have your options open for your own choices.

I think people need to feel the pain to learn the lessons, it's usually the only way someone will.

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Where are you pulling your data from?  The site I usually uses doesn't appear to be working for the beta.

gw2stat.com

I limit myself to reading the numbers of killings and deaths in the EU of all 5 mu. and I bring you the minimum and maximum value that I read between all 5 mu . I made a post on purpose where I indicated all the values of all beta after beta after beta ( and also absurd values that I detected outside the betas ) I will call it again this weekend.

[Mabi black.1824]

24 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Anet made back in 2016 for additional small servers for more links made a lot of sense, and actually would work today.

So if I understand correctly, we're saying we have more shards to match when we build teams. The bounty that comes next is 36 smaller servers/teams. MU consists of 3 servers vs 3 servers vs 3 servers. I'm fine with that. Let me understand what you prefer. So let's move on to the next point. And let's seriously understand what a competitive WVW could be like with a season, standings, and a new points system that respects itself.

[Chaba.5410]

17 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

So if I understand correctly, we're saying we have more shards to match when we build teams. The bounty that comes next is 36 smaller servers/teams. MU consists of 3 servers vs 3 servers vs 3 servers. I'm fine with that. Let me understand what you prefer. So let's move on to the next point. And let's seriously understand what a competitive WVW could be like with a season, standings, and a new points system that respects itself.

I believe these are the old discussions Xen is referring to:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Hypothetically-Speaking-New-Worlds/first#post6173458
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/New-Worlds

[Chaba.5410]

Kind of funny reading through those old threads...

"The point of a server is to have everyone contribute so no one guild or group is having to financially support that server alone. Maintaining tiers in WvW gets very costly in both time and money spent to do so, so you want to be in a community where more in that community contribute to accomplishing common goals and the costs of siege and supplies spent to map pin every day in WvW for hours on end and being able to have numerous reliable commanders on from multiple guilds during any hour of the day to call for assistance or to take over if needed so you are not stuck doing everything on a server.

The idea of going to an empty world is not appealing as it places MORE financial burden on your guild and MORE reliability on your guild rather than have more people available at any time of day to have that more evenly distributed."

(Illustration of the free rider problem some of us were discussing...)

Edited January 16 by Chaba.5410