Worlds Restructuring: Finally competitive environment?

[Aeolus.3615]

it is the guilds that go farm off-timezone NA creating this conflict guys, when u have 80 players in one map they know they can ktrain the 2 other  sides because they dont want to fight players in their timezone in a pvp gamemode this is purely stupid.

Solution close NA during a few ours outside NA timezones do the same for EU players will have to adapt to the real timezones servers  (myself included).

 

in NA u have groups that only go to wvw for fights against pvd, if theres players even when they queue that m8 stop them  they move to empty maps, this is the problem of the wvw until this isnt solved no matter how much wvw changes they get gamemode will be problematic, because make n match wont put alliances that have population spikes at the same time against each other, and that should be the main thing in wvw....

Edited January 22 by Aeolus.3615

[Dawdler.8521]

29 minutes ago, Aeolus.3615 said:

Solution close NA during a few ours outside NA timezones do the same for EU players will have to adapt to the real timezones servers  (myself included).

In terms of victory, closing WvW for say 6h every night is only a loss of 6 points advantage over the looser, or 42 points over a week. That’s the advantage you can already have today (ie Monday) for really unbalanced matchups. 

There is no world that win only due to night coverage anymore. The skirmish system removed that many, many years ago.

Well unless you want to factor in psychological warfare, since many people seem to be of a “OMG we lost a fight in SM on reset night the matchup is lost that’s it I’m not playing any more this week you guys all suck!” state of mind.

Edited January 22 by Dawdler.8521

[CafPow.1542]

40 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

“OMG we lost a fight in SM on reset night the matchup is lost that’s it I’m not playing any more this week you guys all suck!”

Lot of those salty bois out there but what can one do except laugh.

Edited January 22 by CafPow.1542

[Aeolus.3615]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Well unless you want to factor in psychological warfare, since many people seem to be of a “OMG we lost a fight in SM on reset night the matchup is lost that’s it I’m not playing any more this week you guys all suck!” state of mind.

it's a bit RNG but still happens :/ NA servers that dont have coverage outside NA will be score doomed against EU and ocx players heavy NA servers, theres even guilds that play to ktrain empty timezones.

Can u imagine if spvp was all about fight in maps with no adversaries? spvp would be full of players that only fight hard on empty maps..xD

Edited January 22 by Aeolus.3615

[Dawdler.8521]

7 minutes ago, Aeolus.3615 said:

Can u imagine if spvp was all about fight in maps with no adversaries?

... dont you win sPvP conquest simply by facetanking the point longer than the enemy does?

[DarkFlopy.8197]

9 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

... dont you win sPvP conquest simply by facetanking the point longer than the enemy does?

Or because your teammates are afking because win trading 🤣

[Nidome.1365]

`Still unbalanced and people seem less likely to respond to defend requests..

All of the bugs, exploits and hacks that have been around for 10+ years are still there. If Anet want to improve WvW should do something about that first.
Anet should also add a proper function to report cheaters in WvW, then investigate the reports and ban cheaters instead of threatening to ban the people who name & shame the cheaters on the forum because they are fed up with Anet's apparent apathy on the matter.

[Biermeister.4678]

Beta stats are flawed over the past few weeks since the Restructure test people are not playing

1. System separates individuals from their guilds.

2. Lack of structured communication in the Alliance 

A-Net should abandon the current WvW restructure and come up with a separate Alliance  system and maps like the original Guild Wars did, and fix current boon ball problems in WvW like use PvP skill template and armor/weapons

But that may be too late for the game 

[Chaba.5410]

22 hours ago, Biermeister.4678 said:

Beta stats are flawed over the past few weeks since the Restructure test people are not playing

So what?  Supposed to abandon a project because players decided they are going to generate flawed data?  And what does this really say about the current server linking system when players chose not to play because they are purposely trying to tank their match?  That flawed too?  Time to abandon server links!

Edited January 29 by Chaba.5410

[TheGrimm.5624]

23 hours ago, Biermeister.4678 said:

Beta stats are flawed over the past few weeks since the Restructure test people are not playing

Flawed in what way? People didn't have their Guilds selected and were sorted in the same group as non-Guilded? Or are you saying people played less? Though I may disagree with it's impacts the bonus reward weeks are used to try and balance the issue with people playing less for various reasons. Did it work or not...? Queues and queue times were nominal over the weeks. 

23 hours ago, Biermeister.4678 said:

1. System separates individuals from their guilds.

Was there a pattern you could see that could be added to the bug list?

23 hours ago, Biermeister.4678 said:

2. Lack of structured communication in the Alliance 

Alliances are shelved and were not part of the test. Since they recommended players join a community guild, was that what you tried or what do you mean?

23 hours ago, Biermeister.4678 said:

and fix current boon ball problems in WvW like use PvP skill template and armor/weapons

You imply boon balls issues aren't in sPvP?

And will have to give a -1 to the amulet system in WvW. This wouldn't balance WvW since you can't balance interactions in such diverse numbers. Try adding a sPvP mode that is 5v5v5 first and see how that works out maybe.

[ZenDrake.8316]

On 1/20/2024 at 3:38 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Now that servers have somewhat equal amount of players and timezone coverage, it isn't necessary for defenders to have up to 30% more combat power

That's one wild stretch. Both Teams I have been matched into are basically dead after 10 pm. Outnumbered on EBG is a very common sight at later hours. The other maps are even more dead.

[Dawdler.8521]

6 hours ago, ZenDrake.8316 said:

That's one wild stretch. Both Teams I have been matched into are basically dead after 10 pm. Outnumbered on EBG is a very common sight at later hours. The other maps are even more dead.

Well only a few more enemies can make you outnumbered. That is common every week of WvW.

Right now, in terms of score NA is actually looking pretty balanced. Not that much variance and fairly spread skirmish wins. EU is looking worse however with much larger score variance, roughly twice as much as NA for the worst I think. 

[Riba.3271]

14 hours ago, ZenDrake.8316 said:

On 1/20/2024 at 4:38 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Now that servers have somewhat equal amount of players and timezone coverage, it isn't necessary for defenders to have up to 30% more combat power

That's one wild stretch. Both Teams I have been matched into are basically dead after 10 pm. Outnumbered on EBG is a very common sight at later hours. The other maps are even more dead.

Yep, that is how WvW will be when people aren't given chance to learn their servers timezones. You don't know when your server has people, so you don't know when to log in. You cannot choose server that befits your timezone either.

I have been telling long-time that 12 solo servers are the way to go since at least the links and relinkings won't ruin the matchmaking and transfer costs. I am not saying Restructuring is good system, but it is fairer than having links. There is finally server environment that allows competition, and it isn't just about where 1000 people transferred to right when relinks where announced.

Edited January 30 by Riba.3271

[RisingDawn.5796]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

I have been telling long-time that 12 solo servers are the way to go since at least the links and relinkings won't ruin the matchmaking and transfer costs. I am not saying Restructuring is good system, but it is fairer than having links. There is finally server environment that allows competition, and it isn't just about where 1000 people transferred to right when relinks where announced.

Fairer yes, better? No.

I think it's half baked, without the Alliance functionality and guilds being distributed unevenly, when the game mode lacks those numbers, to keep things balanced anymore.

[Dawdler.8521]

40 minutes ago, RisingDawn.5796 said:

Fairer yes, better? No.

I think it's half baked, without the Alliance functionality and guilds being distributed unevenly, when the game mode lacks those numbers, to keep things balanced anymore.

I'm not sure how guilds can be distributed evenly without having some sort of overall WR performance data for them over months and months. Or how you can even know the distribution. How do you know that you dont have a guild with 500 peeps of 5000 play hours on your team, but to balance it there are like 2000 players with the same 5000 play hours on the enemy side... but they are more spread out causing outnumbered constantly. I mean what even is "even distribution"? It certainly wouldnt be 500 vs 500 in this case, would it? That would cause vastly differing play hours.... Or its just what they've done and it's not possible to do better without more performance data.

Edited January 30 by Dawdler.8521

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

and it isn't just about where 1000 people transferred to right when relinks where announced.

If there was an outside observer reading this, he would say to you: 

 if your goal is to improve ''balance'' why are you doing all this work and all this mess, and you haven't started ''managing' transfers in the first place?

[Atrom.1564]

Idk so far it is literally not balanced at all (at least from my observation). Before the reshuffle my team was overstacked and we barely had enemies. This time, we are completely outnumbered most of the time. So far, it is literally the same as with having servers. Either you're lucky with a link or your server is stacked anyway or you're getting crushed.

[Dawdler.8521]

29 minutes ago, Atrom.1564 said:

Idk so far it is literally not balanced at all (at least from my observation). Before the reshuffle my team was overstacked and we barely had enemies. This time, we are completely outnumbered most of the time. So far, it is literally the same as with having servers. Either you're lucky with a link or your server is stacked anyway or you're getting crushed.

EU or NA? 

Not NA I presume since at the most moment all their matches are pretty even to the point it would be harder to be more even… well maybe except one tier where red lags behind a bit but even that matchup is nothing bad.

Edited January 31 by Dawdler.8521

[Atrom.1564]

9 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

EU or NA? 

Not NA I presume since at the most moment all their matches are pretty even to the point it would be harder to be more even… well maybe except one tier where red lags behind a bit but even that matchup is nothing bad.

Yea I'm on EU

[Dawdler.8521]

56 minutes ago, Atrom.1564 said:

Yea I'm on EU

Yeah 4 out of 5 matches in EU is pretty uneven, one with almost 100K difference. But in that matchup the leader also has by far the worst KDR while the looser has the best. It doesn’t take big guilds to dominate borders left “empty” because the “fighters” are stacked winning elsewhere.

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Yeah 4 out of 5 matches in EU is pretty uneven

We need to understand what we mean by 'irregulars'. Let's take stock. At the moment if you look at all 5 mu , the most extreme points are T1 green team 57,000 k+d and T2 blue team 43,000 k+d everyone else is there in between. It doesn't look bad to me, although it could and should improve.

If then within those teams and within those numbers of players, there are actually better or more organized groups that lead you to a high K/D ratio rather than a number of victory points accumulated with a substantial difference, in terms of flow and number of players who are playing, it says absolutely nothing.

[Luthan.5236]

I would call it more "balanced environment". "Competitive" is a word I'd prefer to use for game modes like PvP. Where you want to win. Care about the win. And feel like you have contributed something.

WvW - because of the design (you stay only there for a certain time not 24/7 for the whole matchup) - is mainly for the fun and good fights and rewards. Winning/losing is something barely anyone cares. And with the random  server relinking (and later the new restructuring/alliances thing) as a player not joining any guilds you do not even have a real "world" anymore to fight for. Even less motivation.

Declare it finalized and make no further additions - once the alliances system is in place. (Which will still take a few years since they are just at the world restructuring now and alliances have not even been tested.) Then more resources towards PvP - there needs to be more development once WvW players got what they wanted and this system is released.

(A change I'd really still like to see in WvW: Players outside not being able to AoE on top of the walls or that far that they even can AoE behind the walls with some normal combat skill. That always seemed pretty weird. They should attack the walls with siege. Range you when you are in front where there is a direct line of sight. But just attacking behind the wall or very far in the back seems so weird lol. Just remove the whole structures then and make an empty map where people can farm each other for badges lol.)

[Gehenna.3625]

17 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I'm not sure how guilds can be distributed evenly without having some sort of overall WR performance data for them over months and months. Or how you can even know the distribution. How do you know that you dont have a guild with 500 peeps of 5000 play hours on your team, but to balance it there are like 2000 players with the same 5000 play hours on the enemy side... but they are more spread out causing outnumbered constantly. I mean what even is "even distribution"? It certainly wouldnt be 500 vs 500 in this case, would it? That would cause vastly differing play hours.... Or its just what they've done and it's not possible to do better without more performance data.

You make a good point and to add to that, there's no way of telling what future behaviour will be for any player. They might've played for 15-20 hours per week at the same time for the past 2 months but the coming week they are on vacation and they play 40 hours per week also at other hours of the day. Or they could be on vacation away for 2 weeks and not play at all. 

So really there is no way of accurately calculating the populations over a future week. There are many factors deciding player behaviour. And that's aside from imbalances in organisation, skill levels, etc. In essence balance cannot be achieved and "as good as it gets" is the best they can do but they don't really want to admit that I guess.

For me, it's clear now that WvW will forever be imbalanced and the focus of the balancing that Anet does, should be the most egregious things (for me that's boonballs) and not so much server population because there's very little you can do about that imo. There are some things but I see this restructuring as one of the limited things they can do, but it will not bring the results people might expect from it.

[Dawdler.8521]

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

We need to understand what we mean by 'irregulars'. Let's take stock. At the moment if you look at all 5 mu , the most extreme points are T1 green team 57,000 k+d and T2 blue team 43,000 k+d everyone else is there in between. It doesn't look bad to me, although it could and should improve.

If then within those teams and within those numbers of players, there are actually better or more organized groups that lead you to a high K/D ratio rather than a number of victory points accumulated with a substantial difference, in terms of flow and number of players who are playing, it says absolutely nothing.

I try to weigh total score, skirmish win counts and kdr in a diffuse soup. But I won’t claim to have an exact science, no. If one look at specific parts, you don’t really get the truth. A world can have horrible KDR and still win, that says something. A world can have horrible KDR and loose real bad, that says even more. If one look at skirmishes, it can be two worlds duking it out and trading 1st and 2nd places, while the third just drags everything down. Or it could be dominating victory for a world in terms of score, but if one look at how all 3 trade skirmishes in the matchup… it’s not that simple.  Especially not within “moderate” score differences (like 50K, not 100-150K+)

Victory points themselves I ignore - someone always win, someone always loose and it’s too easy to have a lopsided “total victory” when in fact the matchup was fairly even based on the other criteria. That’s just how skirmish scoring work - even if it’s 5000 vs 5001 vs 4999 points and 40+ skirmishes like that later… “bad” matchup at a glance due to VPs.

Edited January 31 by Dawdler.8521

[Riba.3271]

On 1/30/2024 at 8:50 PM, Dawdler.8521 said:

On 1/30/2024 at 8:14 PM, RisingDawn.5796 said:

 

I'm not sure how guilds can be distributed evenly without having some sort of overall WR performance data for them over months and months. Or how you can even know the distribution. How do you know that you dont have a guild with 500 peeps of 5000 play hours on your team, but to balance it there are like 2000 players with the same 5000 play hours on the enemy side... but they are more spread out causing outnumbered constantly. I mean what even is "even distribution"? It certainly wouldnt be 500 vs 500 in this case, would it? That would cause vastly differing play hours.... Or its just what they've done and it's not possible to do better without more performance data.

The funny part is this system is as easy to get numbers advantage as the old one.

You make 500 man guild and just have each guild member have 2 accounts. You put 1 account in one guild with the other ones on another, and play one guild this restructuring, then the other one the next restructuring. Then if you happen to face the server your last restructuring team was supposed to be on, you suddenly have 1000 wvw player advantage.

You can also get massive numbers advantage simply by only playing WvW every 2nd month.

Edited January 31 by Riba.3271