Worlds Restructuring or no Worlds Restructuring? What are even the differences?

[MeGa.8730]

Hello everyone ,

I am writing this to know if there is anyone who feels like me, that match ups didn't get better, it's the same, you are playing on dead server or enemy is dead, quality of matchup is more or less the same. The game has fundamental issues with performance and all we get is such a pointless thing, called world restructuring. The game has the same meta for the past year, nothing has changed and nothing will bring vindis' heals, bring zerkers, bring holo bunker up dps. What has changed? Nothing! I am so disappointed and have always been, and world restructure didn't fix anything and will never do.

 

[Dawdler.8521]

39 minutes ago, MeGa.8730 said:

and world restructure didn't fix anything

Designed to lower the gap between lowest and highest populated worlds. That is it. Did you expect it to fix anything else? 

WR is like people entering a McDonalds and then complain when they realize they are not selling any Teslas there.

[Riba.3271]

Differences between 3 systems

Linking system (CURRENT SYSTEM)

Every 2 month everyone transfers around

Completely terrible matchups 2 weeks out of 4

500 gem pocket change transfers to highest populated linkings

Beta server stacking, every alt and bunch of mains just transferring to next link of whoever has highest kill ratio.

World Restructuring (NEW SYSTEM)

No clue when to log in for best activity from both allied and enemy sides

1000 different discords, 4 different languages and completely disorganised action

Meaningless to play for points: teammates and server change anyways. Actually playing for tick hurts your playerbase for killing hours.

No transfers, so no leech stacking. You can't leech a guild or a community since they can also kick you.

Bad matchmaking 2 weeks out of 4.

GIGACHAD MONOSERVERS (ORIGINAL SYSTEM)

Absolute choice about which team you wanna be: Choose best server!

High transfer costs to big servers and stacked servers are FULL!

Know your teams and enemies timezones and commanders. Know what you get and when to log in!

1 discord, 1 language, stable guild base. Perfect team communication.

Stable team, so you can build community: Guidelines, communication, future plans, training, guild coordination. What do you want your server to be?

Great matchmaking. You will only face servers close to your own tier.

Capture objectives and you're not punished for playing extra hours! Your team doesn't get smaller by doing this! Every hour you play, is profit for your server, and not taken away by getting less allies next relinking or restructuring!

Edited January 31 by Riba.3271

[Sugar Min.5834]

2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Designed to lower the gap between lowest and highest populated worlds. That is it. Did you expect it to fix anything else? 

WR is like people entering a McDonalds and then complain when they realize they are not selling any Teslas there.

Bad example. A better example would be WR is like people entering a McDonalds and then complained when they realized that their highly marketed delicious new fish burger is just same old but with tomato ketchup instead of  tartar sauce.

[Dawdler.8521]

14 minutes ago, Sugar Min.5834 said:

Bad example. A better example would be WR is like people entering a McDonalds and then complained when they realized that their highly marketed delicious new fish burger is just same old but with tomato ketchup instead of  tartar sauce.

And the fish burger was marketed with ketchup in that case.

[SweetPotato.7456]

4 hours ago, MeGa.8730 said:

Hello everyone ,

I am writing this to know if there is anyone who feels like me, that match ups didn't get better, it's the same, you are playing on dead server or enemy is dead, quality of matchup is more or less the same. The game has fundamental issues with performance and all we get is such a pointless thing, called world restructuring. The game has the same meta for the past year, nothing has changed and nothing will bring vindis' heals, bring zerkers, bring holo bunker up dps. What has changed? Nothing! I am so disappointed and have always been, and world restructure didn't fix anything and will never do.

 

another thread calling for nerf pretending to be about world restructuring.

[Sugar Min.5834]

4 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

And the fish burger was marketed with ketchup in that case.

But I like tartar sauce 

Edited February 1 by Sugar Min.5834

[CafPow.1542]

13 hours ago, MeGa.8730 said:

Hello everyone ,

I am writing this to know if there is anyone who feels like me, that match ups didn't get better, it's the same, you are playing on dead server or enemy is dead, quality of matchup is more or less the same. The game has fundamental issues with performance and all we get is such a pointless thing, called world restructuring. The game has the same meta for the past year, nothing has changed and nothing will bring vindis' heals, bring zerkers, bring holo bunker up dps. What has changed? Nothing! I am so disappointed and have always been, and world restructure didn't fix anything and will never do.

 

For me it feels more or less the same. 2 expectations:

1) more cloud fights cause there is a ton of discords now and not only 1 and most people (me included) don’t join every discord server on earth for a bit of zerging. I DO like cloud-fights a lot tho. Way funnier than boonball vs boonball.

 

2) basically the same only the players i see are not the players i am used to know from my server. I kinda „miss“ the known ppl but on the other hand, meeting new frens is neat.

[Nuchre Bumbling.9807]

I'm with Mega; Alliances don't seem to solve any problems and create new issues as people don't know each other or the Discords. On Moogoloo, I haven't seen any open tags with Discord at all and this has been generally true the whole beta.

It may be that some very strong 500 person WvW guilds will enjoy the new system but even if the entire guild stay together that's only a fraction of one server population. If you had guilds of 2000 then theoretically you could form a likeminded group. However, if that were the case people would have to take turns to get on and queues would be enormous.

The main issue with old system for me was total really bad matching. Over Christmas FoW and WSR were both matched with really strong partners creating two near invincible guilds. FoW were in T1 and WSR in T5. Because the match-ups were so one-sided servers were desperate to get into a tier that didn't include either server. In the brief match-up after both WSR and FoW were left to play by (with) themselves and FoW were nowhere near as intimidating but to their credit (begrudgingly given) WSR were still dominant.

The big issue for me is that everyone wants to win 70% of the time so we all like to play against opposition that is weaker than us but not so weak that it is too easy. As rewards are the same whether you are in T1 or T5 weaker servers deliberately try to get relegated when they find the going too tough. If there were rewards given to incentivise people to win then people might try and improve rather than look for weaker opponents. Just as a suggestion have a set of sparkly, flashy, highly coloured infusions that become progressively more difficult to obtain so winning T1 5 times gets you first, then 10, 20 etcetera. Just a thought,  

 

[Zepoolpe.9217]

Call me Mr Grumpy but this discussion is kinda useless because whatever happens or not with this World Restructuring BS, you are still faced with constant combats with oob specs vomiting boons and auras Anet has shown no capability of fixing and an environment that is increasingly full of bugs and exploits Anet has shown no interest of fixing.

Edited February 2 by Zepoolpe.9217

[Fizzee.1762]

I've said many times that the best solution to the bandwaggon kitten matchup system we have, was to simply merge the link servers and go back to single servers with single populations.
Also make /t chat work outside WvW so you can recruit and call to arms in PvE like back in the day!

However people (including a dev who joined our squad while discussing this) suggested this was a bad idea because people on the servers which are getting deleted would be upset about them losing their "community" and being merged into another server...
Yet the solution being implemented deletes ALL servers and the communities on them, not just half of them... idk....

So, as they are unwilling to simply merge dead servers and go back to mono-servers, WR is the next best option.
It's not perfect at all, but if you find a group to play with and join an "alliance" guild, then it's at least better than the current system.

[Zepoolpe.9217]

27 minutes ago, Fizzee.1762 said:

However people (including a dev who joined our squad while discussing this) suggested this was a bad idea because people on the servers which are getting deleted would be upset about them losing their "community" and being merged into another server...
Yet the solution being implemented deletes ALL servers and the communities on them, not just half of them... idk....

Standard Anet logic... it was the same on boon generation: "we understand you when you are saying that there are too much boon generation in the game" and they had another go at nerfing boon ripping.

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, Nuchre Bumbling.9807 said:

It may be that some very strong 500 person WvW guilds will enjoy the new system but even if the entire guild stay together that's only a fraction of one server population. If you had guilds of 2000 then theoretically you could form a likeminded group. However, if that were the case people would have to take turns to get on and queues would be enormous.

But as you say it’s a fraction of the population…. Your 2000 man comparison make zero sense, since that’s world size lol. We have those in regular WvW. The entire concept of why WR exist is that you already stack that “2000 man like-minded group” and we need smaller chunks to combine instead.

This is just my personal reflection in general, but I keep being surprised at just how many people recognise the problem, know the solution and then refuse to accept it (often followed by suggesting their own solution that’s WR with different words).

[TheGrimm.5624]

21 hours ago, MeGa.8730 said:

Hello everyone ,

I am writing this to know if there is anyone who feels like me, that match ups didn't get better

The question here is how you measure this aspect.

Better as in more fights? Fights in the first two weeks were closer and probably higher than normal. Week 3 was more lopsided and felt less than norm. I am sure that varied server to server. Now why you might ask? Lots of reasons. Beta may have people care less, different groups run with different mind sets and some of the attributes they might be storing for sort use wouldn't be able to account for things like roles and goals. 

Better as in more coverage? This was mixed in week 1 & 2 and seems further off in week 3. Again the why equation here is varied and could probably write a book on that like above.

Better in more tags? In more attacks, in defenses and so fourth and so fourth? Better in end of week positioning? Better is easy to use, hard to quantify versus just easy to qualify. Take even if you just use activity. If you take a bunch of groups that are just looking to take objectives and then put them against other servers that might have similar groups you might have more objectives flipping and see less fights. Flip the coin if they rolled up by accident a number of servers that are more defense orientated then again you might have less fights. Add to that there were already no reasons to win on top of beta weeks with no reasons to win and it again could impact activity. 

21 hours ago, MeGa.8730 said:

, it's the same, you are playing on dead server or enemy is dead

Didn't see this week 1 or two and saw this more on week 3. The why? Could be lots of things.

21 hours ago, MeGa.8730 said:

, quality of matchup is more or less the same.

Mixed here so mileage varies.

21 hours ago, MeGa.8730 said:

The game has fundamental issues with performance

Saw some massive full map zerg 3 way fights in SMC with 0 performance hits. Saw some small 5 v 8s with massive performance hits. AWS, game, players, third party items.....yes this is the same with WR or without. Not party of what the WR is trying to address. 

21 hours ago, MeGa.8730 said:

The game has the same meta for the past year, nothing has changed and nothing will bring vindis' heals, bring zerkers, bring holo bunker up dps.

Balancing, meta changes are not part of the WR and though people still keep trying to bring these topics here, they class forums are probably a better place for that kind of threads if you want to see change. I feel pretty good that the balance devs are more likely going to be looking there for changes to classes in the various game modes. WvW included. Some of us want the WR to either get done or not to get to other changes in the game mode that might be behind it. 

21 hours ago, MeGa.8730 said:

What has changed? Nothing!

The groups of weeks didn't play the same as normal server play and the two separate tests didn't play the same as each other as well. The devil will be in trying to figure out the why and the how to define that answer.

21 hours ago, MeGa.8730 said:

I am so disappointed and have always been

You might want to consider how much of your disappointment then is in the WR and how it played out versus your own statement that you prefer they be working on other things. Good news is the WR team and the balance team are not the same. So the changes you might be looking for may not be dependent on the WR and it might be better to be more active in the class part of the forums if you want to give more feedback on that and see changes to classes.

21 hours ago, MeGa.8730 said:

, and world restructure didn't fix anything and will never do.

Can't answer that one since we don't have numbers that Anet has access to. How many servers did it unstack during the test? How much did it address coverage issues?

Good hunting.

[Skeptic.5437]

The world restructuring helps to get rid of the server system and transfers to different servers. The only thing we need to do now is joining a guild. (no costs for players thats a big plus)

Now comes the tricky part of the system:
You play primarily with that guild. They current system allows server communities. These server communities will switch to "guild communities". Guild communities are limited to 500 accounts.
The trouble comes now, that these communities are either big casual communities, which have multiple commanders with "public" tags
OR guild communities of dedicated wvw raiding guilds with their schedules and less public tags.

Both communities have their advantages and disadvanteges for their players.

The current state of WvW is still based on the server communities and the thought of those. If servers leave for the guild communities these will sort themselfes out as well. It'll take some time though and might cost some players. Will the mode die? Not sure.

Prolly a better system for WvW might be like EotM works. Have guilds chose either Red, Green or Blue and have overflow maps.
Only issue here: unbalanced teams.
GW1 had it figured out with Luxon and Kurzick, they were mostly balanced threwout the games active life.
Threeway systems always end the same: one faction is extremly strong, the two other factions band together on one faction to get rid of first faction resulting in one dead faction one stacked faction and one a bit less stacked faction. (New World has the same issue for example)

To balance the whole system I guess there is a complete rework of the current system needed away from 3 factions to 2 factions and new maps and all.

[TheGrimm.5624]

24 minutes ago, Skeptic.5437 said:

To balance the whole system I guess there is a complete rework of the current system needed away from 3 factions to 2 factions 

When you look at a 2 side versus 3, the odds have a potential to go up in favor of one or the other having more population and that growing worse as some players will look to just have more numbers to stack the odds.  With the three sided system we have chance at sides 2 &3 grouping up to fight 1. We often see 1 & 2 going for 3 though, because it is easier. Which isn't the smart play if you want to win. Which brings us full cycle. There is no reason to win. This are no mechanics to reward 2 & 3 to try and be 1 and therefore why go for the side on top? For three sided style games there needs to be a drive for players to look at two groups and say, go for the big one.

[TheGrimm.5624]

32 minutes ago, Skeptic.5437 said:

and new maps and all.

🙂 More maps would be welcome by some and not by others. +1 from me there of more maps. 

[CafPow.1542]

4 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

🙂 More maps would be welcome by some and not by others. +1 from me there of more maps. 

+1 aswell

 

@topic the 3 weeks where fun, really cool, but i also got salty more often so i don’t know if i like it or not

[Wolfofdivinity.6251]

Server pride is the only negative I see and feel from these last few weeks. It's clearly non existent. This may be less of an issue for bigger guilds. But I'm in an exclusive roaming guild (smaller as you have to perform at a higher level to be accepted) that prides itself on hunting gankers and zerg busting. 

 

We all feel less motivated to log in and deffend our lands and these faceless people we care nothing for. I've probably logged in once this week. Been playing more Hell Let Loose than anything because it's just sucked the fun out of roaming.

 

Other than that clearly the activity and lack of transfers has been great. However how long until big guild learn to manipulate this system and stack? 

[AlCapwnd.7834]

When implemented (and now) you will (should have) join(ed) a WvW guild and play with whoever you selected to be your WvW guild for that matchup. If you Do not have a guild when WR goes live. You will be placed on a server that most likely does have an active guild running. Join their guild and be part of the WR and fight with them.

[RisingDawn.5796]

I really tried giving it a chance, but it has just been a not much better experience, little progress has been made, not surprisingly.

No matter the duration of the beta, they could of done longer betas recently and you would see the same  result.

It feels too little, too late IMO, whereas they should maybe tweak the Linking system better, even merge servers, rather then bring in a half baked WR system.

It doesn't even seem to help  balance things any better, after several betas, especially without the Alliances functionality. 

I['ve heard some Servers/matchups, were really dead, whilst a Server I was on had 3 different Discords, to join..

 

Edited February 2 by RisingDawn.5796

[TheGrimm.5624]

8 hours ago, CafPow.1542 said:

@topic the 3 weeks where fun, really cool, but i also got salty more often so i don’t know if i like it or not

Salty can be a mix. When I face that I have to ask myself why? Was it that I assumed something of others? Did I expect one result and see another? Was it in attitudes? In text or chat? But salty is fair and is normal in week to week fights. Its what adds to the 'get them' factor that can be fun over the long run and the back and fourth. This is an aspect that players are concerned is lost in the WR. The server you have vendetta against was just remade. .....who cares now. But for other salty factors it could be player interactions on your side. 

The betas had a lot of the various forms of salt, chat being a big one. I can understand that. With your given server you grow used to various banter back and fourth. From there its easier to understand snark, banter, tease, joke, jib versus actual negative interactions. When they scatter us about you are back to taking things based on words exchanged while it might be two people bantering that may seem worse from a perspective of not seeing them do this before and doing it for fun. 🙂 This happens on Forum Wars 2 as well. I fully admit to seeing others posts in the wrong light over time and missing their points since they were applying a point in a different way. After getting to know them better it all makes more sense. In World Linking it also makes it more fun to connect with Forum Wars 2 friends as it has been fun to connect with server friends that you also didn't know were also Forum War 2 peeps. Shared connections, it's a thing. During the betas, I would take all in game comments with a grain of salt. Since in might be not knowing various players and their interactions on the same server.

The betas mixed different languages, tactics, goals, time zones, roles, tags, group size and more. I would expect more varied chats that would/could incur more salt. So, no that is not on you. What you do from there? That's where the question comes in and is varied. 🙂 

Good hunting!

 

[CafPow.1542]

I know but i sometimes just get salty. When i can’t manage to kill somebody although i feel i should. Or when your local „roaming squad“ ganks you while trying to turn a ruin for the weekly etc. etc.

most of the time i just shrug it of and smile but sometimes my skin is thin and i get salty, then i just leave.

 

i also get salty when i get constantly outnumbered cause no matter what, there is not a lot to do then. I kust do something else with my time when this happens.

[Mabi black.1824]

9 hours ago, Wolfofdivinity.6251 said:

Server pride is the only negative I see and feel from these last few weeks. It's clearly non existent

I don't know which forum you've been reading in the last few weeks, but honestly it seems to me just the opposite. Players never seen before have shown up on the forum to ask what we are doing with WVW. The point should be not to deny how one player interprets this mode compared to another player. You're itinerant on the hunt for other grankers groups. I can't say what's more useless about this mode, in reference to how I personally interpret it.

So should I deny you that you can play it this way? With the only result of seeing moving away from this game mode? I would say that it is not the right solution.

Many players are invested with server pride (thankfully), they feel involved and feel like a small part of a big server. And in this they build their motivation and purpose to participate in this modality. in so many different ways. Denying it, it's just stupid, because you're pretending that WR (while improving 'balance') isn't leading you towards another kind of problem, which will completely run over you. Like my big sword 3 when it passes over you. 😉

 

Edited February 2 by Mabi black.1824

[Dawdler.8521]

8 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I don't know which forum you've been reading in the last few weeks, but honestly it seems to me just the opposite. Players never seen before have shown up on the forum to ask what we are doing with WVW. The point should be not to deny how one player interprets this mode compared to another player. You're itinerant on the hunt for other grankers groups. I can't say what's more useless about this mode, in reference to how I personally interpret it.

So should I deny you that you can play it this way? With the only result of greens moving away from this game mode? I would say that it is not the right solution.

Many players are invested with server pride (thankfully), they feel involved and feel like a small part of a big server. And in this they build their motivation and purpose to participate in this modality. in so many different ways. Denying it, it's just stupid, because you're pretending that WR (while improving 'balance') isn't leading you towards another kind of problem, which will completely run over you. Like my big sword 3 when it passes over you. 😉

 

I believe he actually meant the opposite of what you think (ie agreeing with you) but the point of server pride is that it’s clearly the people on the world, not the world itself. Take WSR and rename it to Wetside Ridge. Would it change anything for the people on it? Would they suddenly say oh no no more pride in what we represent every single day?

Because for all intents and purposes, the world doesn’t exist for half of the worlds - they are a link world, not even getting credit for what they are doing. It’s just a name. And tbh a rather unfair position to be in then - do only some people have a right to fight for their actual world name?

Edited February 2 by Dawdler.8521