Spiral.3724 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 Feedback from tonight's reset: Most of my guild couldn't open the B panel tonight at reset and couldn't go thru the gate in Lion's Arch. Couldn't even leave Lion's Arch or use a portal scroll to go to Armistice Bastian or Wiz Tower. We got around it by logging out, closing the game entirely, anything possible to try to get into the game. Many crashed upon entering WvW. Queues were even longer than before. (I thought we were to have 5 tiers to lessen the queues?) At least one person in our guild was placed on the wrong map. (He opened a support ticket.) 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenesisII.1540 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 (edited) 1 hour ago, Spiral.3724 said: Feedback from tonight's reset: Most of my guild couldn't open the B panel tonight at reset and couldn't go thru the gate in Lion's Arch. Couldn't even leave Lion's Arch or use a portal scroll to go to Armistice Bastian or Wiz Tower. We got around it by logging out, closing the game entirely, anything possible to try to get into the game. Many crashed upon entering WvW. Queues were even longer than before. (I thought we were to have 5 tiers to lessen the queues?) At least one person in our guild was placed on the wrong map. (He opened a support ticket.) This was a problem that popped up in the last beta start, and also happens with daily reset sometimes, you have to jump to another zone for your game to update the information basically. Might have been a lot of queues tonight cause well this is the start of the new system, anet went another tier of worlds in case of returning players, looks like that was warranted, let's see what happens tomorrow night or even next reset. Other than that, the usuals as every reset, 10sec of skill lag, boon balls wrecking maps. /shrug. /pats salty stalker on the head --> Edited June 15 by XenesisII.1540 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vyseman.2947 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 " During the beta, we got quite a few questions about the future of world and region transfers with the removal of home worlds. We wanted to let you know that region transfer functionality will still be available via an updated character selection interface. In addition, we will be setting the gem cost to transfer regions to a flat 500 gems, as we no longer need to have variable costs based on world populations. " Where can i find this? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reztek.7805 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 Phew, more action in the forums than ingame. As expected. 😛 Yesterday, right after reset, i was the only player on RBL from my team for like 10 minutes. By the time the full zone blob attacked our keep there were like 5 defenders. 😄 But well, might have been that "logging screen"-bug so many ppl complain about. On the other side the usual stat-sites look like the usual imbalanced matchups, where one side outnumbers the others during some timezones. So same shitshow as before. :D 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reztek.7805 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 On 6/9/2024 at 1:17 PM, Nugatory.8920 said: I do read the forums however and I've read many of your comments. There are so many that it makes them hard to avoid. They almost all follow the same bad faith template; pick a sentence to reply to, strawman the argument, frustrate your fellow interlocutor into walking away, win Internet points? It doesn't seem very productive to me. However it's a slow Sunday morning so here we are. That's a pretty common observation. 😛 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan downunder.3045 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 the world vs world restructure . we had fun , we made a alliance . over a 2 week period people from 14 guilds signed up with a guild for the alliance to work , then click the make this your world vs world guild . so that instruction for the simple folks was not clear ? and they ended up on a different world roaming 🤔 , ah but during the beta testing before the D day of june 14 , i recall a dev post where players who could fill out a simple form on the forums to be moved with their guild .teams an friends a once off , could we please have the form again . name .96705 realm . guild need to be moved with an new world guild leader / guild commander , before they have to pay 500 gems to transfer ? please ? seems that some of the wonderful folks missed the train an june 14 deadline ? , even though most guild placed A Message in the guild panel or on their current discord . just so it does not cram your ticket system with players needing to move to their guild or alliance thank you Devs from yb ppt commander Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neocharm.1029 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 There is a problem with the including of Guildmembers into an alliance when the Alliance is full. These guildmembers got relocated out of the alliance without their Guildleaders knowledge. Maybe with re-arranging or even temp. kicked but not re-invited before the closing date. Now several Guilds are crippled having not their WvW teams setup and it will take 40 days till this can be restored. For a wvw player to be excluded for 40 days is a "lifetime". Arenanet needs to make sure that those who's Guild is in an alliance but which the individual players cant join must be added even if the Alliance is claimed to be "full". This will destroy guilds if no immediate action is taken. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfhound.4381 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 17 minutes ago, Neocharm.1029 said: There is a problem with the including of Guildmembers into an alliance when the Alliance is full. These guildmembers got relocated out of the alliance without their Guildleaders knowledge. Maybe with re-arranging or even temp. kicked but not re-invited before the closing date. Now several Guilds are crippled having not their WvW teams setup and it will take 40 days till this can be restored. For a wvw player to be excluded for 40 days is a "lifetime". Arenanet needs to make sure that those who's Guild is in an alliance but which the individual players cant join must be added even if the Alliance is claimed to be "full". This will destroy guilds if no immediate action is taken. Guild max is 500 players. That is how we are being sorted. If you have too many to fit under the cap then you will have to make a couple smaller alliances. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neocharm.1029 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Wolfhound.4381 said: Guild max is 500 players. That is how we are being sorted. If you have too many to fit under the cap then you will have to make a couple smaller alliances. I know, but the second alliance can not play with the original alliance. This is not right. Like SFRA with YoYo. YoYo is the second alliance from the SFRA alliance (Silent Woods) but placed on a different server (Bloodstone Gulch). Then put these YoYo at least on the same server (Silent Woods) so they can play with their own Guild. Edited June 15 by Neocharm.1029 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One more for the road.8950 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 2 hours ago, Neocharm.1029 said: There is a problem with the including of Guildmembers into an alliance when the Alliance is full. These guildmembers got relocated out of the alliance without their Guildleaders knowledge. Maybe with re-arranging or even temp. kicked but not re-invited before the closing date. Now several Guilds are crippled having not their WvW teams setup and it will take 40 days till this can be restored. For a wvw player to be excluded for 40 days is a "lifetime". Arenanet needs to make sure that those who's Guild is in an alliance but which the individual players cant join must be added even if the Alliance is claimed to be "full". This will destroy guilds if no immediate action is taken. .... if you are using a "community/alliance" guild for several guilds, all guild members have to be member of the same one to make sure they all go in the same world. Not two different ones named somewhat the same or have the same idea or come from the same original server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfhound.4381 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 1 hour ago, Neocharm.1029 said: I know, but the second alliance can not play with the original alliance. This is not right. Like SFRA with YoYo. YoYo is the second alliance from the SFRA alliance (Silent Woods) but placed on a different server (Bloodstone Gulch). Then put these YoYo at least on the same server (Silent Woods) so they can play with their own Guild. IIRC they said from the beginning that the max was going to be 500 players. It sucks, but that's the way it is. I'm going to miss groups I ran with on occasion that aren't part of my alliance guild. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zok.4956 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 3 hours ago, Neocharm.1029 said: I know, but the second alliance can not play with the original alliance. This is not right. The maximum number of players of 500 per guild/alliance is intentional so that no alliance/guild can dominate a server/team (too much). 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neocharm.1029 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 1 hour ago, Zok.4956 said: The maximum number of players of 500 per guild/alliance is intentional so that no alliance/guild can dominate a server/team (too much). I know Zok, not meaning to discuss the use-case of the change but more the implementation of it. This will rip apart many Guilds. The intention of making WvW more accessible and popular this way will be countered by the holes in the new setup. I have been a system analyst for 22 years now and as a professional i can sincerely say, Anet screwed this one up. If they don't find a way to restore the Guilds connection with its members the damage will become irreparable. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zok.4956 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 1 hour ago, Neocharm.1029 said: I know Zok, not meaning to discuss the use-case of the change but more the implementation of it. This will rip apart many Guilds. The intention of making WvW more accessible and popular this way will be countered by the holes in the new setup. I have been a system analyst for 22 years now and as a professional i can sincerely say, Anet screwed this one up. Well, the intention is to break up the existing servers and server identities and replace them with many smaller entities, each with (at the moment) a maximum of 500 players, in order to distribute the number of players much more regularly across the servers in a more granular manner in order to minimize overstacking and to be able to balance the unbalanced server numbers a little better. How well this can actually work is left aside. 1 hour ago, Neocharm.1029 said: If they don't find a way to restore the Guilds connection with its members the damage will become irreparable. Players will have to decide (and many have already done so) whether they want to play with their current guild or with their/an "alliance guild" in WvW. Of course, this will tear some communities apart. I don't think that's great either. The identification with one's own server (if it still existed among players, given the many server hoppers and overstackers) will simply be replaced by an identification with a guild, and from this other communities will form. We will have to wait and see whether this change will destroy some communities to such an extent that many players will leave WvW completely. Anet's view is probably that the loss of players will be limited and therefore acceptable. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azinoth.1902 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 I'm not a hardcore player, I don't play WvW every day for several hours, so my point of view is not for everyone. Honestly I'm satisfied with the new system so far. Maps are filled with squads, lots of active players. In the old server system it was not fun to play outside of my guild's tagging hours. Sometimes I just escorted dollies to keep up my participation while waiting for someone to appear. I transferred servers several times, only to run into the same issue over and over again: "this server is dead bro, move on". Since I haven't interacted with ppl too often outside my guild, and the vast majority of random tags were from other servers on rotation... this change doesn't affect me too much from community point of view. My guild is very stable and I fully trust that I will always be able to play with them. Also, there are so many guilds now they became very important, and most ppl can find what they are looking for. The monthly lockout is a huge restriction, though, you have to make a commitment. Sure I have lost a few known faces and a friendly guild like everyone else, but that's life. They aren't going to change it back now. From what I've seen in the new system, now I can just login anytime I want and play the game. And that is what I wanted. 3 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonSeed.3528 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 52 minutes ago, Azinoth.1902 said: I'm not a hardcore player, I don't play WvW every day for several hours, so my point of view is not for everyone. Honestly I'm satisfied with the new system so far. Maps are filled with squads, lots of active players. In the old server system it was not fun to play outside of my guild's tagging hours. Sometimes I just escorted dollies to keep up my participation while waiting for someone to appear. I transferred servers several times, only to run into the same issue over and over again: "this server is dead bro, move on". Since I haven't interacted with ppl too often outside my guild, and the vast majority of random tags were from other servers on rotation... this change doesn't affect me too much from community point of view. My guild is very stable and I fully trust that I will always be able to play with them. Also, there are so many guilds now they became very important, and most ppl can find what they are looking for. The monthly lockout is a huge restriction, though, you have to make a commitment. Sure I have lost a few known faces and a friendly guild like everyone else, but that's life. They aren't going to change it back now. From what I've seen in the new system, now I can just login anytime I want and play the game. And that is what I wanted. Does your server happen to be winning atm? 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azinoth.1902 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 17 minutes ago, DemonSeed.3528 said: Does your server happen to be winning atm? Yeah it does, however we got stomped by enemy blubs many times, doesn't feel one sided. Before the change my server was almost always 3rd 😄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonSeed.3528 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 28 minutes ago, Azinoth.1902 said: Yeah it does, however we got stomped by enemy blubs many times, doesn't feel one sided. Before the change my server was almost always 3rd 😄 Would your opinion and view change if you were on a server that wasn't winning, and had smaller to no zerg? You don't necessarily have to answer, I'm just curious about views/opinions from either side of the fence. Ty for answering in any case. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azinoth.1902 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 1 minute ago, DemonSeed.3528 said: Would your opinion and view change if you were on a server that wasn't winning, and had smaller to no zerg? You don't necessarily have to answer, I'm just curious about views/opinions from either side of the fence. Ty for answering in any case. I expected this question from your first post, but honestly I don't know. So you are trying to suggests that there are huge imbalances, and I'm just lucky right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonSeed.3528 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 I'm just trying to garner what people would have said about the changes in restructuring based on how their matchup was is all. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azinoth.1902 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 2 minutes ago, DemonSeed.3528 said: I'm just trying to garner what people would have said about the changes in restructuring based on how their matchup was is all. Well, considering the fact that my server was underdog often, I enjoyed my time with my guild even when we were not performing that well. However the scores never really bothered me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonSeed.3528 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 In the case of one server I am on, one of my guildmates thinks the changes are really great (denoting how poor things were for our server previously) but I've seen a few people that are in the same alliance server atm are saying it's really horrible (they must've been in a good server before lol). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azinoth.1902 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 I just had a look at our score out of curiousity. We have more score than the 2 enemies combined. Considering this was not player-organized, the imbalance do exists and serious. I'm wondering what the 2 enemies would say. But they seemed to have lots of strong blubs throughout the day so I don't know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One more for the road.8950 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 (edited) 1 hour ago, DemonSeed.3528 said: I'm just trying to garner what people would have said about the changes in restructuring based on how their matchup was is all. Basicly the same based on which servers they were on earlier? Feedback didn't change. Who complains, does. Edited June 15 by One more for the road.8950 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidome.1365 Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Skrittsburgh v Mirror of Lyssa v Frost Citadel: So far Mirror of Lyssa has more numbers 24/7 than the other two sides put together - I thought WR was meant to give parity in numbers? Sort it out or roll us back to Servers because I haven't seen such a numerically unbalanced MU for years. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now