Embracing World vs World Restructuring

[Rain.6375]

So far for me it's have been great, my team is nice ppl talk, banter, and moan 😉 but it's in my opinion only in good spirits. i dont join tags but thats me, but i have been welcomed to join all ive seen without any problem.

 

So far have been great!

[Mabi black.1824]

On 6/25/2024 at 12:15 AM, Chaba.5410 said:

Anet adds in some other factors now on top of number of hours played

the factors that anet adds certainly lead to a calculation error or, even worse, a methodological error. what I can tell you in reference to what I see here in EU, this week I have the exact same feeling as when my old server remained without connection for 2 months. and maybe even worse. because at least before you had a reason to try until the end. Now the idea of defending a structure doesn't even remotely cross my mind. I'm looking for these infamous epic battles, but I really don't see any trace of them. I remember other betas in this pitiful state. not all. but I remember some of them very well.

[Chaba.5410]

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

you shouldn't look at it that way. Of course we're just talking about a game here. it should not be compared on its merits with a professional sport. anet created teams of 2000 players specifically because if someone plays every other week or doesn't show up for 1 month it makes no difference. having a brand or a flag or a server where all the players (without exception) can identify and feel an active part, even in a game, why not, is an excellent way to involve people. If you can't see it I don't know what else to say.

I do see it, but this is how I treat it:  Why would one continue with such branding when more than half the brands were essentially dead and noncompetitive?  That sounds like doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Sure it makes little difference if a few players only play every other week or a month.  It makes a huge difference when it's the majority of the team not showing up.  Maybe branding wasn't really the way to involve people?  Perhaps it was the incorrect application or design for what is essentially a casual pvp game mode?

Edited June 26 by Chaba.5410

[Mabi black.1824]

On 6/26/2024 at 5:21 PM, Chaba.5410 said:

Sure it makes little difference if a few players only play every other week or a month.  It makes a huge difference when it's the majority of the team not showing up.  Maybe branding wasn't really the way to involve people?

have patience chaba, but if before I could identify myself in my server (2000 players) even if my guild (today 200 players because we opened up to anyone so as not to make them a ''filler'') didn't play for 1 whole month all together , it wouldn't make any difference, or would it? this is also a mechanic that makes the server system stable, because if a guild leaves, you're sorry, but your server continues on the same. or a guild with an excessive ego presents itself, the sever knows how to put her in her place.

It's not me but it's this change that is shifting the focus from the server towards the guild. the moment your guild/alliance becomes the only reference on a decent player timeline, then when 200 players in your guild aren't playing it will become a big problem. in fact we have seen a large number of relaxed players kicked for exactly this reason. in addition to the fact of losing a series of prerogatives of a stable system towards a less stable one.  before making such profound changes, it would be good to look very carefully at all the variables that the change itself brings with it. or you will find yourself in the middle of the storm without realizing it.

Edited June 28 by Mabi black.1824

[Mabi black.1824]

31 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I do see it.  Why would one continue with such branding though when more than half the brands were essentially dead and noncompetitive? 

this is the glass half empty or half full thing. I mean, if wvw finds itself in a scenario where half of its players have lost their way and no longer identify with their server, what is the most logical solution to address the problem? do we make sure that everyone is lost and never has their flag again, or do they develop an update with all the necessary tools so that the lost half finds their way again?

[Mabi black.1824]

The story of the chicken and the egg comes to mind. Maybe it's good to clarify a couple of things. until June 14th the design of wvw involved the player participating in the collective action of the team/server he chose, which he recognizes as ''his team/server'' in a large competition between servers in a perpetual format. by attacking and defending and killing the enemy he gained points and then went to see where his team was in the standings. Maybe we don't realize it, but the moment we make this team/server-based design useless, everything changes. if you still want to drag/motivate the player after this change you will need to modify the design of this mode. It is inevitable. before you had the team/server in the center, now you have the guild in the center. We had a game design now, now we need a new one. 

all this cannot be denied just because a part of the players (out of interest, because it is convenient to win easily) jumped between one server and another and who cares about the structures. this is just a ''wrong'' way of interpreting the game design we've always had. and things certainly won't get better if we get everyone participating in the ''wrong'' way, especially if the game design remains the same.

Edited June 26 by Mabi black.1824

[Chaba.5410]

On 6/26/2024 at 8:53 AM, Mabi black.1824 said:

this is the glass half empty or half full thing. I mean, if wvw finds itself in a scenario where half of its players have lost their way and no longer identify with their server, what is the most logical solution to address the problem? do we make sure that everyone is lost and never has their flag again, or do they develop an update with all the necessary tools so that the lost half finds their way again?

It's not a hypothetical scenario.  It's history.  WR is that update.  Players who need flags to fly do so now by the alliance they create - that was already the general direction the playerbase was taking on their own when they started treating WvW as "winning doesn't matter".  One could argue for server merges instead, yet that path just leads to the same scenario.

Edited June 27 by Chaba.5410

[Mabi black.1824]

14 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

It's not a hypothetical scenario.  It's history.  WR is that update

We know that very well. And this choice of development, in reference to the glass half full or half empty that I wrote above, in my opinion, is a short-sighted choice looking at it from an exclusively logical profile. Moving all the players towards ''no one cares about winning'' won't get us very far, I'm afraid.