WvW World Restructuring System Poll

[TheGrimm.5624]

So far its world relinking on drugs. I think that if we didn't have world linking before this it would have been worse. The linking system gave people time to mix across servers so we could see old and new faces. Now its all the more scrambled. We are just living in interesting times.

[Chaba.5410]

7 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I think that if we didn't have world linking before this it would have been worse.

Maybe we should never have had world linking.  Linking was an illusion that gave the appearance that WvW was fine without WR.

Players forgot eight tiers in NA.  They forgot how bad the population disparity was in T3?  Nothing in recent years has come close to how it was before linking.

Edited June 17 by Chaba.5410

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 minute ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Maybe we should never have had world linking.  Linking was an illusion that gave the appearance that WvW was fine without WR.

Personally I still think that Anet didn't go with the normal MMO route of closing low population servers and allowing free transfers to open servers since they didn't want to appear like the bad guy. I wasn't for linking at first. But afterwards it was fun to mix and match with people you had been fighting for years. Was fun to joke and banter with them then they could know when you waved at them while opposed to them next was actually a friendly wave. 

[Chaba.5410]

4 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Personally I still think that Anet didn't go with the normal MMO route of closing low population servers and allowing free transfers to open servers since they didn't want to appear like the bad guy.

Pretty much.

"2. Acceptance – Our two ‘quick’ solutions were World Linking and World Merging. We went with World Linking because we felt players would be more likely to approve it, due to it better preserving the identity of all original worlds, and being more flexible than a more traditional World Merging solution."

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Additional-World-Linking-Information/page/1#post6172091

[TheGrimm.5624]

15 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Pretty much.

"2. Acceptance – Our two ‘quick’ solutions were World Linking and World Merging. We went with World Linking because we felt players would be more likely to approve it, due to it better preserving the identity of all original worlds, and being more flexible than a more traditional World Merging solution."

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Additional-World-Linking-Information/page/1#post6172091

Nice.

Edit: Sorry confused peep I was questioning my memory of the time and Chaba saved me from heading to the rabbit hole of the old forums to find the reference and check my memory, hence time saving for me so, nice. Hope that helps in context.  

Edited June 17 by TheGrimm.5624

[ArchonWing.9480]

Well the problem was that links were kept artificially alive because they would get linked with bangwagon servers. So people would migrate there to take advantage of the low cost .... and leave immediately after.  And there was whatever they were making the links with by giving huge bandwagons links to begin with and always having a tier too many I feel.

There was always going to be some backlash over losing the servers so they kicked the can down the road. Unfortunately a lot of communities have fallen apart by now.

Edited June 18 by ArchonWing.9480

[Morvran.8265]

12 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

"We went with World Linking because we felt players would be more likely to approve it, due to it better preserving the identity of all original worlds."

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Additional-World-Linking-Information/page/1#post6172091

Nice to know that at one point in the distant past Anet devs actually understood this gamemode and respected its roots. Sad that we somehow went from this to removing worlds altogether.

[Chaba.5410]

16 minutes ago, Morvran.8265 said:

Nice to know that at one point in the distant past Anet devs actually understood this gamemode and respected its roots. Sad that we somehow went from this to removing worlds altogether.

The irony though is that same post talks about "the elaborate solution", which is WR. I hope you didn't only read the part I quoted.

Edited June 18 by Chaba.5410

[Zok.4956]

4 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

There's a giant forum archive, even reddit posts going back to the beta weekends before the game was launched, of players identifying the most obvious and glaring problems of the server system, bandwagoning, night-capping and the way scoring and match making was done.

Yes, correct. However, these were not specific, fundamental problems of the "server system" as such, but of WvW.  There were alternatives to the current system. But I think it would be pointless to talk about them now.

 

4 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

This WR idea didn't come out of nowhere.

Of course not.  It was Anet's idea to solve all of the above problems with the alliance system. But probably nobody at Anet believed that the problems would really be solved by it after the announcement, so the project was quietly and secretly buried for years. And only "recently" was it developed further as WR, but only incompletely (because instead of the planned alliance system there is now just another guild slot). 

At least the bandwagoning problem seems to have been solved. In a way. Bandwagoning is no longer necessary because many bandwagoners now have it much easier. 

Time will tell whether the other problems can also be solved by WR. Currently, they are not yet solved.

[Zok.4956]

15 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

"2. Acceptance – Our two ‘quick’ solutions were World Linking and World Merging. We went with World Linking because we felt players would be more likely to approve it, due to it better preserving the identity of all original worlds, and being more flexible than a more traditional World Merging solution."

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Additional-World-Linking-Information/page/1#post6172091

Thanks for the link and the quote. I find it amazing, when I read it again after such a long time, how an Anet dev really justified his decisions objectively and in detail. But I find it equally amazing that in the comments back then, in 2016, players pointed out the problems and consequences that we see today. 

 

[shrew.3059]

18 hours ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

Should probably add this is way to early for a poll. We should wait until 3 months after a few reshuffles.

That’s like saying a first date is too soon to decide whether or not you click with someone.

Yes, players should give the system more time to get a sense of how things shake out, but they owe nothing to ANet and kill farming blobs; a game isn’t entitled to a chance to prove it’s fun. Nobody should spend 3 months being trampled for the off chance of something better, that’s what a day job is for.

N.B., Server bandwagoning was solved by just making it a feature of the system rather than a bug. Only now there is a smaller chance of inadvertently benefitting from that bug if you’re a roamer.

Edited June 18 by shrew.3059

[Dayra.7405]

I think the new system has the potential to be much better, but we have to adapt to it as well, team-building and organization needs more individual effort than before, where a handful of committed people per world did that all for us. 

Thanks to all of them, making wvw worlds working all the time!

Edited June 18 by Dayra.7405

[Arky.3072]

If we sort out all the "I hate everything and everyone" and "I love everything about the new system", and check the median score, I bet we'd find that everyone probably agrees with each other in some way or another.

I fully understand how the server communities, especially on EU servers (no offense, NA), are suffering a bit. But it's a period of transition from an almost 13-year-old system, and all the pros of the World Restructuring system outweigh the cons by far, in my opinion. When it's fully running, matchups are going to be much fairer, match manipulation by mass-server transfers will be almost (if not) impossible, server transfers are no longer necessary to play with your friends - just coordinate a common WvW guild, and the rewards will be much better as they are being adjusted soon(tm). I can't see how this system is a bad idea.

If you feel you've ended up in a bad matchup, just give it a week or two. Right now the matchups are based on very little data, perhaps none at all. Next week, the matchups are based on the previous week's performance. My advice is to get the best out of this week and check again on Friday.

Edited June 18 by Arky.3072

[shrew.3059]

37 minutes ago, Arky.3072 said:

If we sort out all the "I hate everything and everyone" and "I love everything about the new system", and check the median score, I bet we'd find that everyone probably agrees with each other in some way or another.

I fully understand how the server communities, especially on EU servers (no offense, NA), are suffering a bit. But it's a period of transition from an almost 13-year-old system, and all the pros of the World Restructuring system outweigh the cons by far, in my opinion. When it's fully running, matchups are going to be much fairer, match manipulation by mass-server transfers will be almost (if not) impossible, server transfers are no longer necessary to play with your friends - just coordinate a common WvW guild, and the rewards will be much better as they are being adjusted soon(tm). I can't see how this system is a bad idea.

If you feel you've ended up in a bad matchup, just give it a week or two. Right now the matchups are based on very little data, perhaps none at all. Next week, the matchups are based on the previous week's performance. My advice is to get the best out of this week and check again on Friday.

I don’t think this is an unreasonable approach, but I am very sympathetic to people who went from a game mode they enjoyed with a community they understood to something comparatively alienating. The key problem from my perspective is that people had a group they trusted and were forced to find new groups, but because of the initial instability, some of these groups will simply not survive for future matchmaking. New alliances need to have some small victories to bond them together.

[Bast Bow.2958]

Voted: fairly active server and hate current.

although I also lean towards undecided. 
 

Background info: I come from Piken server and I haven’t set a wvw guild yet, simply because I had none yet. I did join commanders on a regular basis and I knew most of them. 

Reason for vote: I am with a lot of new people in wvw, and commanders I don’t know. I also have the feeling (I’m going to need more time to know for sure) it’s a lot quiter on my server now. Less commanders and groups I can join. 
 

So there are multiple solutions to my current “problem” I can deal with myself, which I will do eventually, but this is the explanation for my vote for now.

[XenesisII.1540]

8 hours ago, Morvran.8265 said:

Nice to know that at one point in the distant past Anet devs actually understood this gamemode and respected its roots. Sad that we somehow went from this to removing worlds altogether.

They twice asked the forums about making more smaller links to piece together the worlds, and the players were lukewarm to it, whether they didn't like links or didn't understand at the time what it could accomplish who knows at this point(if it had been developed we could have had the original servers for the server community, and then the small shards could have been those bandwagon guild alliances to piece together to the servers instead). Regardless players continued to abuse the transfer system and we ended up with a system to help stop it..... by helping them with free transfers and punishing everyone else instead.... 🤷‍♂️

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Hypothetically-Speaking-New-Worlds

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/New-Worlds

Edited June 18 by XenesisII.1540

[Kai.8309]

not liking it at all! I play at random times and my server had few commanders I really enjoyed running with who lucky for me would run at those various time slots. Now I'm stuck with whoever, doing whatever. Half the time it's dead. Rest of the time it's boring. And I can no longer be connected with all the groups that I like 😞

[Evenge.4067]

2 hours ago, Kai.8309 said:

not liking it at all! I play at random times and my server had few commanders I really enjoyed running with who lucky for me would run at those various time slots. Now I'm stuck with whoever, doing whatever. Half the time it's dead. Rest of the time it's boring. And I can no longer be connected with all the groups that I like 😞

Why didn't you ask those off hours players,  who you enjoyed playing with, to join together? Did you choose a guild as your WvW guild? 

Find other like minded players and try to make an off hours WvW guild. 

Hard to feel sorry for people who don't take initiative and let the system throw them wherever. 

Edited June 18 by Evenge.4067

[Gop.8713]

Another poll where I'm a special snowflake. I came from a link server, so basically from all host servers, and I like the new system . . .

I agree with those who say it is far too early to make meaningful judgments, but I have seen a very very slight almost imperceptible increased willingness to ask for help in chat since there are more ppls who don't know each other. And that's been nice. I also avoided the incessant chat from those two players on every server who hate each other and spend the whole weekend flaming. So that was nice as well . . .

[Zephyrus.9680]

Week 1 is looking goofy on team balance but I'd say rerun the poll at the end of week 3 when tiers are more properly sorted. 

[Krimson.7296]

Came from a fairly active server, dislike the recent changes. I enjoy some aspects of the change but dislike others.

I enjoy seeing new players on a more regular basis as it allows me as a newer player to see more guilds, playstyles, and have a broader experience of what WvW in guild wars 2 has to offer.

The downsides thus far have heavily outweighed the positives however. First of all, I made friends from a bunch of different guilds and now we cannot play WvW together which really sucks.

Secondly, in the past it was easy to have community discord servers where all of the various guilds could get together and collaborate. This led to lots of cooperation on teams which meant bigger group fights, community events, long term alliances and friendships, etc. In my old server I was consistently able to join large Tags of 30 or more players led by familiar commanders who understood the community, now there are often massive queues for Eternal Battlegrounds (30+ in queue) with zero open Tags or very small ones. Everybody roams in small groups and keeps to themselves, and it really sucks since the big fights is what drew me into GW2 and WvW.

Now not only is it impossible to play with all of my friends, but when I want to play with other players on my team they are totally disorganized and ignore the cooperative nature of the mode that I previously enjoyed. It feels like players are relegated to only playing with their single guild and every other way of playing WvW has really suffered.

I don’t know of any easy solutions to this problem, however I can say that the changes have overall been a very negative experience for myself and my friends thus far.

Edited June 19 by Krimson.7296

[joneirikb.7506]

17 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

They twice asked the forums about making more smaller links to piece together the worlds, and the players were lukewarm to it, whether they didn't like links or didn't understand at the time what it could accomplish who knows at this point(if it had been developed we could have had the original servers for the server community, and then the small shards could have been those bandwagon guild alliances to piece together to the servers instead). Regardless players continued to abuse the transfer system and we ended up with a system to help stop it..... by helping them with free transfers and punishing everyone else instead.... 🤷‍♂️

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Hypothetically-Speaking-New-Worlds

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/New-Worlds

Kitten it... I lost almost 2 hours re-reading those old threads, and seeing so many old names I had finally forgotten about again...

[Mabi black.1824]

21 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

They twice asked the forums about making more smaller links to piece together the worlds, and the players were lukewarm to it, whether they didn't like links or didn't understand at the time what it could accomplish who knows at this point(if it had been developed we could have had the original servers for the server community, and then the small shards could have been those bandwagon guild alliances to piece together to the servers instead). Regardless players continued to abuse the transfer system and we ended up with a system to help stop it..... by helping them with free transfers and punishing everyone else instead.... 🤷‍♂️

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Hypothetically-Speaking-New-Worlds

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/New-Worlds

Tyler Biarce, game designer, he made a great proposal. rational and reasonable. When he did it in 2016, it was all a bit complicated. Today with WR is what you can (must) do serenely with a click on WR 1 time a year. Create twice as many of the current servers with new names and build the competition/comparison/tournament/season. If we don't put at the center of the debate the ''emotional'' aspect with which you can involve the player, Any change will be useless, even if it brings you to perfectly balanced teams.

I don't know if this guy still works at Anet, but for sure he should show up here today, and take action, without even asking. WR must be exploited and contextualized within our WVW. The reference is the server, if you want the reference to be the guild, please change the design of WVW. Or the feeling is that of playing a PvP game with no competitive meaning. Let me write it, a 4-week team competition is ridiculous.

Edited June 19 by Mabi black.1824

[XenesisII.1540]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Tyler Biarce, game designer, he made a great proposal. rational and reasonable. When he did it in 2016, it was all a bit complicated. Today with WR is what you can (must) do serenely with a click on WR 1 time a year. Create twice as many of the current servers with new names and build the competition/comparison/tournament/season. If we don't put at the center of the debate the ''emotional'' aspect with which you can involve the player, Any change will be useless, even if it brings you to perfectly balanced teams.

I don't know if this guy still works at Anet, but for sure he should show up here today, and take action, without even asking. WR must be exploited and contextualized within our WVW. The reference is the server, if you want the reference to be the guild, please change the design of WVW. Or the feeling is that of playing a PvP game with no competitive meaning. Let me write it, a 4-week team competition is ridiculous.

He's no longer at anet left in 2023. Too late for change anyways.

Edited June 19 by XenesisII.1540

[Stone.6751]

I haven't had a lot of time to experience the new system yet, but from the experience I have, it's too unbalanced right now.

The stacked servers roll over us with double our numbers so we try and dodge and seek more even fights, but we struggle to find them. So we try and avoid the enemy, and that's boring for us and probably for the enemy too.

I don't understand why guilds stacked. Don't they want solid competition and good fights? It has to be boring for them too.