World Restructuring Status Update

[etsmith.9025]

Anet really screwed the pooch on this alliance stuff.  Nothing but huge amounts of guilds fighting outmanned servers. Guess they finally found a way to end wvw completely. So many quitting playing its nothing but one team in each match up outmanning the other two and rotating through the day. Now people logging in long enough to do dailies then playing something else or going to pve. Thanks ANET the only game mode I enjoyed. 

4 accounts and the matchups are just utter crap. Just as the others, not even going to invest in expansion. I just hope a new game comes out soon with decent large group pvp. Anet ruined this one. 

[Sonderm.4639]

21 hours ago, Cecil.4536 said:

The team-creation algorithm is performing as expected, and most teams are showing reasonably similar performance in terms of player hours, average war scores, and victory points. But things aren't perfect; there are a couple of teams that stand out as unbalanced, and even on well-balanced matchups we have noticed some performance gaps at specific times of day. We'll be adjusting the algorithm to better address this for the next team creation at the end of July.

 

Is the fact that in EU you put some of the more tryhard fightguilds on the same teams a feature of the algorithm (because you do not think k/d is a relevant metric as long as VPs balance out in the end) or is that something that needs tweaking. If the latter - didn't you have someone look over the teams the algorithm produced before letting them go live ?

[lindstroem.3601]

On 7/4/2024 at 2:51 AM, Cecil.4536 said:

 

Launch

World Restructuring had a relatively smooth launch thanks to some awesome work by our gameplay platform engineers. At reset, we ran into a couple of issues with teams in the newly created tiers that prevented players from accessing WvW maps. Our team identified the issue and unblocked the maps relatively quickly, and we have a fix in place for the future.

Team Creation

The team-creation algorithm is performing as expected, and most teams are showing reasonably similar performance in terms of player hours, average war scores, and victory points. But things aren't perfect; there are a couple of teams that stand out as unbalanced, and even on well-balanced matchups we have noticed some performance gaps at specific times of day. We'll be adjusting the algorithm to better address this for the next team creation at the end of July.

We have also observed an issue related to time zone population balance that is specifically affecting large guilds. Our algorithm is trying to build a representative profile of guilds for the purposes of team creation. The larger your guild becomes, the more relevant the "averages" are in your data, and the less specific the profile becomes. This creates a situation in which off-hours groups that are part of large prime-time guilds are having their data nullified by the larger group.

We are looking into adjustments to improve on this specific function of the algorithm. In the meantime, if you're in an off-hours guild that has joined a much larger prime-time guild for World Restructuring, you might be able to improve your matchup experience in your preferred time zone by selecting a smaller guild.

Thanks

We appreciate your feedback on the new system and are looking forward to the many improvements we can make to it. Please continue to share your experiences and feedback in the WvW forums!

Thanks,

Cecil and the WvW Team

Can i have the same stuff you guys are smoking?

- "World Restructuring had a relatively smooth launch"

Sorry to say so, but your servers are totally trash, even more so since WR. Skill lag starts already with like about 100 peeps at a place, not to mentin that 3-way-fights are literally impossible to play if each server brings some numbers to the fight. Seems like that your server-side calculation (what is a completely joke btw) isnt able to handle players from many different servers put together. I have no other explanation why the lag got so bad.

-"The team-creation algorithm is performing as expected, and most teams are showing reasonably similar performance in terms of player hours"

No idea where to start here. Perfect example that you guys have no clue whats going on in WvW at all. Maybe stop looking just on numbers and get into the gamemode and play it. Exactly why games nowdays are so trash because devs dont play their own game at all and just looking on some numbers in a spreadsheet. I got 3 accounts in 3 different machtups and every matchup looks the same:

1. One servers dominates with a blob looking desperately for some "content" (aka interesting fights). Other two servers dont care at all to fight the blob server because in the current state its just impossible if you cant bring the same amount of (organised) players to stop the boon ball.  So its not just the numbers, its also the boon ball meta and the nerf to defence before what makes most servers dont even care anymore. So outnumbered servers go to dead borders with 5-10 peeps and capping whole borders, farming some pips, doing dailys and then log off.

2. Dominating server gets bored after some uncontested capping because there is nothing to fight and its not worth to look for that 5-10 peeps that turn a border into a different color, so they also log off which keeps the ppt about equal or even in favor of the outnumbered server most of the time.

Peeps on all three servers are bored, frustated and log off. Anet conclusion => claim that WR is super cool cause numbers say ppt and activity is about equal. If you would have any clue whats going on right now in the WvW community of peeps that playing this mode now for years, you wouldnt say that WR went well because of your numbers in some random spreadsheet

3. And just by the fact that there are servers who got 2 tryhard fight alliances stacked togeter while other servers barely have any significant alliance guild and just some random ppters just shows that you are either lying to yourself and to your customers for some fairweather or that you are completely out of touch with your own game that it literally hurts to watch this.

 

Edited July 5 by lindstroem.3601

[zemba.3416]

Logged in today and I am not paired with the guild that was selected before the launch of the alliances. It is still set as the WvW guild but they are linked in a different matchup. Any chance to fix it or just stuck alone for the next 20 days SOL?

Edited July 5 by zemba.3416
submitted ticket, said they would manually move, much appreciated

[Lyssia.4637]

14 hours ago, zemba.3416 said:

Logged in today and I am not paired with the guild that was selected before the launch of the alliances. It is still set as the WvW guild but they are linked in a different matchup. Any chance to fix it or just stuck alone for the next 20 days SOL?

Pretty sure you can reach out directly to support, in that case, and have them manually move you to join your guild.

Edited July 5 by Lyssia.4637

[Altex.6083]

Can somebody refer me some source with information what was the motivation behind World Restructuring?

If this is the only information https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/wvw-update-guild-hall-arenas-and-world-restructuring-beta/ about what was supposed to be addressed by this, I think it is a massive failure. Trying to solve something that basically cannot be solved in a right way, and adding extra tiers in both EU and NA to just have even bigger spread of wvw population, the new system causes more harm to seasonal fluctuation than it solves if the reshuffle is not being done every week. 
Sure, you will kill any motivation behind trying to win a match, but thinking about it, there was never any. Just a server prestige. And since teams are now dynamic, guild prestige? There are better formats how to claim fame for a guild in more structured prearranged format. 

By world restructuring, you took away the player's agency, enclosed community into smaller circles and killed the game mode for fair good amount of players. This Beta needs some radical changes if you want to claim success in goals stated in the post above. 

[XenesisII.1540]

15 minutes ago, Altex.6083 said:

Can somebody refer me some source with information what was the motivation behind World Restructuring?

If this is the only information https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/wvw-update-guild-hall-arenas-and-world-restructuring-beta/ about what was supposed to be addressed by this, I think it is a massive failure. Trying to solve something that basically cannot be solved in a right way, and adding extra tiers in both EU and NA to just have even bigger spread of wvw population, the new system causes more harm to seasonal fluctuation than it solves if the reshuffle is not being done every week. 
Sure, you will kill any motivation behind trying to win a match, but thinking about it, there was never any. Just a server prestige. And since teams are now dynamic, guild prestige? There are better formats how to claim fame for a guild in more structured prearranged format. 

By world restructuring, you took away the player's agency, enclosed community into smaller circles and killed the game mode for fair good amount of players. This Beta needs some radical changes if you want to claim success in goals stated in the post above. 

 

Too many people were bandwagoning at the beginning of the relinks thus throwing the balance out of whack often.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

On 7/4/2024 at 12:51 PM, Cecil.4536 said:

Hello, WvW players,

I want to give a brief status update on World Restructuring now that we've wrapped up our second week of the team period (the time between team creations).

I just want to say thanks for posting! I think it's great when we hear from Anet and would like it to happen more so I feel it's important that I say thanks.

Matchups are improving for me personally with the one up / one down system, but as many other people have said in this thread and others there are significant problems. The team building algorithm needs to improve a lot AND if it can't get the teams all reasonably balanced then it needs to also try to weight which tier teams start in so that it gets it closer to right from week 1. Mirror of Lyssa seems to be a strong example of this but there are plenty of other examples (as Throne of Balthazar in T5 NA we got absolutely stomped in the first week by both teams. At least this week Abaddon's Prison is closer to our level but it seems likely our team is the weakest in all of NA by a notable margin so the algorithm did poorly).

[Lalary.3561]

Mind sharing data on player base number since this glorified EoTM came in effect?

[Dawdler.8521]

30 minutes ago, Lalary.3561 said:

Mind sharing data on player base number since this glorified EoTM came in effect?

They never did with worlds except a bar chart showing the wild swings in populations plus of course 12 years of diffuse “medium” and “high” pops so I doubt they’ll show numbers now

[Reztek.7805]

21 hours ago, latlat.4516 said:

The reason I took that specific skirmish for my analysis is to nuance the fact that player activity is the single most defining factor of how a specific skirmish will turn out -- and enventually the MU.

So if player activity is the single most defining factor of how a specific skirmish will turn out, what does this chart https://www.gw2matchup.com/matchup?id=2-4 tell you about player activity?

 

21 hours ago, latlat.4516 said:

But as a matter of fact, for that specific MU, our comparative activity (I'm in one of the big guilds of MoL)

Ohhh ok, that's why you deny the obvious. 😉

Too bad Anet more or less confirmed it. And yes, this was damage control.

[Zilu.6750]

9 hours ago, lindstroem.3601 said:

Can i have the same stuff you guys are smoking?

- "World Restructuring had a relatively smooth launch"

Sorry to say so, but your servers are totally trash, even more so since WR. Skill lag starts already with like about 100 peeps at a place, not to mentin that 3-way-fights are literally impossible to play if each server brings some numbers to the fight. Seems like that your server-side calculation (what is a completely joke btw) isnt able to handle players from many different servers put together. I have no other explanation why the lag got so bad.

-"The team-creation algorithm is performing as expected, and most teams are showing reasonably similar performance in terms of player hours"

No idea where to start here. Perfect example that you guys have no clue whats going on in WvW at all. Maybe stop looking just on numbers and get into the gamemode and play it. Exactly why games nowdays are so trash because devs dont play their own game at all and just looking on some numbers in a spreadsheet. I got 3 accounts in 3 different machtups and every matchup looks the same:

1. One servers dominates with a blob looking desperately for some "content" (aka interesting fights). Other two servers dont care at all to fight the blob server because in the current state its just impossible if you cant bring the same amount of (organised) players to stop the boon ball.  So its not just the numbers, its also the boon ball meta and the nerf to defence before what makes most servers dont even care anymore. So outnumbered servers go to dead borders with 5-10 peeps and capping whole borders, farming some pips, doing dailys and then log off.

2. Dominating server gets bored after some uncontested capping because there is nothing to fight and its not worth to look for that 5-10 peeps that turn a border into a different color, so they also log off which keeps the ppt about equal or even in favor of the outnumbered server most of the time.

Peeps on all three servers are bored, frustated and log off. Anet conclusion => claim that WR is super cool cause numbers say ppt and activity is about equal. If you would have any clue whats going on right now in the WvW community of peeps that playing this mode now for years, you wouldnt say that WR went well because of your numbers in some random spreadsheet

3. And just by the fact that there are servers who got 2 tryhard fight alliances stacked togeter while other servers barely have any significant alliance guild and just some random ppters just shows that you are either lying to yourself and to your customers for some fairweather or that you are completely out of touch with your own game that it literally hurts to watch this.

 

No idea where they get the information from either but they clearly do not play the game as we are.. It has been a issue for years  and it will be as long the game exists..
"Give your feedback"
When or where do they respond to posts? .

[Luranni.9470]

18 hours ago, catbus driver.4918 said:

It's actually crazy how out of touch Anet is with not only the majority of players, but clearly the entire game itself. 

Welcome to "Resume Wars 2", where what the players want and what is best for the game is taken into no consideration at all while some unqualified lolstreamer with baked-in biases and a desperate need for attention frantically pretends to be a real dev by releasing other people's unfinished projects and buffing their own class.

Hooray!

[TheGrimm.5624]

40 minutes ago, Luranni.9470 said:

Welcome to "Resume Wars 2", where what the players want and what is best for the game is taken into no consideration at all while some unqualified lolstreamer with baked-in biases and a desperate need for attention frantically pretends to be a real dev by releasing other people's unfinished projects and buffing their own class.

Hooray!

Hey you! Ello Dear! You are always open in my book. 🙂 

[Mabi black.1824]

23 hours ago, RisingDawn.5796 said:

The other option is to Alt+F4.

The alternative is to play the game that Anet gave you. Playing outnumbered. Lose the game. And if you scale back your goals for the week you're playing, you might discover the controversial feeling of losing happily.

If you choose to play on your alternate account, you will break even more of what Anet has provided. As a result, Anet will continue to collect the wrong data. And then he's going to come here on the forum and tell us that the data he's seeing is that everything is working as expected. It has to be said that in this 3-way game, 1/3 is winning. 1/3 is doing well. 1/3 is losing. probably the ones who are losing and are seeing some pretty complicated games, They'll go to the forum and complain about how this mechanic isn't working. Then Anet comes along and tells you that they see it's perfect. That doesn't help anyone. And to Anet I say that to clarify it is better to go a little deeper (this community is able to understand even more articulated/complicated things), and share what you are seeing on your data collection to support that everything is in order. I guess this would be really appreciated.

[Bale.3851]

On 7/4/2024 at 9:36 AM, latlat.4516 said:

Percentage represents the numbers of skirmishes that saw the same server winning and the same server losing. To me, it looks like a big problem on EU (especially the lower tiers), not so much on NA. 

 

The fact that lower tiers are impacted shows some information : 

• random repartition after relink results in several weeks of bad MU in the lower tiers
• there was a team in EU that was unluckily placed in T6(=Mirror of Lyssa) after the relink, and has to climb all the way to the upper tiers to find teams of the same caliber. 
• after looking at gw2 mists, it seems that this MU is not unbalanced activity-wise. This is an approximation, since it only uses data from players that gave an api key to mists
• we might want to check MU after MU that "mid tier" result, to see if it is subject to higher gaps generally, or if it is just a random thing we see this MU being the most unbalanced on both NA and EU
• it seems the "sorting" of the teams happens faster in the higher tiers than the lower

 

Honestly, we could go even further by considering that if you want "balanced teams", there are choices to be made, and it does not look that easy. From what we saw, even if activity-wise player count is the same, it might eventually becomes that reason there's an inbalance between teams.

I really appreciate your work done here. Thanks for getting the data right and pointing out gaps. Just out of personal curiosity (im on green T4 btw). After relinking in like 20 days is anet planing to balance the MU? So in this case break up red and fill in like more green or blue players to get a better balance? I personally dont get anets plan thats why im asking.

On 7/4/2024 at 9:36 AM, latlat.4516 said:

Example, with that infamous EU T4 : 

yesterday, GW2 mists registers activity peak at 20:00-22:00 - which is normal, for this is the time registered players on mists are more likely to be playing.

What we see in terms of "player activity" is that the greens were ~12% higher than the reds in activity % (around 1.3% difference) and the blues ~8% lower (around .7% difference). 

So, either a balanced situation or the greens have a slight advantage. 

While i dont question your data i think the day we do this comparison is important. If this is data from thursday then the data provided could be not enough. What do i mean by this? Thursday is the day before reset so most MU are already done point wise particularly this MU which has a huge gap. So its safe to assume the dominating side (red) isnt as active as the rest. Just out of curiosity can u provide the same data for the friday or saturday of this MU? My guess would be a much bigger difference in these numbers but as a T4 green player im biased.

[Mabi black.1824]

18 hours ago, C Cspace Cowboy.5903 said:

5 accounts on five servers.

Do you see where we are? Do you understand that in a team-based PvP game, how much can this make the competition not very believable? Is it out of Anet's control? Do you understand that if you don't solve this, first it was the transfers and now it will be the alternative accounts that will generate the same problem?

[Mouja.8130]

I am the leader of a not so active, small roamer guild and my active players stopped playing as the team composition is not roamer friendly at all! after 1 week we landed in T6 EU and even in off time all we have is enemy zergs of 20+ while we don't even get 10 people together on all maps together. Clearly not roamer friendly and also understandable why my roamers don't like to play anymore.

[RisingDawn.5796]

It's not even roamer friendly most of the time as a solo roamer, with a specific class and build, if you aren't built for sustain, mobility and damage (condi/dps).

I don't have that many friends; to hold my hand, against small Groups, who just stand in front of keeps waiting to gank people, but maybe that is what you are looking to fight against, rather than 20+ zergs. 

It's hard to distribute, every single player and their playstyle though.

Edited July 5 by RisingDawn.5796

[Chaba.5410]

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

If you choose to play on your alternate account, you will break even more of what Anet has provided. As a result, Anet will continue to collect the wrong data. And then he's going to come here on the forum and tell us that the data he's seeing is that everything is working as expected.

It doesn't break it.  It's exactly what the system expects - fluctuations over time in an account's activity levels.  It's the same data and will be used the same way.

[Chaba.5410]

4 hours ago, Bale.3851 said:

If this is data from thursday then the data provided could be not enough.

That's why rolling averages are used.

[One more for the road.8950]

5 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Do you see where we are? Do you understand that in a team-based PvP game, how much can this make the competition not very believable? Is it out of Anet's control? Do you understand that if you don't solve this, first it was the transfers and now it will be the alternative accounts that will generate the same problem?

Several accounts is to not have to transfer. During servers. But the system will just count it as several players playing. So in this case perhaps like five rather good casual players logging in every now and then, instead of one player logging in on different accounts.

[Kayowin.9217]

On 7/4/2024 at 11:39 AM, obastable.5231 said:

 

Currently a decent portion of the visible WvW dev team (the public facing people) do actually play WvW regularly, both on NA and EU. They spend a lot of free time BAG FARMING, listening TO INPUT FROM BAG FARMERS, and interacting with WvW communities ...

 

FIFY...

[Chaba.5410]

6 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Do you understand that if you don't solve this, first it was the transfers and now it will be the alternative accounts that will generate the same problem?

It doesn't though.  No one can pick which team they are placed on unless that account has not played in ages.  As soon as they pick and play, that account will be auto-balanced in the next team formation cycle.  So what you're suggesting just won't happen the way it has been happening.  The new system frustrates that behavior.  It reshuffles teams because of these fluctuations.

It's not entirely clear what your thinking is here.  Do you think that a player who splits their playtime between 5 accounts should have their total playtime all credited to only one team where their main account is?  How does that provide any balance?

Edited July 5 by Chaba.5410

[kash.9213]

5 hours ago, Mouja.8130 said:

I am the leader of a not so active, small roamer guild and my active players stopped playing as the team composition is not roamer friendly at all! after 1 week we landed in T6 EU and even in off time all we have is enemy zergs of 20+ while we don't even get 10 people together on all maps together. Clearly not roamer friendly and also understandable why my roamers don't like to play anymore.

This isn't an open world part of the game. If those squads of 20+ got together to make sure their people aren't getting jumped running to an objective, then they're doing it right according to the map and game mode. You can still roam and hit up stuff and grab a few bodies when the sides are moving against each other.

If you mean that your people are the only people on the map for your side, then you have different problems other than the other side playing the game mode right.