Poll: New WvW vs Old WvW system

[Cameirus.8407]

18 minutes ago, Sheff.4851 said:

We covered some of the issues with the server system in the recent developer interview that I did with Roy and Cecil. If you don't want to watch the video, basically, it boils down to the fact that the player base will always attempt to stack a server for easy wins, and the only way that ArenaNet can address that problem is by opening and closing servers, which is determined by activity relative to the highest pop server. As a result, activity gets focused into high pop servers and low pop servers, instead of getting distributed evenly across all servers available.

ok, so handing the playerbase the ability to stack alliances, and easily move about with free support tickets thereby making the problem massively worse has helped how exactly?

also, making data collection on matchups almost infinitely more difficult to collect (due to relinks drastically altering teams) will make matchmaking almost impossible to balance at all, far worse than any server linking was.

I get there may have been an issue, but this solution makes the problem much worse.

The new system only "works" if you think players will colaborate to distribute similar sized and skilled teams across different alliances...thats never going to happen, the more invested players will stack the same ones. and the WvW community is simply not big enough to make that work to create balanced matchups.

(btw, some of us liked our lower level servers, we deliberately chose them for a less frantic, more fun and casual experience without being stacked teams of tryhards...)

Edited July 27 by Cameirus.8407

[MedievalThings.5417]

On 7/26/2024 at 4:06 PM, Wolfhound.4381 said:

This is the first relink since the start of this. It's bound to be a bit rough. Give it time, it'll get better once they get the bugs squashed.

Except every single "relink" under every beta we have had (for years) has looked the same.  Even in the "beta all the time" reshuffles we get the same thing.  A superstack server, a medium server and a "we're here to be farmed" server in every tier.  The current system is what we have, the old system is never coming back.  The problem is the algorithm is not making equal worlds, because it can't.  But, it could at least start by putting 3 superstacks in tier 1 and the medium/"get rekt" servers further down.  Instead, it takes weeks to get close to where we are balanced, just in time to reshuffle and make the same mistakes in sorting.

[Sheff.4851]

16 minutes ago, Cameirus.8407 said:

ok, so handing the playerbase the ability to stack alliances, and easily move about with free support tickets thereby making the problem massively worse has helped how exactly?

Because a server is larger than an alliance by about two or three times, and that's assuming that you have a 500 person alliance full of active players. Most don't. So you reduce the amount of players that a given group is able to stack. I also still haven't seen proof that guilds are "easily moving around with support tickets". I've asked a few people who I know that have been accused of doing it, and they claim that they haven't been able to, and they have the API endpoints to prove that they didn't get moved. That rumor may just be a case of lying on the internet for fun.

Edit: Regarding your low-pop servers, there's no guarantee that some fight guild alliance won't transfer there. Lots of low pop servers got "picked" by large, organized communities, to pull those communities up into T1 for bragging rights, and then got abandoned a few months later, bringing a large chunk of players with them. I don't think that was particularly healthy, but maybe other people enjoyed the community disruption and fracturing once in awhile.

Edited July 27 by Sheff.4851
Edited to more fully address the post.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

23 hours ago, Sheff.4851 said:

 Server pride has been dead for years now.

This is the bit I had a problem with in Sheff’s earlier post and I suspect others who reacted poorly feel the same.

It’s both an opinion (but stated as a statement of fact) and also clearly false. Just because Sheff didn’t have any server pride doesn’t mean no one else did. I did, others in this thread have implied they also did, and I am sure there are many more out there who also did.

[Aly Cat.9415]

15 hours ago, willow.8209 said:

my experience has always been with open tags that if they put a discord in their tag message, people will mostly join. Unless people are being bratty in voice or the commander is running down pugs, but then the pugs are likely to leave the tag.

If people aren't joining voice when a link is provided, it may be for reasons like:

• They're using their headset for something else. Some people for example like to listen to their own music while gaming. Other people like to chat with their partner while each playing different games. Some might need to listen for a pet/ baby/ other care responsibility.
• They have sensory gating issues. This will be magnified if comms are not clear, or the voice server is playing music, etc.
• They have a technical issue with headset
• They are Deaf or hard of hearing
• They speak a different language than the commander
• They have social anxiety

If a discord isn't listed, then yeah, no one is joining voice. As they don't know where to go or don't have an invite to the relevant server.

All bets are off if the listed voice server is a TeamSpeak.

I'd add don't enjoy listening to players (especially over my tunes so maybe it's the same bullet point). But also, it's not that serious, and we don't hear anything we can't see observing the map (if players aren't doing what tag wants it's either due to IRL distraction or lag spikes...especially with zergs...doesn't happen all the time but still happens). I play to relax and have fun (and that includes playing to win because winning is more relaxing than losing).

Personally I'm just old and cranky and also a lot more generous exercising my get off my lawn energy muting or blocking people in team chat as it is. I miss my server because I was there since launch and we were the comeback kids and ended on top. There were guilds I considered joining because I enjoyed running with them when they were on but feeling obligated to play at set hours (even if I mostly do anyway) and discord were turn offs.

The fact remains most people were unhappy with the old system so they changed it. I'm not sure why people act like they fixed something that wasn't broken after years of the playerbase saying it was broken. There's bound to be growing pains.

I was happy to be in a different team upon relink so maybe I'll enjoy this one more, and maybe one day I'll enjoy a team enough to stick around, if there's a guild that isn't hyper about discord and mandatory hours.

[Tinker.7046]

All I know is: I had my Wife, pick the same team as me. Everything was fine a couple days ago.

Now? We are on different teams, and need to wait for the next match making?

We should have been notified in advance, or just removed from the teams, and then needed to pick a new team.

But nah, whomever on Anet, thought it would be a good idea to just randomly assign us on different teams instead. So now we wait. Which is garbage.  

   

Edited July 28 by Tinker.7046

[Sheff.4851]

1 hour ago, Tinker.7046 said:

All I know is: I had my Wife, pick the same team as me. Everything was fine a couple days ago.

Now? We are on different teams, and need to wait for the next match making?

We should have been notified in advance, or just removed from the teams, and then needed to pick a new team.

But nah, whomever on Anet, thought it would be a good idea to just randomly assign us on different teams instead. So now we wait. Which is garbage.  

   

No, you just need to put a ticket in, because if you both selected the same guild as your World vs. World guild, and the matchmaker didn't put you on the same team, the matchmaker screwed up.

[TheHeretic.3529]

Neither. I like the concept of alliances but with the up/down matchmaking, it doesn't matter. People are still getting locked in T1 and T4/5. Matches should be a random shuffle each week.

[Mike.2907]

Since changes, I have gone from playing frequently especially weekends to first time logging in 3 weeks. Maybe logged in 20 mins last night, and just 10 today. May go another few weeks or longer without without bothering to playing GW2. We had better balance in the old system.

This new system promised balanced, and yet it is more discouraging to log in, but that's okay I have a huge steam library of games I haven't played.

Good job!!!

[Iniak.9815]

The problem as I see it has always been team stacking. Restructuring has basically been a blank check to stack. Randomly assigning a server name to a random group of people is absolutely a step back. If winning before had any value to people, be it pride or whatever, it has none now.

If they do nail a reward revamp and make a real incentive for winning, now no one will care who won if it wasn't them because there is no collective identity to a team anymore.

Alliances were the feature being pitched. Not random team x every month.

What is in a name? To most people, knowing who is competing(and winning) is fundamental. Do you watch sports and root for random team x every week? Do you enter a tournament every time under a different name?  Community matters, without a root there can be no tree. It is a fundamental flaw in the current system.

Although the loss of community identity is a huge failure, an even bigger failure has been that restructuring has shifted the power from communities, whether reluctantly placed together or not, to individuals at the top of alliance guilds. This new system has the unfortunate side effect of enabling abusive behavior and the ability to exclude into the system.

Without any levers for Guild members to pull, short of leaving which just alienates you from your community, you are stuck potentially under the thumb of one individual.

I would like to hear people's thoughts especially on my second point.

Edited July 28 by Iniak.9815

[Mabi black.1824]

15 hours ago, Iniak.9815 said:

The problem as I see it has always been team stacking. This has basically been a blank check to stack. Randomly assigning a server name to a random group of people is absolutely a step back. If winning before had any value to people, be it pride or whatever, it has none now.

If they do nail a reward revamp and make a real incentive for winning, now no one will care who won if it wasn't them.

Alliances were the feature being pitched. Not random team x every month.

What is in a name? To most people, it is a huge part of who they are. It is a fundamental flaw in the current system.

I'll add on top of that, restructuring has shifted the power from communities, whether reluctantly placed together or not, to individuals at the top of alliance guilds. This new system has the unfortunate side effect of enabling abusive behavior and the ability to exclude into the system.

Without any levers for Guild members to pull, short of leaving which just alienates you from your community, you are stuck potentially under the thumb of one individual.

We have pointed out all these things, all our concerns, only because we have always been passionate about this game mode, development. We have entered into the merits of reflections and logical considerations, but it has always and only been absolute press silence. And now here we are. concept of server and therefore useless identity = useless team game.

We also read somewhere that they were aware that it would cost a number of players. But how many of these players are invested? How high or low is the price to pay? And above all, why choose a twisting changes that leads you to lose players, while we should choose more harmonious changes that make us gain players?

I really try but I can't really understand certain things.

Edited July 29 by Mabi black.1824

[Hesione.9412]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

We have pointed out all these things, all our concerns, only because we have always been passionate about this game mode, development. We have entered into the merits of reflections and logical considerations, but it has always and only been absolute press silence. And now here we are. concept of server and therefore useless identity = useless team game.

We also read somewhere that they were aware that it would cost a number of players. But how many of these players are invested? How high or low is the price to pay? And above all, why choose a toertuous path that leads you to lose players, while we should choose more harmonious changes that make us gain players?

I really try but I can't really understand certain things.

Agree with your points. The time to have made WvW guild versus guild was at launch. Doing this 12 years into the game was a recipe for disaster.

[Chaba.5410]

9 hours ago, Hesione.9412 said:

Agree with your points. The time to have made WvW guild versus guild was at launch. Doing this 12 years into the game was a recipe for disaster.

Please tell me who the 3k member guilds are that can fill an entire team.  I'm sort of struggling with naming one.  TTS with their multiple guild containers might have qualified, but that's a PvE guild for a world boss.  Maybe ViP?  They don't all play WvW though.

Edited July 29 by Chaba.5410

[Wolfofdivinity.6251]

They have until the next expansion to revert back to the old system or I know quite a few big guilds that are finally calling it quits. This is the single worst change they could have put in. They'd have been better off doing nothing and just letting it die peacefully.

[Dawdler.8521]

10 hours ago, Wolfofdivinity.6251 said:

They have until the next expansion to revert back to the old system or I know quite a few big guilds that are finally calling it quits. This is the single worst change they could have put in. They'd have been better off doing nothing and just letting it die peacefully.

I am fairly certain that Death By Boonball will be on the tombstone of WvW, not WR. Those few guilds wont have much to fight anyway because no one wants to fight that.

[Cameirus.8407]

I just got put on a different team today....and its awful.

this is how a new player with no connections experiences it.....they go on a map and its silent, no commander tags. all invisible guild groups operating somewhere, no community at all.

if this is the experience new players get, we wont ever get new wvw players.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

As I said before tho - it's too early to pass final judgement. I'm not currently a fan and there are lots of problems with the system currently, but most people also dislike change which will be adding to the negativity.

I'm interested in seeing how it goes for another couple of matchups at least. Anet better be working hard on their matching algorithm etc tho.

[cannibalkitteh.8376]

On 7/28/2024 at 3:45 PM, Iniak.9815 said:

Although the loss of community identity is a huge failure, an even bigger failure has been that restructuring has shifted the power from communities, whether reluctantly placed together or not, to individuals at the top of alliance guilds. This new system has the unfortunate side effect of enabling abusive behavior and the ability to exclude into the system.

Without any levers for Guild members to pull, short of leaving which just alienates you from your community, you are stuck potentially under the thumb of one individual.

It also adds a layer of political maneuvering that didn't exist in the same way under servers. As a guild leader, one now has to justify their guild's usefulness to the overall alliance, and if the alliance is close to cap, make a case for why your guild needs the free alliance slots over another guild.

[One more for the road.8950]

On 7/28/2024 at 5:45 PM, Iniak.9815 said:

The problem as I see it has always been team stacking. Restructuring has basically been a blank check to stack.

In all fairness, so was servers, linked or not.

Server host + server link: People would either organize a ton of transfers to host when open, or transfer to the link until the point it could actually be two full servers.

Single server: When first open, it opened for a week (Monday to Monday), and there's been situations where people have stopped activity or even transferring off server to open it up, and then have mass transfers in: Latest best example in EU was WSR that then dominated every single MU to the point of spawn camping both the other teams after that even if unlinked.

Edited July 31 by One more for the road.8950

[Cameirus.8407]

16 minutes ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

In all fairness, so was servers, linked or not.

Server host + server link: People would either organize a ton of transfers to host when open, or transfer to the link until the point it could actually be two full servers.

Single server: When first open, it opened for a week (Monday to Monday), and there's been situations where people have stopped activity or even transferring off server to open it up, and then have mass transfers in: Latest best example in EU was WSR that then dominated every single MU to the point of spawn camping both the other teams after that even if unlinked.

You are going to have to back up the idea that people organised tons of transfers if you claim that.

All the information I've seen points to an incredibly low amounts of server transfers on accounts.

[One more for the road.8950]

4 minutes ago, Cameirus.8407 said:

You are going to have to back up the idea that people organised tons of transfers if you claim that.

All the information I've seen points to an incredibly low amounts of server transfers on accounts.

Literally mentioned in the post. WSR.

Earlier we had some with FSP, Gandara, Desolation....

Edited July 31 by One more for the road.8950

[Cameirus.8407]

2 minutes ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

Literally mentioned in the post. WSR.

Earlier we had some with FSP, Gandara, Desolation....

No, you mentioned unsubstantiated anecdotes. I asked for evidence.

[One more for the road.8950]

Just now, Cameirus.8407 said:

No, you mentioned unsubstantiated anecdotes. I asked for evidence.

What evidence. You want me to dig historical API to "prove" what everyone in the community knew and talked about? Both the ones transferring and the ones who didn't? As it happened?

[Mabi black.1824]

7 minutes ago, Cameirus.8407 said:

No, you mentioned unsubstantiated anecdotes. I asked for evidence.

The problems of transfers and mianipolations of the thresholds do not have to be proven, they have been there for all to see for a decade or so.

Anet itself stated that it had no control over these transfers, because the method was, we open the gates 1 time a week and all dento. so on and so forth. without counting them.

Edited July 31 by Mabi black.1824

[One more for the road.8950]

On GW2mists you could even see the transfers happening day by day, whenever things like that happened even if you didn't know about it happening beforehand. Either by guild member numbers that had moved to servers, or amount of people transferring between the different servers.

And that was just people that had actually registered on the site.

Edit: And of course, the transfers that would happen just before relink, so the relinks were outdated already before they happened. There was several reasons for that though, transferring before reset on Friday was the way to get shortest amount of no pips. Then you had only a week of no pips. Any other day would be an entire week of no pips + how many days before reset you transferred.

Edited July 31 by One more for the road.8950