Keep World Restructuring!

[ChrisWhitey.9076]

2 hours ago, Dinas Dragonbane.2978 said:

I would have thought the rush week would have had much more, but that was from my server going from near death to 4 maps queued each night(it was nuts).

During Rush you can only have so many people play WvW though. Once you are in the queue that game has hit the cap and you cannot play so no WvW activity for you.

[Erathiel.9318]

3 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

The overall player base seem to express themselves with activity though. Last week was 2.33 million kills+deaths. 6 months ago it was 2.16 million kills+deaths. Both comparably high numbers - the week after the january beta where the forum proclaimed the second week was especially crap and everyone was so happy they where back on their worlds saw 1.9 millions kills+deaths. Also to compare with the summer where everyone once again was shocked at the sudden strangeness of people for some reason not playing so much in a mystical and cyclical 1 year pattern, WvW had weeks where it dipped to 1.6 million kills+deaths.

That doesn't say much, especially since we recently had a new expansion released which obviously brought a portion of absent players back, including myself.
And mind you I've still taken part in WvW activity because that's how I've reached my initial conclusions and gathered data about this new system in general, and from experience in another MMO as said; people don't simply cease to play from one day to the next, it's a process that could take months especially when it comes to those whose only play time in Guild Wars is WvW.

 

And there was also a recent WvW event which brought a large portion of players around WvW so with that said, it's important to note that numerous factors play parts in the numbers you're claiming suggest a higher WvW activity, it doesn't mean that the system works and that people are satisfied, all of that will show further down or up the road.

[Skub.8240]

3 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Without a point of reference I'm not sure how much higher numbers you expected. 2.33 million is up there among the highest seen in WvW in probably the past half decade. Previous WvW rushes with worlds probably had similar numbers.

Maybe it has something to do with the unbalanced matchmaking ensuring that big teams have a constant source of small teams to farm, in my experience this being literal double teaming the spawn of the third team, rather than having to play against people with as big a team as they have ensuring longer, slower, skirmishes with less deaths on either side what with how powerful support and stacking tends to be.

[Dawdler.8521]

4 hours ago, Erathiel.9318 said:

That doesn't say much

I suppose it means what you want it to mean, true.

When WvW activity drops 0.2 million KD it’s like ”aah WR is FaILUrE! WvW DED! Dooooooooooooooom!!!” and when WvW activity increase 0.5 million KD it’s like ”pff this doesn’t matter anyway, PvErs are just here for GoB”.

[Cyninja.2954]

6 hours ago, Erathiel.9318 said:

That doesn't say much, especially since we recently had a new expansion released which obviously brought a portion of absent players back, including myself.
And mind you I've still taken part in WvW activity because that's how I've reached my initial conclusions and gathered data about this new system in general, and from experience in another MMO as said; people don't simply cease to play from one day to the next, it's a process that could take months especially when it comes to those whose only play time in Guild Wars is WvW.

 

And there was also a recent WvW event which brought a large portion of players around WvW so with that said, it's important to note that numerous factors play parts in the numbers you're claiming suggest a higher WvW activity, it doesn't mean that the system works and that people are satisfied, all of that will show further down or up the road.

Okay, let's try this a different way. Some forum posters seem to believe that convincing other players is how you get something changed. Obviously incorrect since the vast majority of players have 0 impact on changing something. So let's look at this from the developers side.

Let's assume World Restructuring was done with 2 goals in mind:

1. create a better future proof automated system which makes manual relinking unnecessary, in an attempt to reduce workload.

2. improve server/shard balance with the goal to improve the experience, ultimately leading to an improved WvW experience overall (overall, not for every individual)

So where would the developers be at now?

Let's ignore point 1, since World Restructuring is hands down superior to the old server system in regards to aspects of being future proof, work load and flexibility. Let's assume this one is neutral (it is not) and just focus on 2.

How would the developers know that 2 is better, neutral or worse? On one hand you have complaints in the forums, something which is to be treated with a grain of salt but definitely  to keep in mind. Meanwhile in game the activity numbers are a lot higher/higher/the same/worse/a lot worse (and mind you, the new system can deal with ANY of those scenarios while the old one could not).

At which point do you as a developer take action and decide: I need to revert this system.?

Surely not when the activity has improved or remained the same. At which point does player engagement, and let's not forget this is the ONLY thing which matters (not personal desires), factor for more than forum naysayers?

Side question: what would it take for forum naysayers to accept that their view is NOT the predominant view on this change?

[Erathiel.9318]

4 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Okay, let's try this a different way. Some forum posters seem to believe that convincing other players is how you get something changed. Obviously incorrect since the vast majority of players have 0 impact on changing something. So let's look at this from the developers side.

Let's assume World Restructuring was done with 2 goals in mind:

1. create a better future proof automated system which makes manual relinking unnecessary, in an attempt to reduce workload.

2. improve server/shard balance with the goal to improve the experience, ultimately leading to an improved WvW experience overall (overall, not for every individual)

So where would the developers be at now?

Let's ignore point 1, since World Restructuring is hands down superior to the old server system in regards to aspects of being future proof, work load and flexibility. Let's assume this one is neutral (it is not) and just focus on 2.

How would the developers know that 2 is better, neutral or worse? On one hand you have complaints in the forums, something which is to be treated with a grain of salt but definitely  to keep in mind. Meanwhile in game the activity numbers are a lot higher/higher/the same/worse/a lot worse (and mind you, the new system can deal with ANY of those scenarios while the old one could not).

At which point do you as a developer take action and decide: I need to revert this system.?

Surely not when the activity has improved or remained the same. At which point does player engagement, and let's not forget this is the ONLY thing which matters (not personal desires), factor for more than forum naysayers?

 

Gathering data and accurate results of this new system takes time, up to several months, not a couple of weeks or days. That's why we've still got one reshuffle left until this beta phase is over. That shouldn't discourage anyone to not express what one feels about this sytem because it still serves to even predict what could occour if it isn't recieved well by the larger community.

For now I can only speak for myself with others either disagreeing or agreeing with me, but the main reason(s?) I still play WvW aside from gathering data and personal experience about this WR system is mainly for the loot, things like transmutes, Gifts of Battle and ascended gear, the whole community vibe and what that meant with the old system is more or less gone for me now, guilds don't live up to what servers used to bring, and I was from a lower tier server who worked it's way up to T1, being first hand witness to how larger guilds would transfer in and out of the server.

Which in other words mean that despite my reasons as you say, I'm still be registered as someone who partakes in WvW as an additional number in their data, but the real results of all this will as said show later down or up the road.

 

Quote

what would it take for forum naysayers to accept that their view is NOT the predominant view on this change?

Once again, talking down to those who do not agree with your point of view will not make this problem go away or diminish their opinions, people will express themselves whether you want it or not and I personally welcome that. But the real results are shown in the game itself when people either keep playing, cease to play or abuse the gamemode to get whatever they need, in this case being loot, I saw it with my own eyes as said in another MMO where people either found means to exploit the gamemode to get their loot or simply stopped partaking, finding other means to get what they need which is usually loot when they grew tired enough, symptoms like that are noticeable especially when people feel they're being ignored.

[One more for the road.8950]

3 minutes ago, Erathiel.9318 said:

Gathering data and accurate results of this new system takes time, up to several months, not a couple of weeks or days. That's why we've still got one reshuffle left until this beta phase is over.

I am sorry? This is not a "beta phase".

"It’s happening! We’re excited to announce that the World Restructuring system will be moving into an always-on beta status beginning with the WvW reset on June 14."

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/studio-update-guild-wars-2-in-spring-and-summer-2024/

[Erathiel.9318]

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

I am sorry? This is not a "beta phase".

"It’s happening! We’re excited to announce that the World Restructuring system will be moving into an always-on beta status beginning with the WvW reset on June 14."

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/studio-update-guild-wars-2-in-spring-and-summer-2024/

It's still beta

[One more for the road.8950]

Just now, Erathiel.9318 said:

It's still beta

But it's not "got one reshuffle left".

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Erathiel.9318 said:

 

Gathering data and accurate results of this new system takes time, up to several months, not a couple of weeks or days. That's why we've still got one reshuffle left until this beta phase is over.

I’m sorry but do you have a source for that? And did you start playing this week or something, WR has been active for 4 months almost.

[Erathiel.9318]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I’m sorry but do you have a source for that?

 

Data gathering takes time, you don't need to be a genius to understand that.

 

Quote

And did you start playing this week or something, WR has been active for 4 months almost.

Did you read my previous post?

[Cyninja.2954]

3 hours ago, Erathiel.9318 said:

 

Gathering data and accurate results of this new system takes time, up to several months, not a couple of weeks or days. That's why we've still got one reshuffle left until this beta phase is over. That shouldn't discourage anyone to not express what one feels about this sytem because it still serves to even predict what could occour if it isn't recieved well by the larger community.

For now I can only speak for myself with others either disagreeing or agreeing with me, but the main reason(s?) I still play WvW aside from gathering data and personal experience about this WR system is mainly for the loot, things like transmutes, Gifts of Battle and ascended gear, the whole community vibe and what that meant with the old system is more or less gone for me now, guilds don't live up to what servers used to bring, and I was from a lower tier server who worked it's way up to T1, being first hand witness to how larger guilds would transfer in and out of the server.

Which in other words mean that despite my reasons as you say, I'm still be registered as someone who partakes in WvW as an additional number in their data, but the real results of all this will as said show later down or up the road.

Sure, just as many others played before only for the loot.

Given WvW had been in a decline for years, it can be assumed a lot of players played only for the loot.

That does not magically change the fact that activity has not dropped with the introduction of the WR system.

3 hours ago, Erathiel.9318 said:

Once again, talking down to those who do not agree with your point of view will not make this problem go away or diminish their opinions, people will express themselves whether you want it or not and I personally welcome that. But the real results are shown in the game itself when people either keep playing, cease to play or abuse the gamemode to get whatever they need, in this case being loot, I saw it with my own eyes as said in another MMO where people either found means to exploit the gamemode to get their loot or simply stopped partaking, finding other means to get what they need which is usually loot when they grew tired enough, symptoms like that are noticeable especially when people feel they're being ignored.

I wasn't talking down. I was asking an honest question.

What would it take for players who preach that the mode is dying to realize that things are not as grim, if grim at all?

How can one who bases his opinion on no facts at all be convinced that he might be wrong?

Have you even for one moment considered that maybe a large amount of players, especially ones which organize into larger guilds and communities, are enjoying themselves within the new system? In some cases mabe even far more than kn the last few years pre WR going live? 

From all I can see the vast majority of unhappy players are ones without communities or guilds complaining they are being tossed around randomly while in the past they could simply afk on a server.

Maybe that type of player does not make up the majority of regular WvW players? 

Edited October 5 by Cyninja.2954

[Erathiel.9318]

21 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Sure, just as many others played before only for the loot.

Given WvW had been in a decline for years, it can be assumed a lot of players played only for the loot.

That does not magically change the fact that activity has not dropped with the introduction of the WR system.

 

I took a break before EoD and came back recently, my presence adds to the increasing activity in WvW but that doesn't mean the system works if people arenot happy with it, and as said up above, many factors play in reaching a proper conclusion that this new WR does system does work or not. I still WvW although I'm not necessarily happy with this sytem, in fact I'm WvWing right now while writing here, mainly because the team I'm playing in is winning and the opposing teams are already quitting, which grants me the window to browse the forums and farm the few players still lurking about, which in itself adds to the data of people being active despite the currently uneven teams.

 

Quote

 

How can one who bases his opinion on no facts at all be convinced that he might be wrong?

Have you even for one moment considered that maybe a large amount of players, especially ones which organize into larger guilds and communities, are enjoying themselves within the new system? In some cases mabe even far more than kn the last few years pre WR going live? 

 

 

We can only speculate until accurate data is presented and/or the devs are upfront about the results of this ongoing beta, but from what I've gathered this new WR system was made to  bring together players and guilds previously scattered across the various servers and communities, that will of course increase activity but it still doesn't present an accurate result whether this system is welcomed or not, which plays part in whether this WR system will work by the end of the day.

 

Quote

 

From all I can see the vast majority of unhappy players are ones without communities or guilds complaining they are being tossed around randomly while in the past they could simply afk on a server.

Maybe that type of player does not make up the majority of regular WvW players? 

 

 

I feel like I'm repeating myself and talking to a wall at this point so feel free to read my previous posts and other threads where I and other people express their opinions about this issue, I've already answered this up above.

Edited October 5 by Erathiel.9318
typos

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Erathiel.9318 said:

 

Data gathering takes time, you don't need to be a genius to understand that.

 

Did you read my previous post?

Did you read your own post? You said it "takes time, up to several months, not a couple of weeks or days".

 It's been 4 months.

Or do you still claim that it's only been "a couple of weeks or days" since you didnt seem to care for correcting the one basic premise of that entire post about gathering data? Nor anything about the claim WR would end this "beta phase" next shuffle which seems to be grabbed out of thin air.

Edited October 5 by Dawdler.8521

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Erathiel.9318 said:

 

I took a break before EoD and came back recently, my presence adds to the increasing activity in WvW but that doesn't mean the system works if people arenot happy with it, and as said up above, many factors play in reaching a proper conclusion that this new WR does system does work or not. I still WvW although I'm not necessarily happy with this sytem, in fact I'm WvWing right now while writing here, mainly because the team I'm playing in is winning and the opposing teams are already quitting, which grants me the window to browse the forums and farm the few players still lurking about, which in itself adds to the data of people being active despite the currently uneven teams.

We can only speculate until accurate data is presented and/or the devs are upfront about the results of this ongoing beta, but from what I've gathered this new WR system was made to  bring together players and guilds previously scattered across the various servers and communities, that will of course increase activity but it still doesn't present an accurate result whether this system is welcomed or not, which plays part in whether this WR system will work by the end of the day.

Every little thing you said here applies to the time before the restructuring was made permanent. EVERY SINGLE THING.

Players left and returned. Players played more when they were on the winning side and less when losing.

Players did not enjoy being steamrolled or having to face a bandwagoned opponent.

Players played for loot without enjoying themselves.

Players played for loot with enjoying themselves.

etc.

You are correct. Speculation is all one can do given the limited amount of data we have.

What we do know though is: the developers seem to be sticking to the WR approach so far (sure, this might change but if it doesn't,  that alone tells us something).

Activity so far has been not worse than with servers, even with everything going on.

1 hour ago, Erathiel.9318 said:

I feel like I'm repeating myself and talking to a wall at this point so feel free to read my previous posts and other threads where I and other people express their opinions about this issue, I've already answered this up above.

No, what you feel is your personal opinion clouding your judgment not actually reading what I wrote.

There are very few factors which changed between the server system and world restructuring. One of them being an expansion launching (which will affect player numbers, yes that is a valid factor to consider).

Everything else you mentioned has been going on with and without WR and as such can be omitted as argument. For every player like you who returned another left before the restructuring, thus creating an overall activity pool for example.

Now that activity can be tracked and compared and yes, more and longer periods of data are good. Unfortunately the meteic to clear is not a high one, guven WvW had been on a decline for years, but yes, more data will make things clearer. If you are unhappy with 4 months as sample size, sure wait for 6,  or better yet wait for the next expansion. That's fine. Don't be surprised though if your baseless assumption is not confirmed.

Even the complaint threads simply shifted from "wah Anet stop the bandwagoning" to "ah, Anet shards are unfair".

Edited October 5 by Cyninja.2954

[Erathiel.9318]

6 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Now that activity can be tracked and compared and yes, more and longer periods of data are good. Unfortunately the meteic to clear is not a high one, guven WvW had been on a decline for years, but yes, more data will make things clearer. If you are unhappy with 4 months as sample size, sure wait for 6,  or better yet wait for the next expansion. That's fine. Don't be surprised though if your baseless assumption is not confirmed.

Even the complaint threads simply shifted from "wah Anet stop the bandwagoning" to "ah, Anet shards are unfair".

 

You're going around in circles at this point and it feels like you're not actually reading and taking in what I or others write but simply wait to speak your piece and ignore what doesn't fit your mold so with that said, I believe this discussion has reached it's conclusion and we'll simply agree on disagreeing.

[Hesione.9412]

6 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Even the complaint threads simply shifted from "wah Anet stop the bandwagoning" to "ah, Anet shards are unfair".

Shards have not stopped bandwaggoning, they have made it easier. The underlying problem is obviously the same.

[Cyninja.2954]

4 hours ago, Hesione.9412 said:

Shards have not stopped bandwaggoning, they have made it easier. The underlying problem is obviously the same.

That is not true. We have official results of beta weeks which state otherwise directly from the developers.

The outliers with shards are far smaller than before.

Is the issue completely resolved? Absolutely not, but to insinuate that the current distribution is even close to having 1 or 2 completely overstacked servers, with near empty servers on the opposite side is ludicrous.

[Hesione.9412]

21 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

That is not true. We have official results of beta weeks which state otherwise directly from the developers.

The outliers with shards are far smaller than before.

Is the issue completely resolved? Absolutely not, but to insinuate that the current distribution is even close to having 1 or 2 completely overstacked servers, with near empty servers on the opposite side is ludicrous.

Yes, the comment after comment on the forums, stating that the person's shard is grossly outnumbered, is all in my imagination.

[Cyninja.2954]

51 minutes ago, Hesione.9412 said:

Yes, the comment after comment on the forums, stating that the person's shard is grossly outnumbered, is all in my imagination.

Meanwhile any metric we can see, besides the official comments of the developers, clearly show that these complaints are exagerated compared to before.

If you can't distinguish between facts and hear say, that is on you.

Again, world restructuring did not solve the issue, but it is far from where it was before.

That's just the issue isn't it? Individuals not understanding that difference and taking a "my bubble is telling me what I want to hear" as fact approach.

Edited October 6 by Cyninja.2954

[Hesione.9412]

13 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Meanwhile any metric we can see, besides the official comments of the developers, clearly show that these complaints are exagerated compared to before.

If you can't distinguish between facts and hear say, that is on you.

Again, world restructuring did not solve the issue, but it is far from where it was before.

That's just the issue isn't it? Individuals not understanding that difference and taking a "my bubble is telling me what I want to hear" as fact approach.

Any metric, apart from what people are reporting.

[Cyninja.2954]

10 minutes ago, Hesione.9412 said:

Any metric, apart from what people are reporting.

Hear say is not a metric.

A few weeks ago a player was complaining about how his shard is always dead and outnumbered.

Took 1 minute of checking gw2mists to see he is full of kitten, see when his shard is active and how the shard was doing in that current matchup (I believe they were 2nd).

Want me to look up the thread?

What do you believe is more prone to error? Player subjective experience, which is likely to be affected by a few minutes of engegemant if things aren't "working out", or 24/7 api data?

[Mabi black.1824]

On 10/5/2024 at 9:04 AM, Cyninja.2954 said:

improve server/shard balance with the goal to improve the experience

Improving the balance between teams/servers is a reasoning shared by everyone in here. The problem specifically is that we choose a ''method'' a ''mechanical'' that while it makes the balance better, also makes the concept of team/server useless....... ... right in a team/server game. It's impossible, I can't believe you can't see the problem specifically. My very personal feeling for 4 months now is that of participating in a ''useless'' team game because no one is interested in keeping a team reference for only 4 weeks. I'm writing this to you while I'm in a guild that has allied itself with other guilds. Playing with friends is great. But if there's no more immersive game design behind it, you'll still get bored.

[Cyninja.2954]

22 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Improving the balance between teams/servers is a reasoning shared by everyone in here. The problem specifically is that we choose a ''method'' a ''mechanical'' that while it makes the balance better, also makes the concept of team/server useless....... ...

Sure, which opens up this discussion to: of how much "value" was having a server team to begin with towards the end?

Now don't get me wrong, I personally think having servers or making servers "work" would have been great. I come from DAOC where being part of your realm was an integral part of the experience.

I am not that deluded though that I don't see the issues the server system posed and how part of this player base self-sabotaged themselves into turning the mode into what it was towards the end.

I'm also not obtuse enough that I believe servers are a necessity for this mode to succeed. No, that importance goes to day to day engagement and experience for the majority of players, and that can be achieved and shaped withing the world restructuring system.

Quote

right in a team/server game. It's impossible, I can't believe you can't see the problem specifically. My very personal feeling for 4 months now is that of participating in a ''useless'' team game because no one is interested in keeping a team reference for only 4 weeks. I'm writing this to you while I'm in a guild that has allied itself with other guilds. Playing with friends is great. But if there's no more immersive game design behind it, you'll still get bored.

No, what I see is a minority of players which deceive themselves into believing that servers where something magical and great for everyone and the majority of players want them back.

The reality is: the majority of players seem not to care about servers as long as their day to day experience has improved. As long as that remains true for more players then before your chances of making ANYTHING happen towards bringing servers back is 0.00000.

Edited October 6 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

What would it take for players who preach that the mode is dying to realize that things are not as grim, if grim at all?

How can one who bases his opinion on no facts at all be convinced that he might be wrong?

I would say that it is not a question of being right or wrong. it's just expressing your feelings by playing. if I tell you that my discomfort for 4 months now is to participate in a ''useless'' team game mode. I don't do it because I have to be right. Players like me, they have no escape. It's only a matter of time and you'll see them more and more rarely because they're moving away and more will come. Players like me are the ones who have always played in reference to the server/team. single account. Winning or losing has never mattered. What matters is to support your team, always, I would say especially when you lose. Players like me are the ones who consider you as a brother, single player, small guild, known guild, unknown guild it doesn't matter, you will always be a brother if you chose to stay with me on my team/server. Players like me are well aware of server balance issues. Especially in the EU where Anet has freely decided to discriminate against 3 servers out of 27. But we always hoped to see all this improve to be even more involved and excited about our team-based game mode. And I would say that WR has just erased that hope for good.