World Restructuring

[Mini Crinny.6190]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Mini Crinny.6190 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@"BlazeQ.1095" said:So the NA servers have very few guild that run in certain time zones. For example the "OCX" time zones. What is there to prevent the OCX guilds from creating an alliance that puts the majority of them on a single server eliminating any chance of coverage balance?

Good point, reposted for awareness.

Every time zone is only a small portion of a day, so they dominate this timezone and loose all others? In the end this looks like a bad deal to me: No opponents to fight, and no coverage to win.

just to add 'world creation: at the start of every season our new World Restructuring system will use recent statistics, based on similar predicted participation, skill, and coverage, to create worlds filled with alliances, guilds, and unaffiliated players.' This would suggest that if a alliance of OCX guilds was to be made, then the system would not put many players that play OCX times on the same world.. thats what i think it would do, same goes with NA and the others.

So, you would suggest that the system remove guilds from alliances to ensure balance?

No i'm not suggesting that what i think there saying is.. lets say a alliance of 500 people playing OCX timezone will be put into a world.. then the system would put lets say 500 people or guilds or another alliance playing OCX timezone on another world that will face that world. thats what i think it's saying

[Rampage.7145]

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Drinks.2361 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Drinks.2361 said:So there is a pile of people in this thread worrying about "top tier alliances", why do you even think there will be anything like tiers? We'll just get a matchup & that's it, there will be no relationship between the different matchups & the sides will be shuffled before the next match starts.

So many people that have left for other games are excited for this, there are piles of games out there that have slightly different versions of open world PvE & raids but WvW really sets this game apart. Hopefully we'll see enough support to make a real competitive scene out of it.

You will see 4 timezone alliances compete for the top tier with 3 timezone alliances being in the next tier on down to one timezone alliances in the bottom tier.

The good thing is that unlike servers being locked, alliances will have the opportunity to recruit to fill their coverage gaps.The other good thing is that the players that do return won't overstack an already overstacked side.

The bad is that the alliance might have to kick some guilds out to make room for the new recruits to fill coverage gaps.The other bad is that there will probably still be matches, particularly in lower tiers, where alliances have little or no coverage and can't get players to fill the gaps.

I think you're greatly overestimating the size of each alliance relative to the overall 8 week world. There is no reason for Anet to allow Alliances to be so large that they can manipulate the matchups

I'm sure Mal is already hard at work creating a 4 timezone 500 player guild.

Even if I were, It wouldn't be nearly as effective as some are making this out to be. Which is the point behind introducing a system of this nature. It prevents the super stacking of any world. Now you can super stack an alliance sure. But that alliance only would equate for a very small portion of the server even if the alliance size were to be 1k. That 1k sized

stacked

alliance wouldn't be able to decide what other players and or alliances it gets paired with. defeating the purpose of even attempting to have full 24/7 time zone coverage within an alliance.

Instead what

Mal

is thinking is having an healthy alliance environment that doesnt necessarily focus on having all 4 timezones. But instead one that allows for my friends and player base to have activity when they specifically play. You see with alliances, someone like me doesn't have to worry about making an entire server healthy anymore because the system will make worlds every 8 weeks for me.

3rd person reference. You really need to get some help.

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Drinks.2361 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Drinks.2361 said:So there is a pile of people in this thread worrying about "top tier alliances", why do you even think there will be anything like tiers? We'll just get a matchup & that's it, there will be no relationship between the different matchups & the sides will be shuffled before the next match starts.

So many people that have left for other games are excited for this, there are piles of games out there that have slightly different versions of open world PvE & raids but WvW really sets this game apart. Hopefully we'll see enough support to make a real competitive scene out of it.

You will see 4 timezone alliances compete for the top tier with 3 timezone alliances being in the next tier on down to one timezone alliances in the bottom tier.

The good thing is that unlike servers being locked, alliances will have the opportunity to recruit to fill their coverage gaps.The other good thing is that the players that do return won't overstack an already overstacked side.

The bad is that the alliance might have to kick some guilds out to make room for the new recruits to fill coverage gaps.The other bad is that there will probably still be matches, particularly in lower tiers, where alliances have little or no coverage and can't get players to fill the gaps.

I think you're greatly overestimating the size of each alliance relative to the overall 8 week world. There is no reason for Anet to allow Alliances to be so large that they can manipulate the matchups

I'm sure Mal is already hard at work creating a 4 timezone 500 player guild.

Even if I were, It wouldn't be nearly as effective as some are making this out to be. Which is the point behind introducing a system of this nature. It prevents the super stacking of any world. Now you can super stack an alliance sure. But that alliance only would equate for a very small portion of the server even if the alliance size were to be 1k. That 1k sized

stacked

alliance wouldn't be able to decide what other players and or alliances it gets paired with. defeating the purpose of even attempting to have full 24/7 time zone coverage within an alliance.

Instead what

Mal

is thinking is having an healthy alliance environment that doesnt necessarily focus on having all 4 timezones. But instead one that allows for my friends and player base to have activity when they specifically play. You see with alliances, someone like me doesn't have to worry about making an entire server healthy anymore because the system will make worlds every 8 weeks for me.

3rd person reference. You really need to get some help.

its all fun and games man. I've been playing this game for 5 years. I was having fun with the "what would Mal do". being view as some sorta of villain is comical to me. Those who think that about me, are the ones who needs help.

LOL true that, some people take this game way too seriously man, it is funny tho.

[Sol.6213]

I would really rather you devote your development time to balance and visual clutter issues.

For a game that has two major modes of play that pit players vs players, a balance patch every six months or longer does not seem adequate, to me, in the slightest.

Two week balance patches are common in many pvp style games. I would settle for monthly at this point.

Also, I feel that visual clutter in this game needs tuned way down and much more clearly defined between friendly and non-friendly skills.

I think those things would help two (all three with visual clutter) of your game modes more than player restructuring of one game mode.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Mini Crinny.6190 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Mini Crinny.6190 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@"BlazeQ.1095" said:So the NA servers have very few guild that run in certain time zones. For example the "OCX" time zones. What is there to prevent the OCX guilds from creating an alliance that puts the majority of them on a single server eliminating any chance of coverage balance?

Good point, reposted for awareness.

Every time zone is only a small portion of a day, so they dominate this timezone and loose all others? In the end this looks like a bad deal to me: No opponents to fight, and no coverage to win.

just to add 'world creation: at the start of every season our new World Restructuring system will use recent statistics, based on similar predicted participation, skill, and coverage, to create worlds filled with alliances, guilds, and unaffiliated players.' This would suggest that if a alliance of OCX guilds was to be made, then the system would not put many players that play OCX times on the same world.. thats what i think it would do, same goes with NA and the others.

So, you would suggest that the system remove guilds from alliances to ensure balance?

No i'm not suggesting that what i think there saying is.. lets say a alliance of 500 people playing OCX timezone will be put into a world.. then the system would put lets say 500 people or guilds or another alliance playing OCX timezone on another world that will face that world. thats what i think it's saying

Yes. That would be the intent.

I think the point someone had was if 3/4 of the OCX people (and I don't think it would happen, just that it could) form their own alliance, then any world that they were on would have a marked advantage, much like what people are complaining about now with T1.

[Ardid.7203]

@"Phil.7369" said:! > Beatiful change, good job.! > But you should consider a few things, like popular worlds and dead worlds. Otherwise the same issues will arise again.! >! > So, what happens for example if Blackgate remains Blackgate-S1 = top server due to its fame and then Blackgate-S2 is then again the top and most populated server, obviously thanks to it's renown. You are basically, again, creating a loop where the experienced and knowledgable players pick out their favorite servers after the 8 weeks period and again create power and population differences. It is guaranteed to happen, the same servers after each 8-week reset, again and again being the top and the typical dead/empty servers where some unfortunate new WVW players happen to land on.! >! > Have you considered how to counter this? Perhaps by renaming the servers after each reset? In that case no one can possibly know which server is now the old Blackgate or the old Fort Aspenwood and hence no cherry-picking servers or no alliance-dominated servers, where you can't possibly join in, unless you are part of the alliance. Yes, what you thought that wouldn't happen?! > Always plan ahead.! >! > Second possible solution, remove a number of servers from the game and "squeeze" the Contintent's populations in a specified number of servers. Obviously account for new players by leaving room in the existing servers.! > Basically, instead of having say 10 servers:! > 3 with 90% capacity! > 2 with 80% capacity! > 3 with 50% capacity! > 2 with 15% capacity! >! > and suffering from unbalance, power issues and dead servers... you could instead leave 6 servers with a population percentage of say 80%+ in each server. Obviously the 6 servers in this example will never achieve perfectly similar populations, with the majority spiking towards the top 2 or 3, but it will serve as a better solution to servers who have absolutely no hope of ever facing a superior (in terms of rankings) server.! > You have seen what happened throughout all these years Anet. It's always been Blackgate, Blackgate, Blackgate. It hasn't changed and if you don't adapt there will then be a new "hot" server who will dominate again and again after every single 2-month reset.! >! > I hope this helps, keep making this the best MMO in existence thanks!

But... servers will no longer exist. I don't understand your comment.

[Mini Crinny.6190]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Mini Crinny.6190 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Mini Crinny.6190 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@"BlazeQ.1095" said:So the NA servers have very few guild that run in certain time zones. For example the "OCX" time zones. What is there to prevent the OCX guilds from creating an alliance that puts the majority of them on a single server eliminating any chance of coverage balance?

Good point, reposted for awareness.

Every time zone is only a small portion of a day, so they dominate this timezone and loose all others? In the end this looks like a bad deal to me: No opponents to fight, and no coverage to win.

just to add 'world creation: at the start of every season our new World Restructuring system will use recent statistics, based on similar predicted participation, skill, and coverage, to create worlds filled with alliances, guilds, and unaffiliated players.' This would suggest that if a alliance of OCX guilds was to be made, then the system would not put many players that play OCX times on the same world.. thats what i think it would do, same goes with NA and the others.

So, you would suggest that the system remove guilds from alliances to ensure balance?

No i'm not suggesting that what i think there saying is.. lets say a alliance of 500 people playing OCX timezone will be put into a world.. then the system would put lets say 500 people or guilds or another alliance playing OCX timezone on another world that will face that world. thats what i think it's saying

Yes. That would be the intent.

I think the point someone had was if 3/4 of the OCX people (and I don't think it would happen, just that it could) form their own alliance, then any world that they were on would have a marked advantage, much like what people are complaining about now with T1.

ah, probably.. i must of misread the post.. who knows then.. still early doors and maybe they will have something new in the future to stop this? :P

[Rampage.7145]

@Ardid.7203 said:

@"Phil.7369" said:! > Beatiful change, good job.! > But you should consider a few things, like popular worlds and dead worlds. Otherwise the same issues will arise again.! >! > So, what happens for example if Blackgate remains Blackgate-S1 = top server due to its fame and then Blackgate-S2 is then again the top and most populated server, obviously thanks to it's renown. You are basically, again, creating a loop where the experienced and knowledgable players pick out their favorite servers after the 8 weeks period and again create power and population differences. It is guaranteed to happen, the same servers after each 8-week reset, again and again being the top and the typical dead/empty servers where some unfortunate new WVW players happen to land on.! >! > Have you considered how to counter this? Perhaps by renaming the servers after each reset? In that case no one can possibly know which server is now the old Blackgate or the old Fort Aspenwood and hence no cherry-picking servers or no alliance-dominated servers, where you can't possibly join in, unless you are part of the alliance. Yes, what you thought that wouldn't happen?! > Always plan ahead.! >! > Second possible solution, remove a number of servers from the game and "squeeze" the Contintent's populations in a specified number of servers. Obviously account for new players by leaving room in the existing servers.! > Basically, instead of having say 10 servers:! > 3 with 90% capacity! > 2 with 80% capacity! > 3 with 50% capacity! > 2 with 15% capacity! >! > and suffering from unbalance, power issues and dead servers... you could instead leave 6 servers with a population percentage of say 80%+ in each server. Obviously the 6 servers in this example will never achieve perfectly similar populations, with the majority spiking towards the top 2 or 3, but it will serve as a better solution to servers who have absolutely no hope of ever facing a superior (in terms of rankings) server.! > You have seen what happened throughout all these years Anet. It's always been Blackgate, Blackgate, Blackgate. It hasn't changed and if you don't adapt there will then be a new "hot" server who will dominate again and again after every single 2-month reset.! >! > I hope this helps, keep making this the best MMO in existence thanks!

But... servers will no longer exist. I don't understand your comment.

Wrong, u did not read the original post didn't you? server will still exist they will be formed by multiple alliances multiple non alliance guilds, multiple random people during the match duration. they will be shaked up every "x" amount of weeks after the season ends, and from that former server the people you can chose to play with is basically the ones that belong to your alliance, people in your current alliance will still play together for the next match up but they will be paired up with different people this time arround (allies and enemies).

[Gos.5816]

I am pretty excited for this change. Of course I have reservations but one of the problems it will solve is the inability to play with my friends who are currently all over the place on different servers, are interested in wvw but because it costs gems/money to move we have never played together. So my pve guild was alight with excitement this morning. Now I know the hardcore portion of the community won't care about this but wvw needs new people and it needs more mobility so that people can find places they like to play. Being able to be part of an alliance and able to choose if you stay or leave fairly frequently will probably help in the longevity of the game mode in my opinion. Currently if you are on a server and don't want to pay the price to transfer off or transfer off only to discover the grass really isn't greener and is in fact covered in turds, you're stuck. I am not a stranger to server loyalty (my main account has always been on TC and my alt has seen its share of turd covered lawns) and I am sympathetic to those who fear losing their server identity but wouldn't it be nice to choose your allies? I feel lucky in the guild that I am a part of, but I suspect not everyone on my server has such a cozy niche, especially since most of the old guilds have died or moved to other servers at this point.

[DarkEagle.7381]

when the new worlds get build every season how would you place a player, like myself, that only plays 1 hour of WvW a day? Will I be placed in a world with other people that only play 1 hour day and against a world that only plays 1 hour a day? Or will there be a balance for each world of people that play 10+ hours a day and people that play very little?

My concern is that I will no longer play WvW if it's the first case. I like jumping on and learning from experienced and dedicated WvW players. I contribute by roaming or being part of a zerg but if there's entire worlds of people who don't play very much there's almost no way to learn, to grow and, at any given time, the game mode would be dead most of the time.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Mini Crinny.6190 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Mini Crinny.6190 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Mini Crinny.6190 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@"BlazeQ.1095" said:So the NA servers have very few guild that run in certain time zones. For example the "OCX" time zones. What is there to prevent the OCX guilds from creating an alliance that puts the majority of them on a single server eliminating any chance of coverage balance?

Good point, reposted for awareness.

Every time zone is only a small portion of a day, so they dominate this timezone and loose all others? In the end this looks like a bad deal to me: No opponents to fight, and no coverage to win.

just to add 'world creation: at the start of every season our new World Restructuring system will use recent statistics, based on similar predicted participation, skill, and coverage, to create worlds filled with alliances, guilds, and unaffiliated players.' This would suggest that if a alliance of OCX guilds was to be made, then the system would not put many players that play OCX times on the same world.. thats what i think it would do, same goes with NA and the others.

So, you would suggest that the system remove guilds from alliances to ensure balance?

No i'm not suggesting that what i think there saying is.. lets say a alliance of 500 people playing OCX timezone will be put into a world.. then the system would put lets say 500 people or guilds or another alliance playing OCX timezone on another world that will face that world. thats what i think it's saying

Yes. That would be the intent.

I think the point someone had was if 3/4 of the OCX people (and I don't think it would happen, just that it could) form their own alliance, then any world that they were on would have a marked advantage, much like what people are complaining about now with T1.

ah, probably.. i must of misread the post.. who knows then.. still early doors and maybe they will have something new in the future to stop this? :P

It's one of my issues with the proposal.

I like the idea of more consistent activity. That will be great for the havoc group I run with.

But people aren't seeing the significant possibility to coverage disparity in this, that as we are talking about WvW 'meaning something again' (translation:winning may matter) the JQs, BGs of the world will exist again. It will be different people and guilds, but make no mistake, the system will be gamed.

Unless there is a process to split guilds from alliances to ensure more even coverage, done by the adults in the room (i.e. Anet) then the stacking will begin again.

[silvermember.8941]

@Sol.6213 said:I would really rather you devote your development time to balance and visual clutter issues.

For a game that has two major modes of play that pit players vs players, a balance patch every six months or longer does not seem adequate, to me, in the slightest.

Two week balance patches are common in many pvp style games. I would settle for monthly at this point.

Also, I feel that visual clutter in this game needs tuned way down and much more clearly defined between friendly and non-friendly skills.

I think those things would help two (all three with visual clutter) of your game modes more than player restructuring of one game mode.

I totally agree. We should totally get the developers whose job is to focus only on WvW to work on visual clutter and balance issues.

In any case, population in balance is far more important than class balance. Class balance only matters if you actually have people to fight against.

[Chaba.5410]

I don't understand the logic of people who want to remain on some specific team but don't want to invest in being a team member by joining or making a guild or alliance. Why should you get preference over someone who is more dedicated to team-building?

[KlarissaMT.5412]

I notice arena net is spending a lot of discussion time answering "good job we like it" posts. Is it ok to have misgivings about this and still get a response. There's been some fabulous posts asking about alliances "gaming the system" by stacking highly skilled players which would end up playing against a pool of new players, solos or have not guilds just looking to provide a WvW experience for their members. What exactly would all of this fix? What is the current problem and how in the new proposal could you guarantee it would rear its ugly head again in a slightly different form?

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Deimos.4263 said:Being able to play with your guild is very promising. Many casuals get put off of WvW because they picked some random world when they got their account, and then joined a guild primarily elsewhere...or just plain scattered.

Yes, this is a huge thing for many guilds. Elimination of servers means it expanded the amount and type of people you can potentially recruit. Likewise, the servers restrictions is eliminated thus players have a wider range of guilds to choose from. Community (PvX) guilds that does WvW will now able to connect to more of their members.

[Namer.9750]

@"BlazeQ.1095" said:So the NA servers have very few guild that run in certain time zones. For example the "OCX" time zones. What is there to prevent the OCX guilds from creating an alliance that puts the majority of them on a single server eliminating any chance of coverage balance?

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@"BlazeQ.1095" said:So the NA servers have very few guild that run in certain time zones. For example the "OCX" time zones. What is there to prevent the OCX guilds from creating an alliance that puts the majority of them on a single server eliminating any chance of coverage balance?

Good point, reposted for awareness.

If you talk to the actual OCX/SEA guilds, you'll realize nobody wants to do that shit anymore. I can name nearly every OCX/SEA guild and I can tell you unlike primetime, there are barely any offhours guilds who play for something other than fights.

My OCX guild is already planning to talk to other OCX guilds and possibly organize a full split up between different alliances so as to ensure no one alliance is too stacked, in order to achieve the best fights (in the same way NA guilds did for GvG tiers back in 2015).

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

3rd person reference. You really need to get some help.

Someone's obsessed lmfao. Still butthurt about something three years ago?

[Rampage.7145]

@Chaba.5410 said:I don't understand the logic of people who want to remain on some specific team but don't want to invest in being a team member by joining or making a guild or alliance. Why should you get preference over someone who is more dedicated to team-building?

Makes no sense i agree with you 100% here

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

Oh my! 18 pages!? Better start reading...

[Adzekul.3104]

Have read the TLDRs on Reddit, have not yet read the entire opening post ... Read it and the plan ticks many boxes for me ... but ...

If Alliance population will be up to 500 - 1000, and map population will not be increased, 4 full borders amounts to something like 280 people. If Alliances fill up, map queues will be absolutely abominable. This needs to be addressed before these changes are fully implemented. Even if you assume that some portion of these 1000 people will be playing at off-peak times, it still leaves horrible queues during peak times.

If we get to an end-state of many full Alliances, please show me how this avoids the stagnation of the same people fighting the same people, over and over and over every week. This end state needs to be avoided before these changes are fully implemented.

Another point is that unguilded people (those not in WvW guilds) are tossed around and maybe even pushed together into a very small number of worlds. Those worlds, with many unguilded players will fare very poorly in the scoring and will leave their enemies without fights. This is also an undesirable potential end-state that needs to be addressed.

After reading the changes, my guild are leaning to the sceptical side. We won't be the only ones. I happen to be more positive than my guild, but people will need to have their negative feelings towards these changes addressed.

[Grim West.3194]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:Oh my! 18 pages!? Better start reading...

Don't let the few naysayers stop this. Most of us really like your proposal. WvW needs this.

[Loosmaster.8263]

@ham.8209 said:

@Mini Crinny.6190 said:

@ham.8209 said:@McKenna Berdrow.2759

1. Gift of Mastery ,Gift of Conquering, Gift of War Prosperity, Gift of the Mists will these be removed from wvw . and put back into PVE for crafting where they belong ????

2. or will pve players still be forced to do wvw in order to get these items for crafting ?????

This is a little off topic.. but just so you know, will they remove map completion for WvW players and give them something else in order to get legendary weapons?

very off topic to my questions ask

but still map completion far as that goes wvw was removed a very long time ago from wvw .so i do not see them putting it back in again . and hope they do not do that at all

it be nicer if they removed all that stuff from wvw that pve players like me would like to get but have no none not any at all interests at all in wvw game mode

like to see them move that stuff to NPC vendor you go to any town and buy that stuff from them and do your crafting and go back to you fav game mode of choice B)

I think they were countering you with removing PvE world completion to craft a Legendary. Which is in your statement that about playing preferred game mode.

[Pagan Highlander.5948]

The things i'd like to see changed in this:1- Cut the seasons from 8 weeks to 4 week seasons. I feel 8 weeks is too long and will become boring and feel like a grind.2- Somehow force the off-hours to spread out over many worlds, possibly by counting the players as 3x or 5x the normal hours3- Maybe restrict alliances to like 8 guilds and 350 members. This would really help prevent super alliances and Guarantee a more even balance.4- While Alliances should be allowed top invite any guild, Guilds should be only kicked from an alliance if they have a 51% majority Guild vote in the alliance. (with 2 guilds, one can merely leave anyways). Otherwise they can abuse the system having Guilds join an alliance and when a better one or larger one comes along, just be kicking guilds to make room for a new one.

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

well, I am a bit torn. I value my server. A lot of great people are on that server. But almost all of those great people are in basically 3 or 4 guilds... so with the alliance system, not much will change. On the other hand, there are a couple of people I'd love to play with who are on the 'wrong' server at the moment. So this might be a great way to get them all together.

Time will tell, I think, it is worth a try.

[Comprissent.3856]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:Oh my! 18 pages!? Better start reading...

Yes, join us . Thank you for this

[Ardid.7203]

@Rampage.7145 said:

@Ardid.7203 said:

@"Phil.7369" said:! > Beatiful change, good job.! > But you should consider a few things, like popular worlds and dead worlds. Otherwise the same issues will arise again.! >! > So, what happens for example if Blackgate remains Blackgate-S1 = top server due to its fame and then Blackgate-S2 is then again the top and most populated server, obviously thanks to it's renown. You are basically, again, creating a loop where the experienced and knowledgable players pick out their favorite servers after the 8 weeks period and again create power and population differences. It is guaranteed to happen, the same servers after each 8-week reset, again and again being the top and the typical dead/empty servers where some unfortunate new WVW players happen to land on.! >! > Have you considered how to counter this? Perhaps by renaming the servers after each reset? In that case no one can possibly know which server is now the old Blackgate or the old Fort Aspenwood and hence no cherry-picking servers or no alliance-dominated servers, where you can't possibly join in, unless you are part of the alliance. Yes, what you thought that wouldn't happen?! > Always plan ahead.! >! > Second possible solution, remove a number of servers from the game and "squeeze" the Contintent's populations in a specified number of servers. Obviously account for new players by leaving room in the existing servers.! > Basically, instead of having say 10 servers:! > 3 with 90% capacity! > 2 with 80% capacity! > 3 with 50% capacity! > 2 with 15% capacity! >! > and suffering from unbalance, power issues and dead servers... you could instead leave 6 servers with a population percentage of say 80%+ in each server. Obviously the 6 servers in this example will never achieve perfectly similar populations, with the majority spiking towards the top 2 or 3, but it will serve as a better solution to servers who have absolutely no hope of ever facing a superior (in terms of rankings) server.! > You have seen what happened throughout all these years Anet. It's always been Blackgate, Blackgate, Blackgate. It hasn't changed and if you don't adapt there will then be a new "hot" server who will dominate again and again after every single 2-month reset.! >! > I hope this helps, keep making this the best MMO in existence thanks!

But... servers will no longer exist. I don't understand your comment.

Wrong, u did not read the original post didn't you? server will still exist they will be formed by multiple alliances multiple non alliance guilds, multiple random people during the match duration. they will be shaked up every "x" amount of weeks after the season ends, and from that former server the people you can chose to play with is basically the ones that belong to your alliance, people in your current alliance will still play together for the next match up but they will be paired up with different people this time arround (allies and enemies).

Ah, you mean "Worlds". I did read the first post, but they never mention "servers", but "worlds". Ok, got it.Why don't you use the official nomenclature Anet proposes? It would be easier to discuss.

[Phyrexian GoD.1526]

Quick question about AlliancesWill it be possible to pre-determine / show what alliance will be part of which "world" before a matchup? So that for example when 2 of them will want to clash, they dont end up on the same world accidentally and be forced to "cooperate" until the matchup is over. Or alternatively, will Alliances be able to pick a lets say "unclaimed" worlds beforehand to better spread between worlds before the matchup?