World Restructuring

[Djamonja.6453]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Zephyr.8015" said:SoS is putting in work, SoS is putting in the time and the effort and I applaud them for doing it.

It seems like you didn't understand the meat of the example in the dev's post. SoS is only "putting in work" because they have a link that helps them achieve that: Borlis Pass. The dev said it is difficult for them to create teams that have the coverage profile of BG because the world linking system is not granular enough. So for example CD has the population but not the coverage. Anet was able to seemingly do it with the SoS and BP link, but their real goal is to be able to do that for all teams. The proposed system would create the granularity needed to achieve that goal.

Chaba is correct -- the problem is not that they can't make some servers (links) competitive in tier 2-4, the problem is that tier 1 can't be made competitive with the current server linking system. If they stick enough linked servers in tier 1 they might be able to make it competitive, but then tiers 2-4 wouldn't be balanced. With the new system, they basically break up the top 4-5 servers and force them to become alliance based, and then Anet can split them up between worlds if they are too big/strong.

[Radymski.4987]

What the hell is this crap?

Sorry but server pride. Existing communities. However u do this u will end all that.

We like our servers just kill some of the little ones screw them slackers anyway.... Limit the choice of servers. Dnt merging them temporary make perm links

I really think your idea is waaaaaa to extreme.... Just delete small servers merge perm and be done with it.

We dnt need a fraction or alliance crap, all that will do is best guilds farm bad pugs the new and pug casuals will quit further reducing player base and then the big bois got nothing to fight...

It makes zero sense why u would make a drastic change when you have done nothing to perm address population balance by limiting or perm merge servers

All u did was apply a band aid and now u go straight to amputation my leg? Wth anet.... Wth....

Seasoned commander and guild raid leader here.

Maybe contact wvw commandera and guilds or community and ask them rather than com up with thus bull.... Idea... Zzzz

And no I love change. But this is the wrong one. I'll probably quit tbh I hate the sound of this concept

[mulzi.8273]

I forsee lots of stacking and exploiting. Something like many of the top BG guilds alliancing themselves together and/or forming a new 'wvw' guild so they stay together. Only thing they'll really lose is roaming coverage from the little guilds. But they gain that back from a 'new link' where other guilds will be in their world for the season.

So basically, the name 'BG' goes away, but they will all still be together and fighting, against everyone else. Only thing this affects is the little guilds/solo roamers who will be shifted around them now.

[DeKong.6203]

looking forward to this! Nee change was needed. No system is perfect! But we needed this

[Lexi.1398]

I'm concerned about playing with my friends. They aren't too active in game, but I WOULD like to wvw with them when we get a chance. With that in mind, and the fact servers only exist for 8 weeks, I think server transfers should cost: 1 time free per season (limited to within server area - eg free transfers between NA servers for someone who selected NA base, but must pay a fee to transfer to EU), a second+ server transfer that costs gold/gems to do, maybe with same limits of once per week idk. And then a third server "base" transfer for current gem cost (NA to EU or vice versa) that can happen regaurdless of season.

Also..what of people with wildly conflicting wvw activity? Like me...who's on in EU and NA times inconsistently. Or is the idea for 100% timezone coverage?

Oh yeah, will the "teir" system also still exist? I kinda like staying on a server that usually shifts between teirs 2 and 3 and i'd only really want to play on 1 if i have to play outside of those teirs.

[dolcolax.1268]

@mulzi.8273 said:I forsee lots of stacking and exploiting. Something like many of the top BG guilds alliancing themselves together and/or forming a new 'wvw' guild so they stay together. Only thing they'll really lose is roaming coverage from the little guilds. But they gain that back from a 'new link' where other guilds will be in their world for the season.

So basically, the name 'BG' goes away, but they will all still be together and fighting, against everyone else. Only thing this affects is the little guilds/solo roamers who will be shifted around them now.

BG doesnt have that many big guilds. its carried mostly by pugs.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@"Lexi.1398" said:I'm concerned about playing with my friends. They aren't too active in game, but I WOULD like to wvw with them when we get a chance. With that in mind, and the fact servers only exist for 8 weeks, I think server transfers should cost: 1 time free per season (limited to within server area - eg free transfers between NA servers for someone who selected NA base, but must pay a fee to transfer to EU), a second+ server transfer that costs gold/gems to do, maybe with same limits of once per week idk. And then a third server "base" transfer for current gem cost (NA to EU or vice versa) that can happen regaurdless of season.

Also..what of people with wildly conflicting wvw activity? Like me...who's on in EU and NA times inconsistently. Or is the idea for 100% timezone coverage?

Oh yeah, will the "teir" system also still exist? I kinda like staying on a server that usually shifts between teirs 2 and 3 and i'd only really want to play on 1 if i have to play outside of those teirs.

It's been stated that any transfer within season will not take effect until the next season. It needs to remain that way to minimize gaming the system.

[Klypto.1703]

Hopefully there is also some plan on making it where ebg isnt queued up to a million people while bl's are empty. There should be a T6 participation requirement to be able to move to a different map if you are already in wvw. For a more healthy wvw experience because it just promotes unsatisfactory behaviors of people who just afk and take up space so it should be based on people who are playing first rather than those afking. Some may disagree but at the least they should have to do something before they can go siege objectives from inside other objectives before they do their afk pip farming.

[Avelione.6075]

Confusing, but I hope it works. I'm not a super fan of WvW but I like to play some time.

[Kalaina.8245]

A couple of implementation questions:

Some guilds have members from both NA and EU. If they set themselves as a WvW guild and people from both regions go to pick them as their WvW guild, what happens?

My main WvW guild is a PvX guild with 400 members, around 40 of whom actually play WvW. For alliances, would this guild count as having 400 members when its WvW presence is notably smaller?

And a couple of broader questions:

In NA it was normal for servers to tank in certain weeks in order to get into more favorable matches. This also had the side effect of making worlds open up for transfers when their lack of playtime is artificial. More favorable matchups may help prevent this, but may not eliminate the problem. Will there be any systems in place to handle this sort of thing?

A significant portion of the WvW community doesn't find a defensive ppt-oriented playstyle enjoyable, and accordingly prefer being in lower tiers where they're more likely to be matched up against others who similarly don't care about points or winning. Likewise, a number of people prefer being in lower population matchups where they can feel more impactful and be involved in smaller scale fights. Will this algorithm be working off a base assumption that all players want to be in high-population matchups that care about winning through score?

[Rampage.7145]

@zerorogue.9410 said:Let me just put this Simple YOU ARE DESTROYING WvW WvW Has survived on one and one thing alone, community. A feeling that when you go into wvw you see players you have always known. This is essentially cutting off player's arms and legs because you can't figure out how to match up two Athletes. With this system were going from community to . No more rankings, No more competition, No more strategy. Just Generic large scale pvp. We can go play battlefield for that!

Yes alliances will allow SOME of the people you've seen, but they are limited and people will have to be cut out to keep them. This will create toxic and anger within groups as Guild A has too many players to ally with Guild B so Guild B kicks 20 players.

This is Just putting a band-aid on a band-aid. It fixes nothing. WvW needs dynamic balancing, that can adapt minute by minute. You can't predict when player's are going to play a game. you can do a good job, But players can also take advantage of this.What if a guild decides to run on a different time?What if One world of player's get's matched up with one world of pro's?

The only thing this will do is make WvW slightly better at the cost of anything unique about it. DO NOT DO THIS. PLEASE!

you are massively wrong here imo, if anything all thise will strenghten the comunity, you will be part of a whole WvW comunity now with 100s of guilds instead of a server comunity, you can still form up alliances with the people you enjoy playing with and still be able to play with a whole lot of new peopel you didint know existed untill now soooooo yeah this argument is wrong in every possible way.

[Zok.4956]

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:We also want to give titles related to the worlds on which players currently are playing when World Restructuring goes live. If there are other transition ideas, we would love to hear them!

Another Idea: Give special titles to players that stayed loyal to their server and never transferred to other servers.

[dolcolax.1268]

@Rampage.7145 said:

@"zerorogue.9410" said:Let me just put this Simple

YOU ARE DESTROYING WvW

WvW Has survived on one and one thing alone, community. A feeling that when you go into wvw you see players you have always known. This is essentially cutting off player's arms and legs because you can't figure out how to match up two Athletes. With this system were going from community to . No more rankings, No more competition, No more strategy. Just Generic large scale pvp. We can go play battlefield for that!

Yes alliances will allow SOME of the people you've seen, but they are limited and people will have to be cut out to keep them. This will create toxic and anger within groups as Guild A has too many players to ally with Guild B so Guild B kicks 20 players.

This is Just putting a band-aid on a band-aid. It fixes nothing.

WvW needs dynamic balancing, that can adapt minute by minute.

You can't predict when player's are going to play a game. you can do a good job, But players can also take advantage of this.What if a guild decides to run on a different time?What if One world of player's get's matched up with one world of pro's?

The only thing this will do is make WvW slightly better at the cost of anything unique about it. DO NOT DO THIS. PLEASE!

you are massively wrong here imo, if anything all thise will strenghten the comunity, you will be part of a whole WvW comunity now with 100s of guilds instead of a server comunity, you can still form up alliances with the people you enjoy playing with and still be able to play with a whole lot of new peopel you didint know existed untill now soooooo yeah this argument is wrong in every possible way.

i dont think theres a community if you get swapped servers every 8 weeks. sure you have your "alliances" but i doubt this alliances will fill the entire server.

[Cylon.9307]

will there be a free guild name change, so a wvw guild could be set up in an existing guild???

[Rampage.7145]

@SolitaryPillarist.5740 said:Anet, just my 2 cents, but can you please not alienate the small roaming groups and cater only to the giant mobs that just want to kill each other. Some of us actually enjoy the challenge of taking keeps, towers etc. and not have to spend massive amounts of gold to be able to compete in those guild battles.

I know I am going to catch so much hate from those bigger groups for this post but some of us actually want to do WVW.

You can still do whatver you do just fine, you have to understand tho, big blobs are the blood and soul of WvW they cause the maps to change, without the big organized groups the maps just become stale and boring, for example as a roamer myself for years one of the most fun times i had was preventing from enemy players to upgrade a keep/tower, i would sit on a camp and gank all day just for fun, this would never be posible without a big blob that papered that keep in first place, and the big commaders benefited indirectly from what i was doing aswell so both types of gameplay are importanat and complement each other same with havock guilds and whatnot, you dont really wanna play on a server that 100% of the population are a bunch of duelers for example cuz they would take your fights and shit it would be boring as fuck, all kinds of groups coexist just fine as long the game is health dynamic and active.

[BlazeQ.1095]

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?

[Curunen.8729]

Fantastic idea - I just wish I hadn't wasted gems on transferring only a month ago... and barely playing gw2 since then. :/

[Gambit.9501]

Hi. I'm somebody who absolutely does not care about WvW one single bit (let alone about pvp in gw2 in general), but yet am also somehow someone who will end up being heavily, immensely affected by this change regardless. I just hope that change doesn't end up being a negative one. Yet, if Anet's track record with World Linking is anything to write home about, chances are it most likely is going to end up being another negative.

Yep, you guessed it. I'm a Tarnished Coast roleplayer.

With the way this new system is designed right now, it sounds like some megaguild on our server (like TCRP) would need to become a "WvW guild" and effectively act as the gatekeeper to our entire community from now on. Speaking of which, I sure do hope you plan to make "WvW guilds" not take up one of your 5 guild slots, cuz otherwise I can count a number of people I know who would need to drop one of their guild to accommodate to this new system, all for the sake of the community. Another of my biggest fears is that you, Anet, are going to end up going with the smaller number in terms of what to set the Alliance player limit to. Please, please, PLEASE do not. More is absolutely better by default in this case. When all players of a specific niche (i.e. 'roleplayers') get narrowed into congregating into a single whole group due to the circumstances of the game they're playing, the number of people in said group tends to grow big verrrrry quickly. I saw it happen back in the day with WoW's Moon Guard server, and it happened with Tarnished Coast to a lesser extent as well. I foresee that happening all the same here with this new Alliance system.

Honestly, i'm just worried that the already-rare-yet-beautiful occurrence of sporadic RP between two or more persons out in the open somewhere in the lush world of Tyria would absolutely become an extinct species with this change. I'm just fearful that Arenanet is just going to keep inadvertently making it harder and harder for us roleplayers to find/come across eachother in the open world. That they'll keep accidentially screwing us over with their server/world changes. Like a ladybug getting crushed underfoot in the grass without anyone ever knowing it even existed, eventually the only RP that'll end up existing will be guild-only. It shouldn't happen like that.

Do take note that i'm taking extra liberties to make sure that I do NOT sound like I am accusing Anet of any sort of concerted efforts to "wipe us out". I want everyone who reads this to know that I am in full understanding of the fact that Anet has no intentions of actively making it harder for ambient RPers to congregate out in the open. As far as i'm concerned, Anet sees us as a blip on the radar, if even that. These are just possibly-unforeseen consequences of a change in server function.

It is my earnest hope, Anet, that you will handle this server restructuring with GREAT CARE TAKEN to the consideration of tightly-knit, pre-existing world-based communities such as Tarnished Coast.

May you make the right choices in the end.

[Eowin Of Rohan.2619]

This is huge. Thoughts :

• In order to retain the main goal (granularity for match making), Alliances can't be too big and imho shouldn't have their size at more than 20-30% of a world's activity. Knowing that they'll probably be composed of the most active wvw players, that's probably less than 10% of target population. In the end, I don't see it going further than 3-4 guilds with ~50 people, unless you somehow ensure that their raid times are different in the first place (but this should be a matchmaker rule, it's hard to enforce that as an alliance rule). 500-1000 players seems huge : if people form alliances that include basically most prime time guilds of current worlds, no granularity will be gained.

• This may be an occasion to stop all fights about "wvw styles". See how people can hate each other in /t because they don't have the same goals in wvw, see how every single aspect of wvw and/or feedback thread on forums/reddit since launch showed that big portions of wvw people have totally difference points of view on how wvw should be. Having custom communities through the new guild and alliance options could open for people/guilds to select preferrences. For exemple : big fight priority (incl. open field fights just for the sake of it), full scale strategy game (my own preference - which was played in 2013 very well, where you play for map control, capture and defend, try to move based on guessed enemy positions or lure them one side and capturing other side, have roaming groups, and still have decent amounts of big fights except they're mostly part of attacking/defending objectives, distracting enemy blob, sending them back to faraway spawn, moral and so on ... basically, all part of strategy game for control and not looking for fights just for the sake of it), full KT, mixed. Divide any population that choose each preference option into at least 3 worlds (even if some mean 3 small worlds). Furthermore, it could allow for different rules (only about numbers so it's still a single wvw system to maintain for devs but with number parameters) : 0-1-2 PPK, low-mid-high PPT, number of dolyaks per upgrade ...

• About languages : please don't determine this on client language like the chat filter thing (this one would need changes imho but I lost hope) and the new horrible auto wiki command. Let us choose wvw language preferrence, preferably with ability to select several of them and set priority. Also, guilds themselves should have language option near the "wvw guild" checkbox (for example my current pretty inactive guild is international, if we decide to call it a wvw guild so we can play together from time to time I wouldn't want the system to put it in a french world just because I'm sometimes more active than other people combined).

[Rampage.7145]

@dolcolax.1268 said:i feel like this would be like a game of league of legends/dota with 5 randoms against 5 friends only on a much bigger scale

Which is good thing, this game has little to no gear progression so what is the point of spending endless hours playing it anyway????? Oh yeah having fun and killing people all day long like any other PvP MMO! so yeah good change right here bro.

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

@HazyDaisy.4107 said:

@Red Haired Savage.5430 said:

@HazyDaisy.4107 said:How is the loyalty pip going to work if there are no worlds to be loyal to? Apologies if this has already been asked.

It's not a loyalty pip anymore(they changed it shortly after starting it), its now the commitment pip, you get it for getting wood last week.

And if you did not transfer, which still makes server loyalty come into play for this pip currently whatever it's called. So, I ask again, how can we hold to the loyalty stipulation assosiated with this pip if none of us have a server? Is the transfer penalty going to be removed or is the whole pip going away?

There is no loyalty one anymore. The commitment pip only gives for finishing wood chest the previous week.https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Skirmish_reward_track

[Rampage.7145]

@zinkz.7045 said:

@"Xtc Soul Dragon.2067" said:In your initial post you blatantly display whom your ire and dscrimination is aimed at, and that is my home server, since prerelease, of Blackgate.

They mentioned Blackgate in one paragraph merely as an example of how world linking is too blunt an instrument to allow them to balance coverage.

As you have apparently missed it, population/coverage imbalances have been an issue since day 1, if you had frequented the forums then you'd remember that soon after launch there was a "nightcapping" megathread precisely because of how those imbalances basically rendered WvW has a competition meaningless.

Favoritism will determine who is tier 1, not skill or dedication or hours or sacrifice.

I hate to break it to you, but part of the reason WvW needs a change and part of the reason it has died off to the extent it has, is "winning" is meaningless, no one with an ounce of logic cares less about "winning" in a game mode that is a joke as a competition, precisely because all that really counts is population/coverage. A WvW matchup is akin to having a sports match where after half time only one team comes back out and are able to score freely with no opposition, that is not competitive or skilled in the slightest.

Go ahead and replace the failed Edge of the Mists experiment; the lacklust rewards of that gamemode will not be missed. Do not delete 5 years of WvW rivalry and identity for shallow and foresight-lacking purposes, you as the developer do not write the history of your game, the players do.

Maybe this is the only game you've ever played, but servers are merely a grouping, people can have "pride" or "community" around different types of grouping, take EVE Online that is based on alliances made up of corporations (guilds) and to be blunt that game has a far deeper, stronger community than GW2 will ever have, the notion that servers are the only way those things can be achieved is nonsense.

...the moment you expunge that from the game is the moment that WvW ceases to have a reason to exist in a lot of our hearts and minds.

Really maybe you should look outside your own stacked T1 server, and over both EU and NA, WvW is in a really bad state, which is why most of the actual WvW players have either left or barely play anymore.

+10000000000 for this dude, he definitelly knows what's up well written brother.

[Troft.4038]

This is your big idea to save WVW? Break up people who you have ran with for years. Sounds like a great idea!!RIP WVW!!!!

[Rampage.7145]

@dolcolax.1268 said:

@Rampage.7145 said:

@"zerorogue.9410" said:Let me just put this Simple

YOU ARE DESTROYING WvW

WvW Has survived on one and one thing alone, community. A feeling that when you go into wvw you see players you have always known. This is essentially cutting off player's arms and legs because you can't figure out how to match up two Athletes. With this system were going from community to . No more rankings, No more competition, No more strategy. Just Generic large scale pvp. We can go play battlefield for that!

Yes alliances will allow SOME of the people you've seen, but they are limited and people will have to be cut out to keep them. This will create toxic and anger within groups as Guild A has too many players to ally with Guild B so Guild B kicks 20 players.

This is Just putting a band-aid on a band-aid. It fixes nothing.

WvW needs dynamic balancing, that can adapt minute by minute.

You can't predict when player's are going to play a game. you can do a good job, But players can also take advantage of this.What if a guild decides to run on a different time?What if One world of player's get's matched up with one world of pro's?

The only thing this will do is make WvW slightly better at the cost of anything unique about it. DO NOT DO THIS. PLEASE!

you are massively wrong here imo, if anything all thise will strenghten the comunity, you will be part of a whole WvW comunity now with 100s of guilds instead of a server comunity, you can still form up alliances with the people you enjoy playing with and still be able to play with a whole lot of new peopel you didint know existed untill now soooooo yeah this argument is wrong in every possible way.

i dont think theres a community if you get swapped servers every 8 weeks. sure you have your "alliances" but i doubt this alliances will fill the entire server.

So, do you think PVE comunity or PvP comunity is not a thing????? those are mega servers and those comunities are far stronger than WvW is or ever was, you play with the people you enjoy playing, end of the story dosnt matter which server they are ¨on¨, you join discords you join guilds you intereact with them in game, server system just alienates people into yet another subgroup. Sure there is some people u wanna play with in your current server but you don't get to play with the other hundreds of people on other servers that u would potentially enjoy playing with.

[Sojourner.4621]

@"Gambit.9501" said:Hi. I'm somebody who absolutely does not care about WvW one single bit (let alone about pvp in gw2 in general), but yet am also somehow someone who will end up being heavily, immensely affected by this change regardless. I just hope that change doesn't end up being a negative one. Yet, if Anet's track record with World Linking is anything to write home about, chances are it most likely is going to end up being another negative.

Yep, you guessed it. I'm a Tarnished Coast roleplayer.

With the way this new system is designed right now, it sounds like some megaguild on our server (like TCRP) would need to become a "WvW guild" and effectively act as the gatekeeper to our entire community from now on. Speaking of which, I sure do hope you plan to make "WvW guilds" not take up one of your 5 guild slots, cuz otherwise I can count a number of people I know who would need to drop one of their guild to accommodate to this new system, all for the sake of the community. Another of my biggest fears is that you, Anet, are going to end up going with the smaller number in terms of what to set the Alliance player limit to. Please, please, PLEASE do not. More is absolutely better by default in this case. When all players of a specific niche (i.e. 'roleplayers') get narrowed into congregating into a single whole group due to the circumstances of the game they're playing, the number of people in said group tends to grow big verrrrry quickly. I saw it happen back in the day with WoW's Moon Guard server, and it happened with Tarnished Coast to a lesser extent as well. I foresee that happening all the same here with this new Alliance system.

Honestly, i'm just worried that the already-rare-yet-beautiful occurrence of sporadic RP between two or more persons out in the open somewhere in the lush world of Tyria would absolutely become an extinct species with this change. I'm just fearful that Arenanet is just going to keep inadvertently making it harder and harder for us roleplayers to find/come across eachother in the open world. That they'll keep accidentially screwing us over with their server/world changes. Like a ladybug getting crushed underfoot in the grass without anyone ever knowing it even existed, eventually the only RP that'll end up existing will be guild-only. It shouldn't happen like that.

Do take note that i'm taking extra liberties to make sure that I do NOT sound like I am accusing Anet of any sort of concerted efforts to "wipe us out". I want everyone who reads this to know that I am in full understanding of the fact that Anet has no intentions of actively making it harder for ambient RPers to congregate out in the open. As far as i'm concerned, Anet sees us as a blip on the radar, if even that. These are just possibly-unforeseen consequences of a change in server function.

It is my earnest hope, Anet, that you will handle this server restructuring with GREAT CARE TAKEN to the consideration of tightly-knit, pre-existing world-based communities such as Tarnished Coast.

May you make the right choices in the end.

I think the easiest fix to this would be to make different Guild tags. To make a WvW alliance you have to tag yourself as a WvW guilds, and can only ally with other WvW guilds (if my understanding of the system described is correct). They could make this work for the non-wvw guilds by making a RP guild tag, and a PvE guild tag and a PvX guild tag, with alliances only able to be created with other guilds that share those tags (Or for simplification only two tags total, one for wvw and one for everyone else). For the purposes of WvW population, only WvW alliances would effect what guilds play with others in WvW scenarios, but for the purposes of megaservers this could allow people to group together even MORE easily than before (As I know plenty of RPers who have not been able to get in to TC as a server because of its full status). It could also help people cement their play-style identity better than ever.