World Restructuring

[Samis.1750]

For some people the community is the guild, but for others it is the server. One problem with basing the community on guilds is that guild leaders come and go. The turnover of guild leaders is pretty high due to burnout, RL issues, other games/interests, boredom,etc.. So eventually, one will be left with a really weak community.

It will likely be harder for new players to get involved in WvW since it will be tough to get to know guild leaders since the new player will be joined with different players every matchup. In the past one could say, "Bob, Bill and Betty are on my server, Bob is very skilled but not much fun, Bill is not that skilled but fun, while Betty has decent skill and is pretty fun - I think I will join Betty's guild." It will be tougher to get to observe the commanders and guilds, especially for the newbie.

Aside from Blackgate, WvW matchup balance is not too bad these days.

It will also be tough to make any type of balancing fair when off hours players/guilds may be more valuable then primetime players.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@Caliburn.1845 said:they don't stay on pinhey I'm na prime and I only do this sometimes cuz no one else is. don't wanna be that one sucker, ya know?

[joneirikb.7506]

Ironically, how will this affect EotM ? :p

I mean, with the removal of worlds, are you going to just mesh together all the "new servers" of the same color instead ?

Considering how this "new worlds" is setup, they're already pretty similar to how EotM been run. Perhaps they will just add EotM as a normal map to the rest of WvW ? Curious.

[Acheron.4731]

I am ok with the changes as long as we can call the new worlds Ehmry Bay, Ebay, or Ehm C HammerIf not, i can't see them working :)

[oliveman.5874]

maybe one thing you can to use instead of lenguage is the IP, because in case of some one of us from spain, we have the game in spanish, but we play in eu servers, like me, Gandara, and use english to talk. If you use the IP the problem with BB and time diference with south america is finished.

[Aenaos.8160]

@Evolute.6239 said:

@Aenaos.8160 said:Another nail in the coffin of WvW.WvW will be EotM with pips.Zero sense of world,simply alliances that will be sifted every 8 weeks,playing the same old boring campaignand after the hype boils down,the exact same issues that have brought the game mode in decline.

I really don't understand this view point. What do you think link servers are? They're asked to change servers every two months, their name mostly irrelevant.

Exactly.World linking is a problem.The alliance-free for all model,will only amplify the downsides of world linking.One of the main issues with RvR in GW2 and why it never became as engaging as it could be is the absence offactions and consolidated worlds on one hand,and a meaningless campaign on the other.In the end,after a few months of the new system being in place,we will end up with the same issues.Players not being able to play with their friends because alliances just like servers will be consisted of a finite amountof players,guilds bandwagoning the more powerful alliances,unofficial multi alliance alliances and the inevitable match manipulation.And the same campaign.Too much effort for nothing.WvW will become like EotM was before the loot there got nerfed.

[morrolan.9608]

@Graf.1945 said:The proposed changes aren't needed as I understand them.

The mode is dying, even if you personally haven't noticed it the fact that they are proposing such drastic action makes it clear. So yes it is needed. Form a CD alliance so you will stay together.

[Loosmaster.8263]

@"joneirikb.7506" said:Ironically, how will this affect EotM ? :p

I mean, with the removal of worlds, are you going to just mesh together all the "new servers" of the same color instead ?

Considering how this "new worlds" is setup, they're already pretty similar to how EotM been run. Perhaps they will just add EotM as a normal map to the rest of WvW ? Curious.

McKenna said EotM will remain the same. The new worlds will be based on the same colors.

[Infusion.7149]

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

@"Infusion.7149" said:"Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" ... that seems low to me.

You have to account for map cap in that figure.

I'm not sure if that number includes all time-zones.

However, after a server meeting it's around 15-40 people per guild active in WvW even if several guilds are nearly 500 (in the 490s).

[Loosmaster.8263]

@Infusion.7149 said:

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

@Infusion.7149 said:"Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" ... that seems low to me.

You have to account for map cap in that figure.

I'm not sure if that number includes all time-zones.

It should in their figure for balance. So to me in essence it would be foolish to create an alliance that on covers one particular time zone.

[asha.4159]

Just reading the posts and concerns.....

What about the players that don't want to join guilds but like playing with certain individuals in guilds? - why cant they join the guild? ask an officer to make an exception for a friend, or friend join a different guild?

Guilds/ alliances end up needing to cooperate with guilds/ alliances they hate/ dont get along with in the same world? - possibly give a 'block guild/ alliance list' option to the officers?

An extra Guild slot? - Why? 1 to do PVE/GMs, 1 to do PVP (although you can create a team within you PVE/GMs guild), 1 to do WvW - I struggle the need for more than 3 actually as the rest of the time you guys can communicate on Discord/ ts/ friends list.

Queues? - this is will down to what the alliance cap is and the borderland cap - bring EOTM busy again by being able to gain pips and for it to go towards wvw score. This would relieve the queue concern

What are developers thoughts on How many guilds in an alliance? who will have control of the alliance? would there be a lead guild like in GW1? will there be Alliance missions?

[b k.1648]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"Tolmos.8395" said:I would like to reiterate the previous questions posed, and not yet answered, about how this will affect Roleplayers.This is something we hadn’t fully considered and we’ll start looking into possible solutions.

GW1 handled this by allowing players to select their "district" (instance) in a dropdown. When entering an outpost/town, you'd automatically get placed in an instance with the same language preference as you last selected.

[HazyDaisy.4107]

@RobmannN.2689 said:I assume the titles will be how you display your Server Pride (I get knocked down.... SoS) or something similar. A suggestion thread maybe in order.

Sorrows Furnace - Anet lit it twice :)

[dzeRnumbrd.6129]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:We started this dialogue early so we could hear feedback and work to improve the design where possible.

Awesome thinking. This is far better communication/engagement than we've ever had in the past.

[Chaba.5410]

@Richard.8207 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Richard.8207 said:I don’t want another guild or alliance....I want to be able to get familiar with the community. That community aspect is the important part of the game to me. If not for community, I’d be playing a different game.

Do you not see what you are saying? Community is important but you don't want to join a community. It makes no sense. Elitism of others has nothing to do with that.

Community is a lot more than a guild in the game, just like community is more than your bowling team or even entire church congregation in the real world. I can not protect my community in the game by joining a single guild or alliance.

Yes, community is a lot more than a guild in the game. What is happening is alliances will be replacing servers as a larger-than-guild community container. Just like your bowling team example where a community springs up amongst the teams of a bowling league, the alliance is a new container that is meant for that larger community.

[Trajan.4953]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Richard.8207 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Richard.8207 said:I don’t want another guild or alliance....I want to be able to get familiar with the community. That community aspect is the important part of the game to me. If not for community, I’d be playing a different game.

Do you not see what you are saying? Community is important but you don't want to join a community. It makes no sense. Elitism of others has nothing to do with that.

Community is a lot more than a guild in the game, just like community is more than your bowling team or even entire church congregation in the real world. I can not protect my community in the game by joining a single guild or alliance.

Yes, community is a lot more than a guild in the game. What is happening is alliances will be replacing servers as a larger-than-guild community container. Just like your bowling team example where a community springs up amongst the teams of a bowling league, the alliance is a new container that is meant for that larger community.

Chaba for Anet Partner!

[Vegeta.2563]

So far I've seen 500-1000 for alliance cap, and limited number of guilds.. but question is .. what is going to be the cap of the world population?

[Dawdler.8521]

@Infusion.7149 said:

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

@Infusion.7149 said:"Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" ... that seems low to me.

You have to account for map cap in that figure.

I'm not sure if that number includes all time-zones.

However, after a server meeting it's around 15-40 people per guild active in WvW even if several guilds are nearly 500 (in the 490s).Its been 25 pages and people still confuse 500-1000 in an alliance being 500-1000 online at any given time (lol) for what it actually mean, 500-1000 member rooster just like guilds now have a 500 member rooster cap. Thats why they are saying 500-1000 to begin with - less than 500 is utterly pointless. 1 full guild is as low as you can get for an alliance. And there are many alliances per world, just like there are 500 man guilds now.

No point in trying to further explain I think.

[Bearhugger.4326]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"Tolmos.8395" said:I would like to reiterate the previous questions posed, and not yet answered, about how this will affect Roleplayers.This is something we hadn’t fully considered and we’ll start looking into possible solutions.

Since PvE (not only RP) is independant of WvW, why not simply let players select their favorite activities and group them based on that? There could be tags like "Casual RP", "Hardcore RP", "Casual", "Support for New player", "Events", "Leveling", "Social", "Dungeons", "Raids", etc; you check the ones you like and the game would try to match you with players with similar preferences when there's multiple maps it could zone you in. Communities are about like-minded people, so if the server can be smart when grouping people, that could mitigate the issue. And why not help people that enjoy the same thing play together? :)

[Dramorion.5498]

Just make factions! I want torch the grove and sylvari as a char! Long shot I know, but it could happen!

[alcopaul.2156]

pugmanding is officially dead

[Ultimaistanza.4793]

@Aenaos.8160 said:

@Evolute.6239 said:

@Aenaos.8160 said:Another nail in the coffin of WvW.WvW will be EotM with pips.Zero sense of world,simply alliances that will be sifted every 8 weeks,playing the same old boring campaignand after the hype boils down,the exact same issues that have brought the game mode in decline.

I really don't understand this view point. What do you think link servers are? They're asked to change servers every two months, their name mostly irrelevant.

Exactly.World linking is a problem.The alliance-free for all model,will only amplify the downsides of world linking.One of the main issues with RvR in GW2 and why it never became as engaging as it could be is the absence offactions and consolidated worlds on one hand,and a meaningless campaign on the other.In the end,after a few months of the new system being in place,we will end up with the same issues.Players not being able to play with their friends because alliances just like servers will be consisted of a finite amountof players,guilds bandwagoning the more powerful alliances,unofficial multi alliance alliances and the inevitable match manipulation.And the same campaign.Too much effort for nothing.WvW will become like EotM was before the loot there got nerfed.

People trying to get into a server together have a better chance to do that in an alliance type setup than a server one. Alliances may consist of a finite amount of player spaces, but so do servers. The only difference is a server can be locked for literally years if it's population is active enough while the roster of players in an alliance can change every 8 weeks.

As for the EotM comparison, I think you're blowing things a little far out of proportion. EotM is set in a megaserver style system. Every time you enter and leave you have a chance of being thrown on a completely different instance and after a mere 4 hours everything resets. In the Alliance system you'll be on that same world/server instance you've been in every time you enter WvW for the duration of what sounds like 2 months. The people you're in an alliance with you'll still be fighting alongside after the 2 month reset unless they chose to mark a different WvW guild that's not part of that alliance prior to the reset. Beyond that there's also some of the other differences that differentiate EotM like the inability to upgrade, special abilities that make some things very easy to ktrain, the map layout, etc.

[Jiminy.8340]

@alcopaul.2156 said:pugmanding is officially dead

Only with the same PUGs. There is always be a whole new group every 8 weeks with the proposed system.

[RedBaron.6058]

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:A message from McKenna Berdrow:...

Feedback

That was a lot of information and I am sure there are many questions. The team will do its best to answer them. We appreciate any feedback on this system. Your opinions of this system, as well as the community's response, will be an important part of how we tackle this project.

If the reception is not great for this system, then the other alternative is most likely to continue World Linking. Even though making a choice between the two systems might seem like too drastic a change for some people, we have been exploring other designs to deal with WvW populations for years and we believe that World Restructuring or World Linking are the only solutions that meet our requirements. Simply "blowing up" worlds or removing people from the worlds on which they currently play is high risk (which is why we have avoided it for so long), and the only reason we are considering World Restructuring now is because it allows players to maintain and continue to build some of the communities they've created through the years.

Hi Gaile,

Considering the huge amount of feedback already received, is it possible to keep the #Feedback paragraph of the original post updated with a list of the best ideas considered by ANet to be implemented in the New WvW World Restructuring?

Thanks.

[Lunacy Solacio.6514]

@"meerfunkuhtron.9725" said:One thing I would propose to Anet is take this "server identity" seriously. It's the reason many people played WvW (just look at all the forum posts since your post-HoT changes on WvW), and the reason why so many left after the server merges. Look at the servers as an actual community versus just in technical terms. When you play alongside other players for several months and years, you get to learn how to do so efficiently, which is something that is needed in this gamemode. Throwing groups of players all over the place gets rid of two integral things that making playing WvW fun and efficient, which is cooperation and motivation (cooperation just from knowing each other, and motivation because you feel like you're fighting for your home... having glitzy things as prizes doesn't always motivate everyone to keep playing). You guys underestimated what community meant to the servers that you dismantled through your server links, and this most recent idea of Alliances pretty much does the same thing.

To be honest, server identity became irrelevant with megaserver and world linking, especially since links sometimes change. Communities will be able to all join the same guild/alliance for those that want to stay together. No, not all will join, but then again, they could leave now at any time if they chose so it really isn't that different. Something that seems to be missed is that all that changes is that you won't have the same 'server name', but you'd have a guild name, and a chat that would go beyond just the wvw maps.

Only question on that is, perhaps Anet should allow a 6th guild slot so people could do precisely that easier.