World Restructuring

[zoomborg.9462]

@ShionKreth.1542 said:

@shiri.4257 said:

@ShionKreth.1542 said:

@zoomborg.9462 said:

@ShionKreth.1542 said:

@Vegeta.2563 said:

@ShionKreth.1542 said:What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering?

It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon.

I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes).

If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight.

Also gl with that. 99% of the MMO's have "cash grab" as their main priority and are modeled around the korean/chinese playerbase who love to grind or buy p2w items and services from the game store. Thats what MMO's have been reduced to at this moment.A lot of players talked about leaving GW2 to play other MMOs and most of them either come back to GW2 or drop the MMO genre completely.

Well I'm a veteran from the original 4 so you don't need to remind me of the state of the market... regardless this change is definitely a deal breaker, and makes me sad because gw2 seemed to be the one game trying to nurture community, cooperation and a shared world rather than just instanced content. Sure community is still pretty lacking in the modern mmo environment just due to fickle, disagreeable players... but I still don't think that's cause to just COMPLETELY abolish server communities in favor of unstable, unreliable guild alliances. I worry that people just can't envision how lousy it's going to be with this new system.

outside of blackgate. An alliance can probably acccomodate all the current communities underneath one respectively. Well players that actually play wvw rather than afk pip farm.

Well this affects all players, not just ones that wvw; wvw is not the entirety of this game.

And my point is that a server is relatively stable - guilds will come and go from alliances all the time, and alliances will disband entirely all the time; it's just the nature of player organizations, then every two months we may or may not end up on the same world as people we like playing with but aren't in the same alliance as anymore. There's a reason why in virtually all MMOs you choose your server rather than being assigned one based on some ideal server population distribution.

The server system is good as long as the population is big enough to fill each and every server equally. What was a stable ground for communities to grow and play together has become the bane of WvW since the population has declined. At this point,with pretty much every guild transferring every 8 weeks to find a good match,server stability is all but gone. Just check the server rankings as servers that were 1st instantly drop to 3-4 place based on what guilds are transferring and to what server. It's already chaotic.Server linking tried to somewhat band-aid the problem yet thats all it is. A band-aid. It is just a hydrance at this point as the priority is to create better matches throughout all worlds instead of hoping for a nice link or a strong guild transfers to your server.The biggest difference is that instead of having a fixed number of servers and desperately trying to somewhat balance their match up.....now Anet will create worlds AFTER evaluating the population (play hours) so instead of having 1-2 active servers and 8 "ghost" servers, u are now gonna have "insert number" of full worlds with active population.Stability and the community factor will come through guilds and alliances. Join a guild (main wvw guild) and stick with it. Join an alliance and stick with it if u can. Having a lot of friends u play with? Make a guild with them. In the worst scenario u will have to transfer world to play with a certain someone. In the end u cant expect Anet to please every single player. It is impossible.When all is said and done im just happy that WvW is getting attention. First with the reward and pip system,leg back,leg armor etc etc and now with the restructuring.

[Diku.2546]

@"Diku.2546" said:Anet...whatever you do...

Please FIX the Top 3 Chronic Problems of WvW since it ORIGINALLY launched.

1. Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups
2. Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds
3. Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves

---

Hmmm...Instead of doing this complex World Restructuring...

Why not just make 5 simple changes to our current WvW that addresses the Top 3 Chronic Problems?

1. Assign 1 Map to each Server.
2. Re-purpose the 3 Spawn Points on these assigned Maps. Allow Players to enter any map through their (Player has only 1 Red-Home Spawn), OR enter All Other Servers (Green/Blue-Enemy Spawn Points). Players are free to visit both NA & EU servers, but should expect slow performance if they're geographically distant.
3. Re-purpose the existing Server Guesting mechanism & tailor it to keep track of a Player's fight choices. Then...Let players visit other Servers using these Re-purposed Spawn Points with Weekly Limits on How Many & Which Servers that they can fight on.
4. Adjust Player Rewards based on their Home Server Rank & the Rank of the Server that they attack. Reward More if the Enemy Server is Ranked Higher. Reward Less if Lower.
5. Re-purpose the WvW Panel to Show Top 3 Servers in a random order that is attacking a Player's Home Server.

---

Critical - Re-purposing our existing Server Guesting mechanic & specifically tailoring it for WvW will fundamentally change the game mode.

WvW Tiers = ANet pick 2 enemy servers FOR PLAYERS to fight weekly

CHANGES INTO

King of the Hill = PLAYERS pick which enemy servers FOR THEMSELVES to fight weekly

Server Guesting details found here:https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/guesting-is-coming

---

Set up a Map Max Cap to Reserve Seating for Players & ANet

Home – 45%Enemy – 45%Dev Team – 10%

Players will queue into respective lines to enter any highly ranked & popular servers once their Map Max Cap is reached. Players are encouraged to make wise choices on which servers to visit & fight on. Players that only pick the most popular servers can expect to be stuck waiting to fight based on their Server Choices & the accompanying Weekly Limits that's controlled by ANet.

---

SERVER STACKINGOver-stacked/Popular servers that keep winning will ultimately become the King of the Hill where everybody below them will want to simultaneously Target to kill.

FRIENDS & FAMILYPlayers are free to fight on both NA & EU servers. There are no WvW Tiers.

OFF-PEAK CAPPINGIn-Game "Verbal-Alliances" between players from different Time Zones are encouraged to help with their coverage issues. This allows for Off-peak capping, but lets players to work out a solution themselves.

---

For simplicity...the above can even be made into a Haiku.

Haiku Syllables Count - 5/7/5

"WvG - World vs Globes"

Re-Purpose 3 SpawnUse Server Guesting for MatchReward If Higher

---

I can't post often...so please give a vote for Helpful or Thumbs Up if you like this...or feel free to reference this post.

I'd strongly recommend that ANet Change the game mode.

Change the WvW Match-Up design...

FROM WvW TiersINTO King of the Hill

If the game mode changes INTO King of the Hill...then having many Dead or even Empty World Servers wouldn't matter.

Players would take it upon themselves to go & fight on World servers that are active because this game mode allows it.Players would be allowed to team up with All their friends & family from other World servers because this game mode allows it.Players would take it upon themselves to coordinate attacking enemy Servers that attack their allies from another Time Zone to protect them during their Off Peak hours.

Restructuring the game mechanics INTO a King of the Hill game mode will directly address the Top 3 Chronic Problems of WvW.

---

Context Reference from Wikipedia regarding the phrase "King of the Hill":

King of the Hill (also known as King of the Mountain or King of the Castle) is a children's game, the object of which is to stay on top of a large hill or pile (or any other designated area) as the "King of the Hill". Other players attempt to knock the current King off the pile and take their place, thus becoming the new King of the Hill.

The way the "king" can be removed from the hill depends largely on the rules determined by the players before the game starts. Ordinarily pushing is the most common way of removing the king from the hill, but there are significantly rougher variations where punching or kicking is allowed. As such, the game is often banned from schools.

---

Haiku Reference - "WvG - World vs Globes":https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/home/leaving?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FGuildwars2%2Fcomments%2F5m7950%2Fnewgamemodewvgworldvsglobes%2F

---

Consider this concept - Eternal Team Spirit & Ephemeral Guilds - Needs to be the Heart & Soul driving a Competitive Game mode behind WvW

If WvW ever needed a Guiding Compass...it needs to evolve to where your fighting & sacrifices...have a deeper meaning to those that you wish to protect.

[AMV] God Eater | Iroha's Death - Kouhai Chi ~

[Strider Pj.2193]

We know Diku. You've said that countless times in the past. And, if I remember correctly, were asked to stop.

[Diku.2546]

Strider...thanks for being nice. Countless times in the past we've discussed a solution to the Top 3 Chronic Problems of WvW since it launched. Suggested solutions (repeating themes) if I remember correctly were complex & left many asking even more questions about other aspects of WvW instead of solving things. I'll stop posting to this thread. Tigers can't change their stripes easily...so repeating themes are going to be brought up in this endless cycle of discussion...imho

My base question still remains for ANet to consider in whatever solution they decide, but I'll also provide a solution:

Please FIX the Top 3 Chronic Problems of WvW since it ORIGINALLY launched:

1. Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups
2. Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds
3. Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves

Does the World Restructuring that ANet is proposing address these problems to your satisfaction?

Hmm...as a cherry...can we also make WvW into a competitive game mode where the reason why you fight has meaning?

[Redhame.5946]

If balance is the goal of restructuring, I want to suggest that having even numbers of people on both sides of a wvw match is too crude. There are at least 4 types of guilds in the game:

1. Fight
2. PPT
3. Havoc
4. Casual

Let's talk about each one.

• Fight guilds like to fight (duh!). They run guild comps and meet at zerg island just to try to beat up one another.
• PPT guilds run from objective to objective. They only fight in order to capture or defend a target that contributes to points per tick.
• Havoc guilds are small. They cause chaos in a map by relentlessly flipping camps, killing dolyaks, taking towers and sentry points.
• Casual guilds are there to have fun. They do a little of everything, but don't run comps.

A big unstated and unresolved conflict is the competitive imbalance between PPT and Fight guilds. PPT guilds want to win. And the way matches are scored, they do. Fight guilds want the action, the thrill of victory on the field. When they're matched up, PPT guilds frustrate fight guilds by refusing to engage. Fight guilds will attack objectives, not to take them, but to draw out their opposition. If a fight guild attacks a keep, starting an epic 20 minute battle for objective ownership that ends with a PPT guild holding the structure, it's possible for everybody to go away satisfied.

Balance means putting roughly equal numbers of PPT and fight guilds up against each other. Anet probably has enough data to classify active guilds this way. For one thing, every guild that entered the GvG tournament https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/24889/season-1-wvw-gvg-na-tournament#latest is a fight guild. The important thing is to recognize differing goals among the player base and create match ups that satisfy.

[Caliburn.1845]

If winning matters all those fight guilds will revert back to being ppt guilds.

If.

[Some Call Me Tim.2319]

@"Redhame.5946" said:If balance is the goal of restructuring, I want to suggest that having even numbers of people on both sides of a wvw match is too crude. There are at least 4 types of guilds in the game:

1. Fight
2. PPT
3. Havoc
4. Casual

Let's talk about each one.

• Fight guilds like to fight (duh!). They run guild comps and meet at zerg island just to try to beat up one another.
• PPT guilds run from objective to objective. They only fight in order to capture or defend a target that contributes to points per tick.
• Havoc guilds are small. They cause chaos in a map by relentlessly flipping camps, killing dolyaks, taking towers and sentry points.
• Casual guilds are there to have fun. They do a little of everything, but don't run comps.

A big unstated and unresolved conflict is the competitive imbalance between PPT and Fight guilds. PPT guilds want to win. And the way matches are scored, they do. Fight guilds want the action, the thrill of victory on the field. When they're matched up, PPT guilds frustrate fight guilds by refusing to engage. Fight guilds will attack objectives, not to take them, but to draw out their opposition. If a fight guild attacks a keep, starting an epic 20 minute battle for objective ownership that ends with a PPT guild holding the structure, it's possible for everybody to go away satisfied.

Balance means putting roughly equal numbers of PPT and fight guilds up against each other. Anet probably has enough data to classify active guilds this way. For one thing, every guild that entered the GvG tournament https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/24889/season-1-wvw-gvg-na-tournament#latest is a fight guild. The important thing is to recognize differing goals among the player base and create match ups that satisfy.

heck I guess when I’m tagged doing what’s known as ppt people might think I’m in for the points but I’m not. I run pugs mostly and get all the pips and fun I can for them. For me... I don’t care about points ever. Just the fun of taking everything we can and wp mastery is used to go back for more if we wipe. ?

[Gondolph.7201]

hallo A-Net,When implementing this, the former "world" (=server) will be replaced by a community (=Alliance). This is probably a good step since the PVE has no worlds anyway.What I would suggest to implement as supporting factors would be:

• making it easy to ask a guild for joining. That means, that currently you must wisper a guild member to ask if you can get a invitation. I suggest a guild register, were you can sent join requests to. With some application words of course. guild leaders could then review applications and invite people.
• What happens if say 3 guilds in an alliance become to big for a world? Since people will most likely flock to guilds of famous alliances. Will there be limits? Will there be limits based on the initial guild size? Should there be a way to kick a guild from a Alliance or should there be rather penalties for doing so? How are the rules for an Alliance?
• Will there be a way that random players can at least name a favoured Alliance?

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Redhame.5946" said:If balance is the goal of restructuring, I want to suggest that having even numbers of people on both sides of a wvw match is too crude. There are at least 4 types of guilds in the game:

1. Fight
2. PPT
3. Havoc
4. Casual

Let's talk about each one.

• Fight guilds like to fight (duh!). They run guild comps and meet at zerg island just to try to beat up one another.
• PPT guilds run from objective to objective. They only fight in order to capture or defend a target that contributes to points per tick.
• Havoc guilds are small. They cause chaos in a map by relentlessly flipping camps, killing dolyaks, taking towers and sentry points.
• Casual guilds are there to have fun. They do a little of everything, but don't run comps.

A big unstated and unresolved conflict is the competitive imbalance between PPT and Fight guilds. PPT guilds want to win. And the way matches are scored, they do. Fight guilds want the action, the thrill of victory on the field. When they're matched up, PPT guilds frustrate fight guilds by refusing to engage. Fight guilds will attack objectives, not to take them, but to draw out their opposition. If a fight guild attacks a keep, starting an epic 20 minute battle for objective ownership that ends with a PPT guild holding the structure, it's possible for everybody to go away satisfied.

Balance means putting roughly equal numbers of PPT and fight guilds up against each other. Anet probably has enough data to classify active guilds this way. For one thing, every guild that entered the GvG tournament https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/24889/season-1-wvw-gvg-na-tournament#latest is a fight guild. The important thing is to recognize differing goals among the player base and create match ups that satisfy.

Thats not really balance. Thats dividing players into categories and then telling them how to play WvW. Which isnt WvW. Its just a framework for playing however you want, whenever you want.

What you are saying is the same thing as splitting up sPvPers into attackers, defenders, +1 and then telling them thats what they are now you have to play like that. A +1 choosing to switch to a bunker fb for a match? DENIED! That would totally mess up the entire sPvP balance!

Perfect balance is impossible to achieve but flattening the population curves is easy - just like matching 5 plat1 players vs 5 plat1 players. And thats about as far as Anet should balance, which is exactly what they are doing with the WvW restructure.

[b k.1648]

@Sviel.7493 said:After a 6 month hiatus, I checked in to see this. I do love server pride, but this proposal seems to reasonably allow those communities to stay together. If that means more balanced matches, then I'm down to try it.

However, this is not going to 'fix' WvW. The best way to play will still be to blob up and roll over everything in sight. It will be somewhat more difficult to do, but not so much that it isn't the clear winner. As long as the blob is king, the winner at any moment is determined almost solely by population organized into the blob. It follows that there's not much fun to be had if you're not the blobbiest in the land. All this change does is flatten the blobs a bit. Unless population is perfectly synced across all time zones (an impossible goal), there will still be blob dominance.

This hurts even more because roaming as a means of having fun is pretty much done for. Roaming for the sake of helping the war effort is rarely useful because you're needed in the blob.

This really isn't my experience.

If you're looking to win the PPT game (let's pretend for a minute that anyone cares about the outcome of the match), you achieve more by posting your server's blob in the location to counter the enemy blob, with the bare minimum number of people required to prevent them from taking anything.

While you're wasting their time, send as many small groups as you can to enemy objectives, and the ones that are not adequately defended will inevitably fall. Their blob has achieved nothing, yours has done nothing but stall them, and your roamers have scored your server a bunch of freebies because the enemy thought blobbing everything was the best way to win.

The reason why there's a perception that the biggest blob wins is because loot bags became the highest priority since the outcome of the match is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the server populations are so mismatched there's no point trying to overcome that disparity. And when there's no point in doing that, ANet can't adjust the victory rewards to make coming first meaningful, because that'd make the problem worse.

Balancing server populations is the first thing you need to do before you can get a competitive game mode, and from there you may start to see more tactical gameplay (unless we encounter another major problem, which seems entirely possible).

[Jen.6021]

We have an estimated date to at least start the implementation? i mean, not even asking for a release date, but kinda we need to know if this gonna happen at least during this year. WvW its been more dead than ever these 2 last months, tons of friends are already playing something else, they dont even login for the tickets anymore. T1 NA in many timezones its just a desert. Many people also got demotivated by the announcement and many other people wont come back till this is released.And now its a critical moment, ranked pvp season ended and WvW is still dead, the PvE content isnt enough neither, people dont get motivated to play. Give us some update at least please.

[ScribeTheMad.7614]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"ScribeTheMad.7614" said:Which leaves me with a quandary, I and a bunch of current guildies have been working on coordinating a server transfer to group up for WvW.Doing so would leave me on Crystal Desert, but it sounds like I'll need to transfer to SoR to be on my "home" server when Ragnarok happens and titles (whatever they end up being) are handed out. (I would really hate to get the title for the wrong server, honestly)There will be lead time before the worlds get removed. I can't promise we'll be able to do anything but take the world you were on when we made the switch but it's something I can think about.

It would be terribly unreasonable to expect you all to be able to query my server history and know which one I considered my home server lol, so just knowing when to move back would be all I would be looking for :+1:

[morrolan.9608]

@"Mechanix.9315" said:We have an estimated date to at least start the implementation? i mean, not even asking for a release date, but kinda we need to know if this gonna happen at least during this year. WvW its been more dead than ever these 2 last months, tons of friends are already playing something else, they dont even login for the tickets anymore. T1 NA in many timezones its just a desert. Many people also got demotivated by the announcement and many other people wont come back till this is released.And now its a critical moment, ranked pvp season ended and WvW is still dead, the PvE content isnt enough neither, people dont get motivated to play. Give us some update at least please.

There was an update in the last reddit AMA:https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/82j01l/living_world_season_4_a_bug_in_the_system_devs/dvbwslv/?context=3

[Sviel.7493]

@Ben K.6238 said:

This really isn't my experience.

If you're looking to win the PPT game (let's pretend for a minute that anyone cares about the outcome of the match), you achieve more by posting your server's blob in the location to counter the enemy blob, with the bare minimum number of people required to prevent them from taking anything.

While you're wasting their time, send as many small groups as you can to enemy objectives, and the ones that are not adequately defended will inevitably fall. Their blob has achieved nothing, yours has done nothing but stall them, and your roamers have scored your server a bunch of freebies because the enemy thought blobbing everything was the best way to win.

The reason why there's a perception that the biggest blob wins is because loot bags became the highest priority since the outcome of the match is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the server populations are so mismatched there's no point trying to overcome that disparity. And when there's no point in doing that, ANet can't adjust the victory rewards to make coming first meaningful, because that'd make the problem worse.

Balancing server populations is the first thing you need to do before you can get a competitive game mode, and from there you may start to see more tactical gameplay (unless we encounter another major problem, which seems entirely possible).

In order for that to work, it must be possible to stall. My point is that the number of people required to effectively stall is too close to the number of people you're trying to delay. That means that even if they play poorly and your team plays well, you still can't have small teams out capping other objectives. If you have two enemy groups to deal with, then you really can't do anything at all. It's impossible to stall both and, soon enough, your whole team is pinned trying to save some objective too important to lose.

[PlayerOne.6795]

First of all i want to say, since its not a clickable option, THUMBS DOWN. Second of i'd like to suggest implementing a new game mode called Guild Wars. Guild Wars would have same rules and maps as wvw. But this way guilds could go guild vs guild without ruining the wvw experience for everyone else by being egoistic and not playing as a wolrd but as individual elitists. Which is what have ruined wvw all along.

[PlayerOne.6795]

If this goes through anyhow what will the gamemode be called? Since world versus world is out of the question then. Just curious as to what i will not be participating in...

[XenesisII.1540]

It's still world vs world vs world, since all they're doing to repopulating worlds every 8 weeks with alliances/guilds/players.Everything else is the same just without link worlds.

[PlayerOne.6795]

I have played same server since launch almost, it will never be the same. How is it worlds when you dont have a world name? Will you still have world loyalty when you dont even know where you are from? Will you come and help random player asking for help when you know they will probably just be your enemy sooner than later? Or will you just stick to helping the ones you know? We know the answers already, don't tell me it will be the same. And if this change goes through "World versus World" will NO LONGER be a fitting name, imo anyhow.

[Korgov.7645]

Worlds have a Glicko rating. It determines the world's placement on the leaderboard. When a world wins or loses against the expectations the rating goes up and down respectively.

How is the Glicko rating calculated when new worlds are created? Do players carry the rating with them to the new world?

Or will the Glicko be removed altogether? Then what lasting reward is there to winning a season for alliances/guilds/players? If there is none then all worlds will be like the current guest worlds with no incentive to win.

[XenesisII.1540]

@"PlayerOne.6795" said:I have played same server since launch almost, it will never be the same. How is it worlds when you dont have a world name? Will you still have world loyalty when you dont even know where you are from? Will you come and help random player asking for help when you know they will probably just be your enemy sooner than later? Or will you just stick to helping the ones you know? We know the answers already, don't tell me it will be the same. And if this change goes through "World versus World" will NO LONGER be a fitting name, imo anyhow.

There will be world names, just not the names we currently have. The concept is no different than changing world links every 8 weeks, you get new team mates then, some guilds move around, new people to meet and play with, while still playing with old team mates in alliances or guilds. It's still entire worlds vs another world, it's still probably going to be the 1u1d system not the glicko one, and they'll probably start giving out rewards for actually winning since populations and coverage should be more even and they can start to treat the 8 weeks as a season.

The other part you are talking about is the the social aspect of it, you don't know every player on your server, sorry you just don't, if a random player asks for help and whether or not you give them help based on their name is up to you. Some of you need to get over your long term hatred, seriously, just because you think someone might be on an enemy server in 8 weeks you won't help them now while they're on your server? That's pretty ridiculous. Oh look Lebron is going to be a free agent and probably going to the lakers, guess his team mates won't bother giving him anymore passes in the meantime.

Server loyalty became less important years ago when the defense of home borderlands broke down, HoT upgrades and desert borderland making wvw just as much of a desert broke that, a lot of cooperation between players and guilds and commanders came down to that, people had pride in defending their side. Guilds and players also broke out of the illusion of points meaning something, of wins for a server meant something when all it came down to was coverage netting you wins, not skill, not when your efforts meant nothing because some people overnight racked up the score and you couldn't recover.

People are always more loyal to their guild and friends over their server these days. Server loyalty is a dead concept, server play styles however is still a thing like BG being the ultimate ppt server still heavily using scouts and defending as much as possible to win these days, YB still being one of the heavy seige using servers, Mag still being a heavy fight server, these styles will die with the new system. People still hate playing against certain servers because of their play styles, not because of people on them, hell I don't even hear server names as much in call outs, it's always the color, blue zerg attacking garri, because of the stupid nameplate changes we're all just colored dots to some people, so who cares if someone turns out to be your enemy in 8 weeks anyways.

[b k.1648]

@Sviel.7493 said:In order for that to work, it must be possible to stall. My point is that the number of people required to effectively stall is too close to the number of people you're trying to delay.

Is it? When fortified walls and siege are present, 20 can hold off 50 for a long time, even with counter-siege.

[ledernierrempart.6871]

this is good, but i woner when it will come out.alo what most WvW players wants is new stuff to play with. if not a new map, at least new mechanics, new siege weapons, new npc AI?new traps to build?(like one that bump in a large aoe?) ... anything that can give us some new experience. right now the game mode feels like it the same as game launch aside from minor changes like the new tic changes (which was a good idea) and the relocation of a fort in eternal battleground map. (which was also a good change).

also you really need to advertise the obsiian sanctuary for people to come and play in the arena, maybe some 1v1 streamed event there?also you nee to re-evaluate the prize you get by doing its jumping puzzle so more people will do it so we can again battle there like back in the days buses where fighting there, it was so much fun!.also maybe you could put a ruin to capture there so it would be actually worth going there to fight for the server.

[Roxanne.6140]

@PlayerOne.6795 said:If this goes through anyhow what will the gamemode be called? Since world versus world is out of the question then. Just curious as to what i will not be participating in...

Once population is shaved, population will be easier to kontrowl

[Totenkopf.9805]

If i am not in guild (just pug ) will i be assigned to the world considering my play time (i mean my Timezone)?

[shiri.4257]

@Totenkopf.9805 said:If i am not in guild (just pug ) will i be assigned to the world considering my play time (i mean my Timezone)?

you'll be randomized.