World Restructuring

[Dawdler.8521]

@atheria.2837 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@atheria.2837 said:

3. Three entities fighting against one antoher almost always sets up one to be 'doubleteamed' by two. That's not a competitiuon, that's, well, I don't know what it is, but it's not World Versus World. If just one entity was against one entity then the 'best' would rise to the top. As it is, it's a game of 'point manipulation' such asthe case of many servers 'standing down' so they won't go up in tier.

So what you are saying is that two servers are fighting and one of the servers give up because it doesnt want to go up in tier, that's more competition than a 3-way as the 'best' server wins?

I find your statement is ridiculous. The 3-way is literally there to stop a 2-way matchup from becoming too boring when one of the servers dominate.

You find my statement ridiculous?

You mean like a server telling all its players to stand down?

Happens at least every other week on my server.

If just two servers were fighting one another and not three with massive collusion and point manipulation, we'd not be talking about "WvW Restructuring" at all.

What about a 2-way fight automatically exclude any manipulation thats going on with a 3-way for any of the sides?

Thats like saying its better to encounter 2 cheaters in the game instead of 3 cheaters, because only 2 of those 3 cheaters work together, unlike the 2 just working together without a 3rd.

[Pepper.3901]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@atheria.2837 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@atheria.2837 said:

3. Three entities fighting against one antoher almost always sets up one to be 'doubleteamed' by two. That's not a competitiuon, that's, well, I don't know what it is, but it's not World Versus World. If just one entity was against one entity then the 'best' would rise to the top. As it is, it's a game of 'point manipulation' such asthe case of many servers 'standing down' so they won't go up in tier.

So what you are saying is that two servers are fighting and one of the servers give up because it doesnt want to go up in tier, that's more competition than a 3-way as the 'best' server wins?

I find your statement is ridiculous. The 3-way is literally there to stop a 2-way matchup from becoming too boring when one of the servers dominate.

You find my statement ridiculous?

You mean like a server telling all its players to stand down?

Happens at least every other week on my server.

If just two servers were fighting one another and not three with massive collusion and point manipulation, we'd not be talking about "WvW Restructuring" at all.

What about a 2-way fight automatically exclude any manipulation thats going on with a 3-way for any of the sides?

Thats like saying its better to encounter 2 cheaters in the game instead of 3 cheaters, because only 2 of those 3 cheaters work together, unlike the 2 just working together without a 3rd.

You can't see how much harder it could be to "collude" if there were just two sides?

I don't get it.

I just don't.

I've been gaming for 28 years, and I've seen every scenario in 'war games' and every single time you add more than 'two sides' thecollusion and point manipulation starts and never ends.

[Pepper.3901]

@"Kuldaj.9518" said:I think this idea seems a lot better than how it currently is. I am primarily a solo roamer, although I sometimes tag up and lead around 4 - 5 people on a borderland.

I see quite a bit of complaining from solo or small party players who don't seem to know how they are going to get to play with their friends. Well that's simple join the same guild and claim your guild as a WvW guild. Did I miss the part that a WvW guild can't do other things? Also in their little picture it even shows Guilds in the battle that aren't part of the alliance. So you get your friends to join a guild, and you all get put on the same battle or your guild joins an alliance and fights with the rest of the server.

To me, as someone who primarily goes in solo and maybe forms a group while in the battle this doesn't seem like it would affect me at all. I can still join the battle, still go in and still have fun. I think it was mentioned somewhere that Borderlands and stuff aren't going to be there. I honestly hope it just isn't one huge map, because that will pretty much make it impossible for solo players (like me) to be able to do anything without/against a zerg. It should have 3 maps. Two "borderlands" one for each Guild/Alliance and then middle battlefield.

Now this does seem to turn WvW in to more of a GvG mode. As it seems the battles will be centered around the larger Guilds or Alliances and they will be the ones going at each other. So honestly I don't know why they aren't just renaming it cause it honestly isn't WvW anymore. Its GvG (or AvA).

Either way I am looking forward to it. But a part of me wishes they would have just made the GvG mode separate from WvW and we could have both.

Wait, what?

Borderlands are going away?

This isn't going to be WvW any longer.

We do love our maps, even the Desert map grew on me over time, I'd go there before almost any now.

This is extremely disturbing news.

EdgeOfTheMistsV2 many were right, this isn't going to end well.

Thank goodness they promised to 'revert' if it doesn't work!

[XenesisII.1540]

Someone needs to provide a link because I never seen them mentioning removing any of the maps, nor could they reduce them because there needs to be 3 borderland maps to keep it fair for all 3 sides.

The world restructuring is rebalancing the population every 8 weeks, nothing else about wvw is changing.

[Caliburn.1845]

Yeah, maps aren't changing. Funny how hysterical the rumor mill gets.

[Mance.5640]

The real question is, will there be any WvW'ers left by the time Anet does anything at all? If their plan was to stall until their old wvwer's left the game, and just keep the same old system for "new wvw'ers" they are doing a fantastic job of it.

To keep your WvW player base in the dark at this juncture, after they've been loyal to your game for 6+ years, isn't a good look. After they stopped roaming, made havoc teams useless, and stuck us with this stale meta forever, the least they could do is talk to their players. I'm pretty sure the pvp gig in this game is up, anet has pulled the plug through their own inaction.

[Tiawal.2351]

An estimate would be useful, like less than 6 months? About a year? I don't know why we have even to ask this, it's like we are more interested in this game mode than the company behind. There is a point when the players just move on, and we are far beyond that.

[Victory.2879]

3.5 mths after the first announcement- any news of progress or even a 'pencilled in a q4 2019 release'?

[HazyDaisy.4107]

@XenesisII.1540 said:Someone needs to provide a link because I never seen them mentioning removing any of the maps, nor could they reduce them because there needs to be 3 borderland maps to keep it fair for all 3 sides.

The world restructuring is rebalancing the population every 8 weeks, nothing else about wvw is changing.

Ever play that game where you tell a person a story and pass it down the line from one person to the next? This is that game

[Dawdler.8521]

@atheria.2837 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@atheria.2837 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@atheria.2837 said:

3. Three entities fighting against one antoher almost always sets up one to be 'doubleteamed' by two. That's not a competitiuon, that's, well, I don't know what it is, but it's not World Versus World. If just one entity was against one entity then the 'best' would rise to the top. As it is, it's a game of 'point manipulation' such asthe case of many servers 'standing down' so they won't go up in tier.

So what you are saying is that two servers are fighting and one of the servers give up because it doesnt want to go up in tier, that's more competition than a 3-way as the 'best' server wins?

I find your statement is ridiculous. The 3-way is literally there to stop a 2-way matchup from becoming too boring when one of the servers dominate.

You find my statement ridiculous?

You mean like a server telling all its players to stand down?

Happens at least every other week on my server.

If just two servers were fighting one another and not three with massive collusion and point manipulation, we'd not be talking about "WvW Restructuring" at all.

What about a 2-way fight automatically exclude any manipulation thats going on with a 3-way for any of the sides?

Thats like saying its better to encounter 2 cheaters in the game instead of 3 cheaters, because only 2 of those 3 cheaters work together, unlike the 2 just working together without a 3rd.

You can't see how much harder it could be to "collude" if there were just two sides?

I don't get it.

I just don't.

I've been gaming for 28 years, and I've seen every scenario in 'war games' and every single time you add more than 'two sides' thecollusion and point manipulation starts and never ends.

Yes as sPvP has shown, there is absolutely no wintrading, intentional afking, bribing or otherwise cheating the 2-way system going on.

Its all honorable fights between honorable players all day long.

[Coldtart.4785]

This change seems like it's being made to make WvW more 'competitive', which is a bit like trying to make a triangle into a three-sided square. WvW is played with three teams, with very large team sizes and 24/7 uptime. None of those design aspects are the design aspects of a competitive game. This isn't a matter of failing to live up to a competitive standard, either. The fundamentals of WvW are those of a much more sandbox styled game.

[nicknamenick.2437]

Soooo when?? Its taking waay too long..I am bored with this game :(

[Aridon.8362]

Honestly it's taking way too much time thinking instead of doing. The ability to think of an approach along with the scope of how long it will take to implement shouldn't take this long to figure out. If you'd ask me I would say it's just the developers clearly not caring enough on the matter. As a result my guild is leaving the game and I don't blame them.

[XenesisII.1540]

They told you it would take some time, longer than any other projects they did, why you all in here complaining 3 months into it?

[BadMed.3846]

@Aridon.8362 said:Honestly it's taking way too much time thinking instead of doing. The ability to think of an approach along with the scope of how long it will take to implement shouldn't take this long to figure out. If you'd ask me I would say it's just the developers clearly not caring enough on the matter. As a result my guild is leaving the game and I don't blame them.

Be assured that our kids will enjoy WvW more. See you on your return as a family operated guild then.

[aspirine.5839]

@Aridon.8362 said:Honestly it's taking way too much time thinking instead of doing. The ability to think of an approach along with the scope of how long it will take to implement shouldn't take this long to figure out. If you'd ask me I would say it's just the developers clearly not caring enough on the matter. As a result my guild is leaving the game and I don't blame them.

Well good, not that you or your mates are leaving that it takes so long. From the sounds of it could probably ruin wvw altogether.Large guild groups are already ruining it for me, 25+ groups taking camps and sentries is just no fun at all.

[joneirikb.7506]

I read through this entire thread a while ago, but have forgotten what has been mentioned in these 50 pages, so probably repeating stuff:

Are there any ways to deal with people making 2 different alliances, with 2 different guilds, having all the same members, and just swap theoretically 500 people every other matchup, trying to manipulate 1 alliance to decay to get grouped with a stronger in general world, then everyone rep that for the next season and overwhelm the enemy. While letting the other alliance "decay" with inactivity again ?

---

One point I'm starting to appreciate at this point, is that Alliances, unlike Servers, gives players the chance to accept or deny players. Being a resident of Kaineng, I've seen our server been bandwagoned a few times, our entire community/culture trampled under bandwagoners that only cares about using us to be the next big thing and then dump it, letting us deal with the leftovers. And knowing that there isn't a single thing we can do about it, because lets face it, no player can stop another player from joining a server. In this regard I'm looking forward to the Alliances, because at least we have something we can build a community around...

---

Another topic that has been mentioned by the Dev's, but not details or talked much about, probably because it isn't very important but still something I'm curious about: Server titles. Can we get any more details on those, please?

Some questions:

• Will titles be "Server Name"?
• Will they work like PVE titles, thus not be displayable in WvW?
• What will determine what server title we get, last server on?
• What about people that have jumped around all their time, last server, or server spent most time on, own title "Server Jumper" ?

To be honest, I'd probably feel a little insulted if I saw for example someone with the guild tag for WarMachine running around with the "Kaineng" server title. But then again, at this rate, you might as well just make Kaineng's server title read "BandWagon#1".

[SkyShroud.2865]

Ermm, I believe alliance is permanent thus there is no decay timer.

As for those stackers and bandwagoners alike trying to create mega alliances, well, we have to wait and see what limit will the anet set. Perhaps, the limit is low enough that stackers and bandwagoners alike can't take advantage of. Afterall, according to the image, there supposedly to be at least 2 or more alliances per server plus the random guilds and pugs. Thus, the limit shouldn't be that high.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"joneirikb.7506" said:Are there any ways to deal with people making 2 different alliances, with 2 different guilds, having all the same members, and just swap theoretically 500 people every other matchup, trying to manipulate 1 alliance to decay to get grouped with a stronger in general world, then everyone rep that for the next season and overwhelm the enemy. While letting the other alliance "decay" with inactivity again ?

Who says there is "decay" that impact anything? We dont know how the matchup system work in detail or how it assign alliances and players to world based on the algorithm. We just know the broad concept as Anet has laid it out.

Technically this wouldnt matter as that empty alliance would just get replaced by other alliances and players to create a decently balanced world weighed against the rest. If you cant move until the end of a season you cant go back anyway. And if you try to move an entire alliance the first week, I am sure there are failsafes to transfering just like now (ie world is full).

[Zushada.6108]

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

I want to update everyone on the design we currently are investigating to help achieve population balance between worlds, and the goals we hope this new World Restructuring system can achieve.

The goals of the World Restructuring system are:

• Create great matches
• Handle population fluctuations
• Balance teams
• Diversify WvW experiences

It is important to keep in mind that we still are investigating and working on this system. It is possible that this system will continue to evolve as we develop it, and we will be constantly testing to make sure the system meets our goals and our expectations for a quality experience. This post is an opportunity to share with you our plans for the new system, and respond to questions before the system is far long in the development process.

Is there any further information or a timeline on this being launched?

[HazyDaisy.4107]

Wait, pve titles aren't displayable in wvw anymore?

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@"Coldtart.4785" said:This change seems like it's being made to make WvW more 'competitive', which is a bit like trying to make a triangle into a three-sided square. WvW is played with three teams, with very large team sizes and 24/7 uptime. None of those design aspects are the design aspects of a competitive game. This isn't a matter of failing to live up to a competitive standard, either. The fundamentals of WvW are those of a much more sandbox styled game.

This guy gets it. Maybe. Just Maybe...WvW itself isn't made to be "competitive." Don't get your hopes up for "Alliances." I member the WvW "Overhaul"...

[morrolan.9608]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Ermm, I believe alliance is permanent thus there is no decay timer.

As for those stackers and bandwagoners alike trying to create mega alliances, well, we have to wait and see what limit will the anet set. Perhaps, the limit is low enough that stackers and bandwagoners alike can't take advantage of.

This is exactly why the cap should be set close to 500.

[joneirikb.7506]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"joneirikb.7506" said:Are there any ways to deal with people making 2 different alliances, with 2 different guilds, having all the same members, and just swap theoretically 500 people every other matchup, trying to manipulate 1 alliance to decay to get grouped with a stronger in general world, then everyone rep that for the next season and overwhelm the enemy. While letting the other alliance "decay" with inactivity again ?

Who says there is "decay" that impact anything? We dont know how the matchup system work in detail or how it assign alliances and players to world based on the algorithm. We just know the broad concept as Anet has laid it out.

Technically this wouldnt matter as that empty alliance would just get replaced by other alliances and players to create a decently balanced world weighed against the rest. If you cant move until the end of a season you cant go back anyway. And if you try to move an entire alliance the first week, I am sure there are failsafes to transfering just like now (ie world is full).

A bit of an assumption on my part, but figured that they would continue to use the existing system of "play hours" to determine worlds. As such it would make sense for them to measure how much play hours an alliance had, to see where to put it for the next season.

Thus, if Alliance A has 500 players (theoretically) that has played active they will have lots of "play-hours", thus will be put in a new alliance (for the new season) with other alliances and guilds and a singles, based on that.

But if every single one of those players are also in another Alliance B, and clicks to select this alliance for the next Season, does the system catch up on this, and adapt ? If not we might be stuck with 500 players (theoretically) that could strongly unbalance 2 different new worlds for a Season, and perhaps repeat it several times.

Basically, if the play-hours are tracker per individual, and thus into the Alliance B, then it would be ok and the system would adapt this, and adjust properly. If it follows the Alliance, then we can get some pretty wrong numbers, and thus some silly match-ups again.

[The Dervish.7384]

Will you remove "cursed" red borderland with new system?