Periodic Server Reset

[Swagger.1459]

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:I define this as anet resets the servers and players choose a new home in regular periods.

why?

reseting the correct activity per world.

deleting unnecessary tiers.

and removing inactive accounts from the calculation.

destacking of over populated servers.

data to estimate average no. of players per time zone. per world.

what do you think?

pls be civil.

Here is my civil response. It would be helpful if you followed developer comments before starting a thread like this, so you have a better idea of what’s going on, and why your request isn’t going anywhere.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/45856/world-restructuring-update-1

Tyvm, and have a good one!

=)

thats not the topic of this thread though

Your topic is about changing the “system”, but we are already getting a change... that the devs have been working on for months and months... and have posted a number of times about a new system coming. The devs were even nice enough to sticky the upcoming system changes at the top of this section.

thats not the thing i am talking about though. just this one. there is a thread for their idea. as it is not yet applied, i dont want to discuss that here.

The things you are talking about are moot and will not happen. The devs have been working on the alliance system and will launch when it’s ready. Your suggestion is wasted and pointless now.

[Chaba.5410]

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:I define this as anet resets the servers and players choose a new home in regular periods.

why?

reseting the correct activity per world.

deleting unnecessary tiers.

and removing inactive accounts from the calculation.

destacking of over populated servers.

data to estimate average no. of players per time zone. per world.

what do you think?

pls be civil.

This isn't any fundamentally different from what the WvW restructuring will bring.

Also, inactive accounts are already removed from world population calculation.

is a simple version of the idea. just reset it all once in awhile.

adjust tiers and world size per quarter based on 4 months of wvw activity. compile per year and adjust some more

I get what you are saying, but think that all this time this is exactly what Anet could have done without all the programming they are putting in for the alliances. Yet they didn't and the reason for that is how unsatisfactory a solution it is from the player experience side. Guilds would be broken up with no way to get back together without paying for a transfer. That's so completely bad of an idea if a gaming company wants to retain players.

[Sovereign.1093]

@"joneirikb.7506" said:Honestly fail to see what your idea would accomplish that the "Alliance" system wouldn't ? Except for randomizing people even further making it difficult to play with friends/guild etc?

You should probably explain what you want the system to do?

as the alliance system is not yet in place. i cant compare the two. only what exists now.

the idea is simply to kill all worlds every quarter.

guilds will organize and decide where to go ahead of time since the idea is to let them know when.

alliances in this case is not addressed because i dont know how it will work.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:I define this as anet resets the servers and players choose a new home in regular periods.

why?

reseting the correct activity per world.

deleting unnecessary tiers.

and removing inactive accounts from the calculation.

destacking of over populated servers.

data to estimate average no. of players per time zone. per world.

what do you think?

pls be civil.

This isn't any fundamentally different from what the WvW restructuring will bring.

Also, inactive accounts are already removed from world population calculation.

is a simple version of the idea. just reset it all once in awhile.

adjust tiers and world size per quarter based on 4 months of wvw activity. compile per year and adjust some more

I get what you are saying, but think that all this time this is exactly what Anet could have done without all the programming they are putting in for the alliances. Yet they didn't and the reason for that is how unsatisfactory a solution it is from the player experience side. Guilds would be broken up with no way to get back together without paying for a transfer. That's so completely bad of an idea if a gaming company wants to retain players.

the result may change though. people now are different then. i cant assume the result will be the same.

the only drawback i could see was, some wolrds.then did not have population.

[Swagger.1459]

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@"joneirikb.7506" said:Honestly fail to see what your idea would accomplish that the "Alliance" system wouldn't ? Except for randomizing people even further making it difficult to play with friends/guild etc?

You should probably explain what you want the system to do?

as the alliance system is not yet in place. i cant compare the two. only what exists now.

the idea is simply to kill all worlds every quarter.

guilds will organize and decide where to go ahead of time since the idea is to let them know when.

alliances in this case is not addressed because i dont know how it will work.

If you don’t know how it will work then read this...

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26877/world-restructuring-faq

[Sovereign.1093]

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@"joneirikb.7506" said:Honestly fail to see what your idea would accomplish that the "Alliance" system wouldn't ? Except for randomizing people even further making it difficult to play with friends/guild etc?

You should probably explain what you want the system to do?

as the alliance system is not yet in place. i cant compare the two. only what exists now.

the idea is simply to kill all worlds every quarter.

guilds will organize and decide where to go ahead of time since the idea is to let them know when.

alliances in this case is not addressed because i dont know how it will work.

If you don’t know how it will work then read this...

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26877/world-restructuring-faq

it has not been done in practice is what i meant.

things there could change or maybe stay the same.

so i am not interested with discussing that idea since it has its own thread for it.

[Riba.3271]

This is just more unpolished version of alliance system. Terrible idea id say, what if no1 chooses certain server? And what if someone happens to not be able to log in the day the reset happens and ends up separated from all his friends due to server getting full?

[Sovereign.1093]

if no one chooses a server then they are free to chose the remaining that is open.

well he has to wait until it is open.

thats the thing. it is a conscious choice. not an automatic or passive one.

if you coordinate with your guys, you will end in the same place. if not, then the result will be different.

i think this is more realistic. you can have an alliance but i prefer to think in more smaller terms. your friends, guildmates, level. so theres really no need to change to the existing system

[Dawdler.8521]

@Sovereign.1093 said:it has not been done in practice is what i meant.

Niether has your idea. It doesnt change the fact its the same thing as alliances.

[Etria.3642]

But that is exactly what an alliance can be--guildmates allies and friends.

Having EVERYONE have to scramble to get onto the 'perceived' stacked server would be a nightmare. I am not on bg nor do I want to be but I shudder to think how many groups there would be scattered due to the mad rush of people choosing it.

And you can currently transfer to almost anywhere else so I'm not sure what people choosing again would accomplish EXCEPT to REALLY irritate people who currently are where they want to be but then didn't get to choose in time.

Terrible idea. Especially if you've recently paid to transfer.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:it has not been done in practice is what i meant.

Niether has your idea. It doesnt change the fact its the same thing as alliances.

which is why it can be discused.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Etria.3642 said:But that is exactly what an alliance can be--guildmates allies and friends.

Having EVERYONE have to scramble to get onto the 'perceived' stacked server would be a nightmare. I am not on bg nor do I want to be but I shudder to think how many groups there would be scattered due to the mad rush of people choosing it.

And you can currently transfer to almost anywhere else so I'm not sure what people choosing again would accomplish EXCEPT to REALLY irritate people who currently are where they want to be but then didn't get to choose in time.

Terrible idea. Especially if you've recently paid to transfer.

thats the beauty of it. forced destack. and planning.

this idea is pretty basic without even the difficulty of alliances.

[Etria.3642]

But it WOULDN'T force destack. Bg would be PACKED still. The next server would be the one where the big alliances say to go. They always try to keep it secret but that worked so well with sor.

It would just separate guilds and friends who probably have already paid cash to be where they currently are.

I cannot even begin to imagine the seriously unhappy people. I know my tiny family guild only has a couple of us who login every day but we are currently on the same server. The same two are the only ones who are serious wvw players but come guild mission day we all login and walk dolyaks or take a tower or do that Damn jump puzzle. You think the other twelve people are going to be there clicking to get into the same server as the two of us? And that's just my tiny guild.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Etria.3642 said:But it WOULDN'T force destack. Bg would be PACKED still. The next server would be the one where the big alliances say to go. They always try to keep it secret but that worked so well with sor.

It would just separate guilds and friends who probably have already paid cash to be where they currently are.

I cannot even begin to imagine the seriously unhappy people. I know my tiny family guild only has a couple of us who login every day but we are currently on the same server. The same two are the only ones who are serious wvw players but come guild mission day we all login and walk dolyaks or take a tower or do that kitten jump puzzle. You think the other twelve people are going to be there clicking to get into the same server as the two of us? And that's just my tiny guild.

this is just your speculation for now. what if you all fit. as it is now, the same goes. we lose friends from links. qq of servers with blobs. and then worry about having none to play or lead.

the thing is, for now, the ppl you add as friends will show on the worlds choices. thus, it will be the same.as.the proposal. so you can still be with ur buddies. and lets say you did not choose on time.and it is not full, you can still join in. and if they transfer provided the placs has space, then you could.

but by doing this, there be a huge population for each server.

on that note though, the amount of meaningful relations you can havw with ppl is few. 7 to 15 at best. or fewer.

and lets say one server is so stacked. in 4 months it gets destacked so players will be forced to reunited and be with those whom they really want to be. you have 4 months to plan.

[Etria.3642]

It will NOT be the same as proposed alliances. I can't seem to explain to you how utterly atrociously terribly bad this idea is so I am just glad that it will never happen.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Etria.3642 said:But it WOULDN'T force destack. Bg would be PACKED still. The next server would be the one where the big alliances say to go. They always try to keep it secret but that worked so well with sor.

It would just separate guilds and friends who probably have already paid cash to be where they currently are.

I cannot even begin to imagine the seriously unhappy people. I know my tiny family guild only has a couple of us who login every day but we are currently on the same server. The same two are the only ones who are serious wvw players but come guild mission day we all login and walk dolyaks or take a tower or do that kitten jump puzzle. You think the other twelve people are going to be there clicking to get into the same server as the two of us? And that's just my tiny guild.

this is just your speculation for now

. what if you all fit. as it is now, the same goes. we lose friends from links. qq of servers with blobs. and then worry about having none to play or lead.

the thing is, for now, the ppl you add as friends will show on the worlds choices. thus, it will be the same.as.the proposal. so you can still be with ur buddies. and lets say you did not choose on time.and it is not full, you can still join in. and if they transfer provided the placs has space, then you could.

but by doing this, there be a huge population for each server.

on that note though, the amount of meaningful relations you can havw with ppl is few. 7 to 15 at best. or fewer.

and lets say one server is so stacked. in 4 months it gets destacked so players will be forced to reunited and be with those whom they really want to be. you have 4 months to plan.

Any benefit that you say that your system would provide is just speculation. The thing is that Anet already has a system in design which will be better.

[Sovereign.1093]

mmm probably not.

you havent even talked about it. =)

the advantage i see, guilds will flourish. servers wont be stacked.

no big dev expense. and maybe the introduction of seasons.

season 1

prep 1 month before go.

ppl talk, guilds finalize where want to go.

2 weeks before season. worlds open up to this system

on choice of worlds, you will see where your friends are, so you can transfer.

reset of worlds, players and guild choose where to be.

in between the 4 months you can transfer. but only to worlds not full and if full, on a trade system. where you queu up to transfer and wil only be allowed if someone goes to your world and you to theirs.

then compete. in these 4 months anet can choose monthly events.

guilds will be recognized based on ratio of world points/guild points. kd removed but incorporated to points.

kd becomes personal

when that one world wins, they are crowned season x tier champs.

next season.

reset.

repeat.

anet adjusts the system based on 4months data.

[Swagger.1459]

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@"joneirikb.7506" said:Honestly fail to see what your idea would accomplish that the "Alliance" system wouldn't ? Except for randomizing people even further making it difficult to play with friends/guild etc?

You should probably explain what you want the system to do?

as the alliance system is not yet in place. i cant compare the two. only what exists now.

the idea is simply to kill all worlds every quarter.

guilds will organize and decide where to go ahead of time since the idea is to let them know when.

alliances in this case is not addressed because i dont know how it will work.

If you don’t know how it will work then read this...

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26877/world-restructuring-faq

it has not been done in practice is what i meant.

things there could change or maybe stay the same.

so i am not interested with discussing that idea since it has its own thread for it.

You’re right, alliances have not been implemented yet, but since the beginning of the year the devs have been working on and collecting a paycheck to create alliances/world restructuring.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring

That is now the 3rd official dev comment thread I’ve posted. Had you been paying attention to the dev tracker you’d know all this, and you’d realize that you’re wasting time on the forums asking for your changes... All you are trying to do at this point is ignore clear communication by the dev team.

Next time, if you want to bring up ideas then spend time searching the forums for official dev posts on stuff first, and actually read official statements so are clued in to what’s happening with the game.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@"joneirikb.7506" said:Honestly fail to see what your idea would accomplish that the "Alliance" system wouldn't ? Except for randomizing people even further making it difficult to play with friends/guild etc?

You should probably explain what you want the system to do?

as the alliance system is not yet in place. i cant compare the two. only what exists now.

the idea is simply to kill all worlds every quarter.

guilds will organize and decide where to go ahead of time since the idea is to let them know when.

alliances in this case is not addressed because i dont know how it will work.

If you don’t know how it will work then read this...

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26877/world-restructuring-faq

it has not been done in practice is what i meant.

things there could change or maybe stay the same.

so i am not interested with discussing that idea since it has its own thread for it.

You’re right, alliances have not been implemented yet, but since the beginning of the year the devs have been working on and collecting a paycheck to create alliances/world restructuring.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring

That is now the 3rd official dev comment thread I’ve posted. Had you been paying attention to the dev tracker you’d know all this, and you’d realize that you’re wasting time on the forums asking for your changes... All you are trying to do at this point is ignore clear communication by the dev team.

Next time, if you want to bring up ideas then spend time searching the forums for official dev posts on stuff first, and actually read official statements so are clued in to what’s happening with the game.

but i am not interested in that. i am interester in talking about this.

i am interested in others who want to talk about this.

[Chaba.5410]

I don't see much to discuss. Most people have already offered their thoughts about it and they all seem to say the same thing.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Chaba.5410 said:I don't see much to discuss. Most people have already offered their thoughts about it and they all seem to say the same thing.

you mean like parots?

well only one person took it seriously. the rest just pointed we have alliances soon.

still its open for ppl to input their thoughts.

cause if they cant accept this, which is basically the waterdowned version of the alliance, i doubt they really know what.they saying =p

[Rampage.7145]

@Sovereign.1093 said:I define this as anet resets the servers and players choose a new home in regular periods.

why?

reseting the correct activity per world.

deleting unnecessary tiers.

and removing inactive accounts from the calculation.

destacking of over populated servers.

data to estimate average no. of players per time zone. per world.

what do you think?

pls be civil.

This would not do anything every single stacked server has a discord or some sort of comunication tool outside the game, even if arenanet did this they would all just coordinate to stack another server, it is basically alliances without arenanets prmission at this point, only problem is that there are way too many servers/linked servers with barelly any organized comunity/guilds/commanders/leadership and those realms will suffer aginst the organized ones. Alliances need to come fast to enforce type of comunity into every realm not only the stacked ones.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Rampage.7145 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:I define this as anet resets the servers and players choose a new home in regular periods.

why?

reseting the correct activity per world.

deleting unnecessary tiers.

and removing inactive accounts from the calculation.

destacking of over populated servers.

data to estimate average no. of players per time zone. per world.

what do you think?

pls be civil.

This would not do anything every single stacked server has a discord or some sort of comunication tool outside the game, even if arenanet did this they would all just coordinate to stack another server, it is basically alliances without arenanets prmission at this point, only problem is that there are way too many servers/linked servers with barelly any organized comunity/guilds/commanders/leadership and those realms will suffer aginst the organized ones. Alliances need to come fast to enforce type of comunity into every realm not only the stacked ones.

mmmm...

how many alliances currently exist outside of the 3 (unofficial bg) sor and kainen?

is it possible that whether we got alliances or not... we still going to face stacked players?

[Swagger.1459]

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Rampage.7145 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:I define this as anet resets the servers and players choose a new home in regular periods.

why?

reseting the correct activity per world.

deleting unnecessary tiers.

and removing inactive accounts from the calculation.

destacking of over populated servers.

data to estimate average no. of players per time zone. per world.

what do you think?

pls be civil.

This would not do anything every single stacked server has a discord or some sort of comunication tool outside the game, even if arenanet did this they would all just coordinate to stack another server, it is basically alliances without arenanets prmission at this point, only problem is that there are way too many servers/linked servers with barelly any organized comunity/guilds/commanders/leadership and those realms will suffer aginst the organized ones. Alliances need to come fast to enforce type of comunity into every realm not only the stacked ones.

mmmm...

how many alliances currently exist outside of the 3 (unofficial bg) sor and kainen?

is it possible that whether we got alliances or not... we still going to face stacked players?

If you bothered to read the threads linked for you then you’d know the answer to that.

[Sovereign.1093]

this is this, that is that. =)