Jump to content
  • Sign Up

World Restructuring Update 2


Raymond Lukes.6305

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty sure the last step before firing someone at anet is being put on the wvw team. Also that its so severe of a punishment that the computers they work on are powered by spin bicycle things. So if one person wears out everything they were working on is gone and they have to have to start all over again. Is why that one change with the marked thing was done that way because it was the quickest way to appease the zerglings before one of them had a heart attack. So when they go see the doctor for their checkup they are like oh wvw team way to go you are even healthier than last year. So you gotta respect that they even got on the bike long enough to give that update and hope things turn around for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"clone wars.9568" said:"Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations."

This on its own guarantee this new structuring will be a failure. You should NEVER base calc of server pops based on old player hours, it should be based on wvw population regardless of how much they play. Your failed system has already been proven to not work. 100vs100vs100 not 50vs100v70. Peoples play times will go up and down based on the time of year and personal/work life changes. It should be based on EQUAL numbers only. This is one of the KEY reasons wvw is dying on its feet. WvW needs BALANCE. That mean REAL effort to get FAIR numbers per side. REAL skill and pro balance. Fixing the bugs that have been reported for years.

Ally system failed in GW1 because one guild falls apart normally means all ally will fail apart, add that to this game mode and lock people into worlds for 3 months = even worse for the player base when an ally falls apart. Do people have to wait 3 months to reorganize anew ally? For these reasons alone your ideas are not going to help wvw, they're going to finally kill the game more complete.

All that was needed was ppl really working on wvw skill balancing and bottom tier servers deleted and players added to the other servers to get fairer numbers on each server. Instead as always anet have taken the more complex idea that has already been proven not to work hype it up and keep us waiting for years.

Waiting for the new system that I already am well aware will kill this game mode is like waiting for the grim reaper....

There will be population caps for Alliances, as noted...

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

“Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon.”

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/45856/world-restructuring-update-1“Alliance sizeWe are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.”

This..."Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations.".. is for matchmaking purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one big question that I'm not sure you'll answer given that it's still early, but I feel it's better to ask now than later.

The one question I have is if the option to turn your Guild into a WvW Guild for the system is an option you can toggle on and off?

Reason I ask is that I have a PvX Guild, a guild dedicated to playing anything in the game. Now it wouldn't be much a surprise to see my guild dabble in WvW, but I'm curious as to how the "turn your guild into a WvW Guild" works and if this is a permanent change to your guild?

The way I'm interpreting this information is that this action is a permanent one. And my worry is that if I come to that decision to do so, what effect will if have with your systems? Especially if I sign up for something that may not be an exact priority for my guild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have 1 guy working on it over the weekends... I've grown bored with WvW as it is and feel like I've abandoned my guild but it's the same thing night in and night out. I honestly don't think these changes will ever come, they're just trying to get us to hang around to pad their numbers.

Z

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Raymond Lukes.6305"
Raymond, this comes from a guild master of a wvw oriented guild. We struggle with the current system as a community, often we find ourselves trying to create fun instances within the game for our members, we love wvw, yet the imbalances on population, whether they benefit our realm or not, have made the experience stale, forcing us to adopt a style of play that doesn't reinforce our internal sense of community. What can we expect as a guild that will make the experience better for us? We were eager to hear about the alliance system because it shifts the focus towards the guild, but even if that is long ahead on the horizon, how can we fight against the current that brings players towards bigger and less personalized wvw guilds (serverwide guilds oriented to zerg fighting) and stay a cohesive community of fighters having fun?
Guild missions often mean not fighting, stopping what we are doing, and going to do some menial task, forcing us to create our own "missions" and objectives, trying to fight enemies at a disadvantage, or taking a difficult objective. But without meaningful rewards associated.
Most of the game's population does not play wvw, making it hard to recruit new members, specially because even if this players want some of the rewards obtained there, they dont need to join a guild to acquire them. Is there anything for us in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Heartpains.7312 said:May I ask what would the alliance solve?The wildly varying population on servers

Yes, it's really that simple to answer your question. You can look at the WvW population like a curve now - it's low in the low tier and very high in the high tier. The purpose of the alliances is to take the top off of the high tier and put it at the low tier, thus creating a flat line instead. It's not going to be perfect. It's not going to take into account skill or anything. But splitting it up into smaller chunks allow you to flatten the curve. Links work in exactly the same way, except it's larger chunks - higher resolution allows for flatter curve.

Since most players are greedy kittens that only think about their own loot they end up only increasing the distance between high and low tier. Anet needs to step in and reshuffle at a couple of months interval to solve that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 said:

@"clone wars.9568" said:"Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations."

This on its own guarantee this new structuring will be a failure. You should NEVER base calc of server pops based on old player hours, it should be based on wvw population regardless of how much they play. Your failed system has already been proven to not work. 100vs100vs100 not 50vs100v70. Peoples play times will go up and down based on the time of year and personal/work life changes. It should be based on EQUAL numbers only. This is one of the KEY reasons wvw is dying on its feet. WvW needs BALANCE. That mean REAL effort to get FAIR numbers per side. REAL skill and pro balance. Fixing the bugs that have been reported for years.

Ally system failed in GW1 because one guild falls apart normally means all ally will fail apart, add that to this game mode and lock people into worlds for 3 months = even worse for the player base when an ally falls apart. Do people have to wait 3 months to reorganize anew ally? For these reasons alone your ideas are not going to help wvw, they're going to finally kill the game more complete.

All that was needed was ppl really working on wvw skill balancing and bottom tier servers deleted and players added to the other servers to get fairer numbers on each server. Instead as always anet have taken the more complex idea that has already been proven not to work hype it up and keep us waiting for years.

Waiting for the new system that I already am well aware will kill this game mode is like waiting for the grim reaper....

There will be population caps for Alliances, as noted...

“Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon.”

“Alliance sizeWe are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.”

This..."Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations.".. is for matchmaking purposes.

You missed the point. Alliance number cap has nothing to do with WORLD caps which ARE based on playing hours. A world will not only have people in an alliance it will also include people who are not part of any wvw guild or ally so an Ally cap is irrelevant to the point.

So the point is anet will be basing when to cap a world's population based on players playing hours. Meaning there'll be zero balance and worlds will have a completely different amount of players and world caps.

When we have a system that will cap a worlds pop to 2k players and another capped at 4k players who play less the system is already broken and unbalanced. So I say again unless there are REAL changes to the issue of balance then anet is just bringing the same unbalance to the new system and thus it has 100% chance to be a failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nebilim.5127 said:What about the roleplaying servers? Will anything be done about keeping the already shambled community together now that there won't be any official RP server?

There was never an official roleplaying server.

You guys have options, they've been around for years.

You will still be placed in instances with friends, guild mates, groups, squad.

Sit in lion's arch, create a squad, list it on looking for group, people join, port in, leave, leave the squad open and listed, you now have an instance filled with rpers until everyone leaves and it closes. Players already use this method for every meta event in the game.

Create a guild, it can hold 500 players, use guild halls.

Alliances will link guilds together.

The only limitations is how lazy people want to be about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@clone wars.9568 said:

@clone wars.9568 said:"Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations."

This on its own guarantee this new structuring will be a failure. You should NEVER base calc of server pops based on old player hours, it should be based on wvw population regardless of how much they play. Your failed system has already been proven to not work. 100vs100vs100 not 50vs100v70. Peoples play times will go up and down based on the time of year and personal/work life changes. It should be based on EQUAL numbers only. This is one of the KEY reasons wvw is dying on its feet. WvW needs BALANCE. That mean REAL effort to get FAIR numbers per side. REAL skill and pro balance. Fixing the bugs that have been reported for years.

Ally system failed in GW1 because one guild falls apart normally means all ally will fail apart, add that to this game mode and lock people into worlds for 3 months = even worse for the player base when an ally falls apart. Do people have to wait 3 months to reorganize anew ally? For these reasons alone your ideas are not going to help wvw, they're going to finally kill the game more complete.

All that was needed was ppl really working on wvw skill balancing and bottom tier servers deleted and players added to the other servers to get fairer numbers on each server. Instead as always anet have taken the more complex idea that has already been proven not to work hype it up and keep us waiting for years.

Waiting for the new system that I already am well aware will kill this game mode is like waiting for the grim reaper....

There will be population caps for Alliances, as noted...

“Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon.”

“Alliance sizeWe are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.”

This..."Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations.".. is for matchmaking purposes.

You missed the point. Alliance number cap has nothing to do with WORLD caps which ARE based on playing hours. A world will not only have people in an alliance it will also include people who are not part of any wvw guild or ally so an Ally cap is irrelevant to the point.

So the point is anet will be basing when to cap a world's population based on players playing hours. Meaning there'll be zero balance and worlds will have a completely different amount of players and world caps.

When we have a system that will cap a worlds pop to 2k players and another capped at 4k players who play less the system is already broken and unbalanced. So I say again unless there are REAL changes to the issue of balance then anet is just bringing the same unbalance to the new system and thus it has 100% chance to be a failure.

The devs are going to make populations closer to equal for each match up. The system is going to sort teams as equal as possible. There will be caps in place so match ups can be made closer to equal. There will be restrictions in place so the dev team can get closer and closer to having more balanced numbers. The amount of worlds will change, but always divisible by 3, at the 2 month reset mark to balance out the numbers as much as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ReaverKane.7598 said:@"Raymond Lukes.6305", my only comment is :Why keep "World Transfers"? With the new system it doesn't make any sense, and honestly that's the reason why this is needed. Keeping world transfers is anathema to this whole system.Changing "Worlds" with the new system is supposed to be as easy as changing guilds, or is that not wrong? I mean, what's the deal?

I kind of agree although in the alliance system they could prevent it being abused by say making it prohibitively expensive to move.

@zealex.9410 said:Big yikes. This basically sounds like a 1 man project, id expect more attention to what is a core pillar of gw2, esp since anet is seemingly doing better income wise.

Its been a long time since WvW was a core pillar. I agree it should be though.

@"clone wars.9568" said:"Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations."

This on its own guarantee this new structuring will be a failure. You should NEVER base calc of server pops based on old player hours, it should be based on wvw population regardless of how much they play.

They used to base it on that and it was a failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@morrolan.9608 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:@"Raymond Lukes.6305", my only comment is :Why keep "World Transfers"? With the new system it doesn't make any sense, and honestly that's the reason why this is needed. Keeping world transfers is anathema to this whole system.Changing "Worlds" with the new system is supposed to be as easy as changing guilds, or is that not wrong? I mean, what's the deal?

I kind of agree although in the alliance system they could prevent it being abused by say making it prohibitively expensive to move.

Still, it makes no sense to retain it, unless it's only for the money. Which then just kind of proves those people saying that Server transfer is P2W somewhat right. And lays down low the image that it's used only as a deterrent.

@zealex.9410 said:Big yikes. This basically sounds like a 1 man project, id expect more attention to what is a core pillar of gw2, esp since anet is seemingly doing better income wise.

Its been a long time since WvW was a core pillar. I agree it should be though.

I don't think it's a one-man project. @"Raymond Lukes.6305" is probably stitching up stuff other people worked on into a coherent thing. Don't forget that WvW and sPvP are now part of the "systems" team, there's no more dedicated PVP teams.

@clone wars.9568 said:"Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations."

This on its own guarantee this new structuring will be a failure. You should NEVER base calc of server pops based on old player hours, it should be based on wvw population regardless of how much they play.

They used to base it on that and it was a failure.

Agreed, it makes more sense to balance it based on overall hours. I mean Base population says nothing. It's like a factory, or anything else, really... You don't measure work/performance in number of employees per item produced, you measure it in terms of man-hours per item.

This is more or less the same thing, saying that 3000 players played in WvW on Server X vs 5000 on Server Y is meaningless. Saying that you have 24 000 player hours on Server X vs 20 000 on Server Y. That makes a distinction.

On the other hand, i kind of understand what @clone wars.9568 is going for, i think. Although its measured in player hours, the queue system and the map limits are still based on population. So it might make it awkward to get into WvW for some servers if they don't do it exactly right. Especially since they're not taking into account the time-slots people play on.Imagine they set-up a world with people that all play on the same time slot... It will be barren in the rest of the day, and people will be locked out of maps during that particular time slot.Disregarding that can be costly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update. For anyone not involved in software development, don't underestimate the work and effort that has been put in so far. The complexity of this must be huge, and that there are so many parts working at all sounds great.UI stuff is important, but is a drop in the ocean in time and effort compared to the work being done on the backend for this.

Of course there's expectation management going on, but this sounds far closer to being done than a lot of you are giving credit for. Fingers crossed for something in the Spring.

I'm personally waiting for this before dropping back into the game, so please do keep up the good work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@adammantium.8031 said:Thanks for the update. For anyone not involved in software development, don't underestimate the work and effort that has been put in so far. The complexity of this must be huge, and that there are so many parts working at all sounds great.UI stuff is important, but is a drop in the ocean in time and effort compared to the work being done on the backend for this.

Of course there's expectation management going on, but this sounds far closer to being done than a lot of you are giving credit for. Fingers crossed for something in the Spring.

I'm personally waiting for this before dropping back into the game, so please do keep up the good work!

Have you paid for saying this? There is nothing at all, just try something ... if they continue like this the game will not give more than

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:Hey everyone,......................We had 3 announcements on this subject, first on the 31.Jan.2018 / the second in July 2018 / the third being the actual post 29.Nov.2018.

After one year we know now that the goals of the World Restructuring system are: "Create great matches / Handle population fluctuations / Balance teams / Diversify WvW experiences" - according to McKenna Berdrow: 31 Jan 2108. With other words, the goals of the current planned change are exactly the same as the goals of the current World division, working atm. GREAT!!

Shortly, the Restructuring plans to remove the Worlds existing in this moment and to replace them with entities named Worlds!! EXCELLENT!! GREAT IDEA!.

Let's see how this Worlds were supposed to work - bellow is McKenna's statement:"World Creation builds teams so they have similar predicted participation, skill, coverage, and language. Team assignment moves players onto teams by calculating the contribution value of a player and using that calculation to distribute players fairly. We plan to track stats like play hours in WvW, commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels."

Let's see the actual status - according to Raymond (the July update)"We subsequently have decided to, at least at the start, use only play hours and not adjust using other metrics."

Let's translate:

  • the Worlds will be replaced with Worlds
  • In the old system taking into consideration only the play hours was not so good and this was one of the reason of the actual WvW state. Instead of this:
  • In the new system we will take into consideration only the play hours. WOAAAA !!!! What a change !!

And so on. This "Restructuring" is a copy-paste of the actual system, in many cases keeping even the names. That ANet likes copy-paste, please look at the following two statements - first in July 2018 / the other from the Nov 2018:

  1. This will allow us to compare apples to apples so to speak once the system is in place. - July 2018, Raymond
  2. We want to compare apples to apples to give us the clearest information. - Nov 2018, Raymond

As a note - this shows that Raymond played the personal story as a Order of Whispers member and he started to like apples =) But even so, a little bit of change is not hurting. Raymond, we all know that the devs. have not much time. But please don't use copy-paste anymore. Even if you like what you wrote before.

In my opinion, this "change" is something changing only the amount of money entering to ANet pocket. Something like the rune change. And, the only reason it is not released yet is the fact that they still don;t know how to do this without generating a strong reaction from the players.

Still, being an incurable optimist I hope in my heart that the change will be a positive one. I have few questions:

  • it is stated that the Worlds will be formed first (with random names) and then the worlds will be populated by Aliances/guilds/players - How many worlds will be created? If too few then we will have queues of tens or hundreds of players. If too many, then we will have no queues but also we will have no enemy to fight in WvW.
  • If the Worlds will be created every 8 weeks what is the purpose of the "transfer" ? The world you choose will not exist anymore. If a guild is spread on more than one world, then even the criteria of "play hours" will be ignored. You can pay to go to the world your guild is. HOW can you know that a World is full if you first create the world and then you fill that word with guilds/players? Pay to be with your guild. After 8 weeks you may be put in the situation to pay again. And again after 8 weeks. HM ?

In my humble opinion you can make the best World Restructuring by using the EoTM model:

  • Keep the actual number of Worlds (server)
  • Every 8 weeks (or 6 or 4 or even 2) assign to each server a color (red / blue / green). Randomly - or according to the rules you want to use for the "World Restructuring" you are working in this moment.
  • Assign one of the borderline maps to each color - as the current WvW
  • Let the system to create as many instances of a map as necessary to house all the players willing to play on that map.
  • End.

The result of the fights on a map is not influencing in any way the servers. In the past we had some buffs from this but in this moment winning or loosing a WvW match is not influencing your world in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Dawdler.8521" said:Well the devs in their opinion will go with alliances. Unless you want them to cancel it all and spend another 3+ years to implement some player suggested system that probably wont work any better than alliances, which in my opinion would be pointless.


What would you fix - Match-Up Mechanics or Team Creation?


It's pointless if the end result does not improve the game-mode...which has been a proven trend with trying to Balance Teams through World Linking.

Alliance Linking will more than likely repeat this end result...as it focuses on Balancing Teams.

Trying to fix things In-directly through Balancing Teams...is very in-effective & continues to have Long-Term negative impacts to the game-mode (suppression of guest-server communities).

Most folks don't continue walking down a road that looks & feels bad.

Instead...please cancel this Alliance Team creation project & spend the next year implementing a system that directly fixes our WvW horrible Match-Ups...

Please re-design WvW & allow players to create their own Match-Ups with weekly limitations instead.

We need to make decisions that allow Long-Term communities to thrive...Allowing players to decide who can play in their Winning Alliance...will only lead to toxic behavior in the Long-Term...imho.

Even made a haiku that provides a solution:https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/5m7950/newgamemodewvgworldvsglobes

The mechanic for making this happens already works & is already being used in-game & just needs to be re-purposed for WvW...It's called Server Guesting:


Your truly,Diku

p.s.See some of my past posts...please vote Helpful or Thumbs up if you agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"TheMaskedGamer.5708" said:I have one big question that I'm not sure you'll answer given that it's still early, but I feel it's better to ask now than later.

The one question I have is if the option to turn your Guild into a WvW Guild for the system is an option you can toggle on and off?

Reason I ask is that I have a PvX Guild, a guild dedicated to playing anything in the game. Now it wouldn't be much a surprise to see my guild dabble in WvW, but I'm curious as to how the "turn your guild into a WvW Guild" works and if this is a permanent change to your guild?

The way I'm interpreting this information is that this action is a permanent one. And my worry is that if I come to that decision to do so, what effect will if have with your systems? Especially if I sign up for something that may not be an exact priority for my guild.

I am not sure, if this is a guild option or a person option.

I think it is a person option: "This guild is my WvW-guild" (additional and similar to todays "this guild I am representing")All people that do that with the same guild will be linked to the same WvW-Server/Team.

For your guild is the option: "my guild should join an alliance", if you join an alliance then all people that have any of the alliance-gilds as WvW-Guild should be linked to the same WvW-Server/Team. If you leave the alliance, then this has no immediate effect, but on next relinking your guildies (that have you as their WvW-Guild) are likely linked somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love GW2 and WvW but this is getting ridiculous. WvW is an overpopulated pay to win because of the alliances announcement, server swapping and stacking. The fights are just based on numbers now not skill. Mobs with the larger numbers win, go figure. I feel these alliance announcements are money grabs to get people to pay to switch worlds thinking stacking and winning. It has only served to kill guilds and servers/worlds and make WvW less populated but it made some money for anet which is what dying games do to their population in the end, milk them for whatevers left... sad day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...