SugarCayne.3098 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. Any chance you can test the new stuff out on NA and revert EU to what it was like before? Then you offer two options, two choices of gameplay. See which one becomes more popular without any risk/losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithril Ashwalker.6230 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 cant we just have a system to where there are less servers to choose from, give everyone a free transfer and then perma-merge servers based on active population? if Blackgate is the most populated, merge other servers like 4 semi active until they meet that same tresh-hold of activity, then do the other servers the same. reduce the servers, merge em, more wvw? compact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenesisII.1540 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 > @"morrolan.9608" said: > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > Also to explain why we world link every 2 months, that was mostly determined by a poll we held. 27% of people who voted for an option wanted linking to happen monthly and the other 73% wanted it to be more than a month (there were several options and the 73% were split up between those options). We determined 2 months seemed fair based off of these results since majority wanted longer than 1 month but 1 month had the most votes of the options. We also felt like we could not do monthly since glicko did not adjust fast enough, but now that we use 1 up 1 down that isn’t a problem. We are open to changing how frequently or infrequently we link, I just wanted to explain how 2 month links were determined. > > > I'm positive that if this poll was redone now it would get a totally different result, and the thing is you wanted 2 months anyway because the process is a manual process. > > And just on the loss of culture and identity with a merge. Its lost anyway because the linking doesn't preserve it in anyway. Its 1 reason why linking hasn't been a great solution. Except I ran a poll on this back in oct and most of the votes were still for monthly. https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/11498/wvw-poll-server-link-schedule Sure a very small sample of just people on the boards and that doesn't mean much, but I'm still not sure there are that many interested in long term links. Also I believe the original anet schedule was set for quarterly relinks the same with the borderland rotations, it's the players that asked to change it I think, obviously the more times they need to relink the more preparation time is needed which takes away from other work they have. A merge would have completely wiped out the identity of servers and their communities right then and there, I think some people are taking that very lightly because they're probably not even on one those links. Links allowed servers to still maintain some identity and community, even in it's current messy state, they at least still exist. People have to remember for a community to continue together, players have to be willing to be part of that community, but in the past few years guilds have become the community for many players, many of which have been moving around. The idea to "fight" for a server died some time before links even came to be, as defending the "motherland" was a big part of those communities working together, and that in part died when HoT came in. A community isn't about it's name, which some seem to be hung up on. Links were the fastest solution for them to implement with the least amount of disruption to the communities to fix a quickly diminishing population of lower servers, as McKenna just confirmed they have been looking at other solutions in the meantime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaLeVoLenT.8129 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X T D.6458 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaLeVoLenT.8129 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"X T D.6458" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. I disagree. WvW is completely meaningless right now. Battlegroups give something to fight over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenesisII.1540 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"X T D.6458" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. Yeah waste of time unless BG was it's own battle group! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaLeVoLenT.8129 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"XenesisII.1540" said: > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. > > Yeah waste of time unless BG was it's own battle group! xD wellplayed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrolan.9608 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"X T D.6458" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. Depends on the implementation and anyway WvW is meaningless now as others have said. You have to step outside your BG bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrolan.9608 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"XenesisII.1540" said: > > @"morrolan.9608" said: > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > Also to explain why we world link every 2 months, that was mostly determined by a poll we held. 27% of people who voted for an option wanted linking to happen monthly and the other 73% wanted it to be more than a month (there were several options and the 73% were split up between those options). We determined 2 months seemed fair based off of these results since majority wanted longer than 1 month but 1 month had the most votes of the options. We also felt like we could not do monthly since glicko did not adjust fast enough, but now that we use 1 up 1 down that isn’t a problem. We are open to changing how frequently or infrequently we link, I just wanted to explain how 2 month links were determined. > > > > > I'm positive that if this poll was redone now it would get a totally different result, and the thing is you wanted 2 months anyway because the process is a manual process. > > > > And just on the loss of culture and identity with a merge. Its lost anyway because the linking doesn't preserve it in anyway. Its 1 reason why linking hasn't been a great solution. > > Except I ran a poll on this back in oct and most of the votes were still for monthly. > Um I want links to be monthly, Anet used the fact that more people voted for options greater than monthly in the original poll to justify putting links at 2 months. If the official poll was redone I am 100% confident monthly would be chosen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X T D.6458 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. > > I disagree. WvW is completely meaningless right now. Battlegroups give something to fight over. And how exactly would it do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaLeVoLenT.8129 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"X T D.6458" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > > > > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. > > > > I disagree. WvW is completely meaningless right now. Battlegroups give something to fight over. > > And how exactly would it do that? Battlegroups doesn't just add on to the existing system. It incorporates, scoring, population balance, rewards, tournaments, seasons and proper structures with a defined cap so that there could be a tournament. Instead of all these things working on their own they work in sync allowing for balance and a united goal across all worlds for competition. Allowing worlds to fight for a common goal would enable ArenaNet to better statistic track and analyze data for match making. Providing a down time inbetween seasons allow players to balance, reform and make new battlegroups before they are match made into worlds. Which is better than server-links. Right now WvW has no meaning and no one fights for the win. PPT has no meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry CCH.9816 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > Battlegroups doesn't just add on to the existing system. It incorporates, scoring, population balance, rewards, tournaments, seasons and proper structures with a defined cap so that there could be a tournament. Instead of all these things working on their own they work in sync allowing for balance and a united goal across all worlds for competition. Allowing worlds to fight for a common goal would enable ArenaNet to better statistic track and analyze data for match making. Providing a down time inbetween seasons allow players to balance, reform and make new battlegroups before they are match made into worlds. Which is better than server-links. Right now WvW has no meaning and no one fights for the win. PPT has no meaning. who wanna hear selfish speaking B) is any Server sup the idea ? wvw change at 2018 Q3 ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X T D.6458 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > > > > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > > > > > > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. > > > > > > I disagree. WvW is completely meaningless right now. Battlegroups give something to fight over. > > > > And how exactly would it do that? > > Battlegroups doesn't just add on to the existing system. It incorporates, scoring, population balance, rewards, tournaments, seasons and proper structures with a defined cap so that there could be a tournament. Instead of all these things working on their own they work in sync allowing for balance and a united goal across all worlds for competition. Allowing worlds to fight for a common goal would enable ArenaNet to better statistic track and analyze data for match making. Providing a down time inbetween seasons allow players to balance, reform and make new battlegroups before they are match made into worlds. Which is better than server-links. Right now WvW has no meaning and no one fights for the win. PPT has no meaning. That's some Grade A propaganda served up with some "special" Kool-Aid ;) Why on Earth do you think seasons/tournaments are a good thing, or should ever be used again? Anet has already said they wont do it, and gave specific reasons and you think it would be a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaLeVoLenT.8129 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Jerry CCH.9816" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > Battlegroups doesn't just add on to the existing system. It incorporates, scoring, population balance, rewards, tournaments, seasons and proper structures with a defined cap so that there could be a tournament. Instead of all these things working on their own they work in sync allowing for balance and a united goal across all worlds for competition. Allowing worlds to fight for a common goal would enable ArenaNet to better statistic track and analyze data for match making. Providing a down time inbetween seasons allow players to balance, reform and make new battlegroups before they are match made into worlds. Which is better than server-links. Right now WvW has no meaning and no one fights for the win. PPT has no meaning. > > who wanna hear selfish speaking B) > is any Server sup the idea ? > > wvw change at 2018 Q3 ;) I didn't understand. Can you rephrase Winnie? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenesisII.1540 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"morrolan.9608" said: > Um I want links to be monthly, Anet used the fact that more people voted for options greater than monthly in the original poll to justify putting links at 2 months. If the official poll was redone I am 100% confident monthly would be chosen. Well you made it sound like it would be the opposite, because people HAD already voted for the majority of 1-3 months, that's why it was settled at 2, to be a compromise between the two groups that had the most votes. Anet originally planned for longer link times. Wish they hadn't deleted the old forums, now we can't even reference old stuff like the polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Alim.4176 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. > > I disagree. WvW is completely meaningless right now. Battlegroups give something to fight over. Just to correct you. WvW atm is only completely meaningless if you are not on BG, MAG, or ~~JQ~~. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Alim.4176 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > > > > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > > > > > > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. > > > > > > I disagree. WvW is completely meaningless right now. Battlegroups give something to fight over. > > > > And how exactly would it do that? > > Battlegroups doesn't just add on to the existing system. It incorporates, scoring, population balance, rewards, tournaments, seasons and proper structures with a defined cap so that there could be a tournament. Instead of all these things working on their own they work in sync allowing for balance and a united goal across all worlds for competition. Allowing worlds to fight for a common goal would enable ArenaNet to better statistic track and analyze data for match making. Providing a down time inbetween seasons allow players to balance, reform and make new battlegroups before they are match made into worlds. Which is better than server-links. Right now WvW has no meaning and no one fights for the win. PPT has no meaning. While you are correct. It completely goes against ANet's pledge. For GW2 to be the most casual, skill less, non competitive game on the market. If you want the opposite of what I've described here. I'm sorry but you are going to have to look outside of GW2 to get it. ANet has no intention on serving this lot of gamers. If anything ANet just wants to push them away from GW2 for good. That way they can release lazy uninspiring RP skins, and low quality PvE content with little to no negative resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endelon.1042 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Reaper Alim.4176" said: > Just to correct you. WvW atm is only completely meaningless if you are not on BG, MAG, or JQ. There is no game supported incentive/reward to win the weekly matchups. Not sure what else you're trying to argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaLeVoLenT.8129 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Reaper Alim.4176" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > > > > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. > > > > I disagree. WvW is completely meaningless right now. Battlegroups give something to fight over. > > Just to correct you. WvW atm is only completely meaningless if you are not on BG, MAG, or JQ. on JQ it seems pretty meaningless for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaLeVoLenT.8129 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Reaper Alim.4176" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > > > > > > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > > > > > > > > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. > > > > > > > > I disagree. WvW is completely meaningless right now. Battlegroups give something to fight over. > > > > > > And how exactly would it do that? > > > > Battlegroups doesn't just add on to the existing system. It incorporates, scoring, population balance, rewards, tournaments, seasons and proper structures with a defined cap so that there could be a tournament. Instead of all these things working on their own they work in sync allowing for balance and a united goal across all worlds for competition. Allowing worlds to fight for a common goal would enable ArenaNet to better statistic track and analyze data for match making. Providing a down time inbetween seasons allow players to balance, reform and make new battlegroups before they are match made into worlds. Which is better than server-links. Right now WvW has no meaning and no one fights for the win. PPT has no meaning. > > While you are correct. It completely goes against ANet's pledge. For GW2 to be the most casual, skill less, non competitive game on the market. If you want the opposite of what I've described here. I'm sorry but you are going to have to look outside of GW2 to get it. ANet has no intention on serving this lot of gamers. If anything ANet just wants to push them away from GW2 for good. That way they can release lazy uninspiring RP skins, and low quality PvE content with little to no negative resistance. I hope Arena Net proves this wrong for the sake of the game mode. Is all I can say to this. As time goes on more people view the way you view and I struggle with this too. This is why some lash out at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Alim.4176 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > @"Reaper Alim.4176" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > > > > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > > > > > > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. > > > > > > I disagree. WvW is completely meaningless right now. Battlegroups give something to fight over. > > > > Just to correct you. WvW atm is only completely meaningless if you are not on BG, MAG, or JQ. > > on JQ it seems pretty meaningless for us. Then my bad I stand corrected far as JQ goes. I will correct it. :sweat_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Alim.4176 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > @"Reaper Alim.4176" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > > > > > > > > > > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. WvW is completely meaningless right now. Battlegroups give something to fight over. > > > > > > > > And how exactly would it do that? > > > > > > Battlegroups doesn't just add on to the existing system. It incorporates, scoring, population balance, rewards, tournaments, seasons and proper structures with a defined cap so that there could be a tournament. Instead of all these things working on their own they work in sync allowing for balance and a united goal across all worlds for competition. Allowing worlds to fight for a common goal would enable ArenaNet to better statistic track and analyze data for match making. Providing a down time inbetween seasons allow players to balance, reform and make new battlegroups before they are match made into worlds. Which is better than server-links. Right now WvW has no meaning and no one fights for the win. PPT has no meaning. > > > > While you are correct. It completely goes against ANet's pledge. For GW2 to be the most casual, skill less, non competitive game on the market. If you want the opposite of what I've described here. I'm sorry but you are going to have to look outside of GW2 to get it. ANet has no intention on serving this lot of gamers. If anything ANet just wants to push them away from GW2 for good. That way they can release lazy uninspiring RP skins, and low quality PvE content with little to no negative resistance. > > I hope Arena Net proves this wrong for the sake of the game mode. Is all I can say to this. As time goes on more people view the way you view and I struggle with this too. This is why some lash out at them. I'm sorry that you feel so conflicted. However all I will prescribe to you is a healthy dose of RvRing outside of GW2 or any of the other F2P games on the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaLeVoLenT.8129 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Reaper Alim.4176" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > @"Reaper Alim.4176" said: > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. WvW is completely meaningless right now. Battlegroups give something to fight over. > > > > > > > > > > And how exactly would it do that? > > > > > > > > Battlegroups doesn't just add on to the existing system. It incorporates, scoring, population balance, rewards, tournaments, seasons and proper structures with a defined cap so that there could be a tournament. Instead of all these things working on their own they work in sync allowing for balance and a united goal across all worlds for competition. Allowing worlds to fight for a common goal would enable ArenaNet to better statistic track and analyze data for match making. Providing a down time inbetween seasons allow players to balance, reform and make new battlegroups before they are match made into worlds. Which is better than server-links. Right now WvW has no meaning and no one fights for the win. PPT has no meaning. > > > > > > While you are correct. It completely goes against ANet's pledge. For GW2 to be the most casual, skill less, non competitive game on the market. If you want the opposite of what I've described here. I'm sorry but you are going to have to look outside of GW2 to get it. ANet has no intention on serving this lot of gamers. If anything ANet just wants to push them away from GW2 for good. That way they can release lazy uninspiring RP skins, and low quality PvE content with little to no negative resistance. > > > > I hope Arena Net proves this wrong for the sake of the game mode. Is all I can say to this. As time goes on more people view the way you view and I struggle with this too. This is why some lash out at them. > > I'm sorry that you feel so conflicted. However all I will prescribe to you is a healthy dose of RvRing outside of GW2 or any of the other F2P games on the market. If you can find me a better RvR game with combat as good as this game, Id be down to try it. However being a MMO gamer for about 15 yrs and watching the market, I feel like Arena Net has all the time in the world. The next big flop? Camelot Unchained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Alim.4176 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > @"Reaper Alim.4176" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"Reaper Alim.4176" said: > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Endelon.1042" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. If we were to do merges, we would essentially just take the world links and make them permanent. Every time we change world links people always question why some worlds get a link and others don’t and some are just generally unhappy with the links. If they were permanent instead of temporary we imagine even more people would be upset. We are actively trying to improve the algorithm and information we use for world linking but since **people generally seem to question the links we don’t believe a permanent version of them would go over positively.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Server linking isn't popular anymore and is creating more problems than it helped solve when it went in 1.5 years ago. Are you planning to stick with world linking for the rest of the life of the game (aka is this just how WvW is going to be from now on) or is an entirely new system something that is being tossed around, discussed abstractly, etc. ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edit: 'new system' meaning something other than a server-based system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are actively investigating other systems besides world linking. This does not guarantee that we will switch to a different system and stop world linking, but currently we are not committing to world linking for the rest of the life of the game. We want to do a more formal presentation on this particular topic once everything has been investigated a little bit more, so we can give better explanations on what to expect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B A T T L E G R O U P S WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No thanks. Battle groups are a waste of time, and would make WvW completely meaningless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. WvW is completely meaningless right now. Battlegroups give something to fight over. > > > > > > > > > > > > And how exactly would it do that? > > > > > > > > > > Battlegroups doesn't just add on to the existing system. It incorporates, scoring, population balance, rewards, tournaments, seasons and proper structures with a defined cap so that there could be a tournament. Instead of all these things working on their own they work in sync allowing for balance and a united goal across all worlds for competition. Allowing worlds to fight for a common goal would enable ArenaNet to better statistic track and analyze data for match making. Providing a down time inbetween seasons allow players to balance, reform and make new battlegroups before they are match made into worlds. Which is better than server-links. Right now WvW has no meaning and no one fights for the win. PPT has no meaning. > > > > > > > > While you are correct. It completely goes against ANet's pledge. For GW2 to be the most casual, skill less, non competitive game on the market. If you want the opposite of what I've described here. I'm sorry but you are going to have to look outside of GW2 to get it. ANet has no intention on serving this lot of gamers. If anything ANet just wants to push them away from GW2 for good. That way they can release lazy uninspiring RP skins, and low quality PvE content with little to no negative resistance. > > > > > > I hope Arena Net proves this wrong for the sake of the game mode. Is all I can say to this. As time goes on more people view the way you view and I struggle with this too. This is why some lash out at them. > > > > I'm sorry that you feel so conflicted. However all I will prescribe to you is a healthy dose of RvRing outside of GW2 or any of the other F2P games on the market. > > If you can find me a better RvR game with combat as good as this game, Id be down to try it. However being a MMO gamer for about 15 yrs and watching the market, I feel like Arena Net has all the time in the world. The next big flop? Camelot Unchained. I've mention some in a few posts ago. And all this CU hype LEL. Let me tell you, that game is just a reskinned DAoC. It will be a visually super good looking, yet with a outdated RvR combat system. It will suffer greatly in the modern ERA of action gaming. I will have to agree with you that GW2 does currently have the best combat system on the market. However when everything else about the game is at a grade F level in comparison to MMO gaming standards. I don't know what else to say other than. You can sit here try to have fun with a awesome combat system, with everything else being crap. Or maybe you can be a little bit lenient on the combat system. Opt for a game with RvR that don't have as good of a combat system but far superior everything else. Just sayin is all. There is a reason why other than the fact GW2 is reaching past the 5 year mark (Not a legit excuse in my book as WoW and Eve proved otherwise.) that players are leaving the game in mass with their lifeboats(sanity). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now