Let's discuss Battlegroups

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > > > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And in the current system, as long as JQ is locked those 11 guilds will eventually drop to 10, then 9, 8, 7, 6 or less before they are opened up again. Is that the WvW community you are trying to protect?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > if JQ remains locked, then the guilds who need breathing room would xfer. Since none of the 11 guilds are enemies and wed all like to play together, chances are the ones who left would then cause a uncontrollable bandwagon to another server. Which is why JQ is tanking. To avoid this. Of course this is just an example. Doesn't mean its going to happen. But it has happened just like this before.

> > > > >

> > > > > Before or after the other great idea you promoted?

> > > >

> > > > I didnt promote anything. Im trying to have a healthy discussion. What are you trying to do?

> > >

> > > Mal, you have well documented what you have 'accomplished' over the last few years. Enough players know this.

> > >

> > > Granted, a number of the new ones do not.

> > >

> > > The reality is, you are presenting a side without historical context. I am merely noting that.

> >

> > Mal's history is irrelevant, looking at these ideas in isolation and in comparison with other large scale factionally based pvp games its clear WvW needs a change along these lines.

>

> As far as his history being irrelevant, he has stated showing Anet how broken the mode is, is the only way to make them change. The alliance he was a part of in the past did the same thing.

>

> And the alliance is why all of his poor guild mates are stuck on other servers.

>

> Let him move again. I have no problem with that.

 

What server are you on? I think if we move id like to play with you.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

Where have I stated showing arena how broken the game mode is the only way to make them change?

[Caliburn.1845]

@"Roxanne.6140"

 

All valid concerns, and probably part of the reasons Anet had such trouble implementing Battlegroups, and eventually cancelled the revamp.

 

But the people complaining about links are frankly arguing against the tide. The WvW population is shrinking, no one is going to argue with that point. You can keep things as they are, until you finally end up with a handful of players on each server fighting another handful of players. Or you can restructure things to keep WvW active, albeit on a smaller and smaller number of servers/worlds.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > > > > > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > And in the current system, as long as JQ is locked those 11 guilds will eventually drop to 10, then 9, 8, 7, 6 or less before they are opened up again. Is that the WvW community you are trying to protect?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > if JQ remains locked, then the guilds who need breathing room would xfer. Since none of the 11 guilds are enemies and wed all like to play together, chances are the ones who left would then cause a uncontrollable bandwagon to another server. Which is why JQ is tanking. To avoid this. Of course this is just an example. Doesn't mean its going to happen. But it has happened just like this before.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Before or after the other great idea you promoted?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I didnt promote anything. Im trying to have a healthy discussion. What are you trying to do?

> > > > >

> > > > > Mal, you have well documented what you have 'accomplished' over the last few years. Enough players know this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Granted, a number of the new ones do not.

> > > > >

> > > > > The reality is, you are presenting a side without historical context. I am merely noting that.

> > > >

> > > > Mal's history is irrelevant, looking at these ideas in isolation and in comparison with other large scale factionally based pvp games its clear WvW needs a change along these lines.

> > >

> > > No. It doesn't need a change along these lines. And I outlined in my responses why. Guild centric changes to *WvW* are not healthy.

> > >

> > > I have and will continue to support an effective, multi tier, inter AND intra server option for GvG.

> > >

> > > WvW itself isn't the place for it.

> >

> > Sure it is, guilds drive much of WvW and pugs are still catered for in the system. So the change would be healthy for WvW.

>

> Pugs are the filler therefore by your definition, irrelevant.

>

> Sorry, but no.

 

You're the one calling them irrelevant not me.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Roxanne.6140" said:

> Doesn't solve the current issues. Ppl are already complaining about links and from the way you described it, this seems to be playing with multiple links. Think of each battleground as a link and you see what I mean. It also doesn't explain the population metric that ppl are questioning as well. Also there is nothing stopping these groups from being active one week and going inactive the next. Just my 2 cents as a nobody.

 

The system is far more flexible in dealing with population changes so it certainly helps with current issues plus this is only a broad proposal at this stage with details still to be worked out.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > @"Roxanne.6140" said:

> > Doesn't solve the current issues. Ppl are already complaining about links and from the way you described it, this seems to be playing with multiple links. Think of each battleground as a link and you see what I mean. It also doesn't explain the population metric that ppl are questioning as well. Also there is nothing stopping these groups from being active one week and going inactive the next. Just my 2 cents as a nobody.

>

> The system is far more flexible in dealing with population changes so it certainly helps with current issues plus this is only a broad proposal at this stage with details still to be worked out.

 

It differently flexible, it offers solutions to some issues, cosmetic benefits to others, and creates a set of new issues. It has big benefits for organized WvW, but makes things harder for militia, roamers, and small guilds. I wouldn't be _bad_, but neither is necessarily a lot better than what we have now.

 

It would be a lot of effort to implement and it doesn't address the fundamental issue: match ups are inherently unfair, because there's no good way to measure a world's effectiveness: there are too few match ups, too few opponents, and too much variation in how often people play from day to day and week to week.

[Caliburn.1845]

If Battlegroups were implemented even close to the way that I outlined earlier it would almost certainly be botched in the execution. It would have massive flaws and errors and problems from the beginning.

 

But the point isn't about creating a perfect system. There is no such thing. The point is in creating a new system that is modular enough, and flexible enough to be easily fine tuned as we go along.

 

Right now the current coding for WvW is a hodgepodge shambles. All the original WvW designers have moved on from Anet(and there are rumors some of them left without annotating their work). This is a big part of the reason the bulk of the changes to WvW in the recent past have involved window dressing and cosmetic add-ons, instead of core structural changes which the gamemode badly needs.

[Roxanne.6140]

> @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > @"Roxanne.6140" said:

> > Doesn't solve the current issues. Ppl are already complaining about links and from the way you described it, this seems to be playing with multiple links. Think of each battleground as a link and you see what I mean. It also doesn't explain the population metric that ppl are questioning as well. Also there is nothing stopping these groups from being active one week and going inactive the next. Just my 2 cents as a nobody.

>

> The system is far more flexible in dealing with population changes so it certainly helps with current issues plus this is only a broad proposal at this stage with details still to be worked out.

 

so tell me, how are links different from battlegroups (with the exception that guilds can choose their members in battlegroups)

[Caliburn.1845]

^More discreet units, making it easier to divide evenly. No locked servers. No having to move every two months to stay with your guild on a host server. The ability to weight time-zone specific play more accurately. To start with.

[Arlette.9684]

Battlegroups or a completely different system, regardless of the execution, it’s blatantly obvious we need a change. With apologies to BG for the rest of us (the non-stacked), server pride died right around the time links were first introduced. Here we are today, and links no longer provide a solution to the problem. We need a new solution if the game mode is to survive.

Everyone likes to crunch numbers and claim wvw represent this tiny fraction of the population in comparison to PvE, and the simple truth behind that is that WvW for the large masses is just not fun to play. The way the current system works is not enticing for players to do anything other than PPT in the name of better rewards. The number crunchers aside, it’s not fun for the large masses and leaves a feeling of wasted effort, in comparison to killing a god and running around with your baby dragon padawan thing. It’s not about the material rewards and progressions, it’s more about how it makes you feel doing it, or in this case, how it doesn’t make you feel. Good that is.

 

GW2 and by proxy any MMO out there in recent years has failed at invoking the right feelings that makes players stay past the honeymoon hype phase. As a result MMOs in general are in such a poor state.

The developers are to blame for losing track of what makes people stay and play their game, and not just ANet. Their fault is starting as the company that does things differently, and slowly succumbing to the generally accepted model of doing business.

 

Bottom line...

We need a change and we need it in the next 3 months before the playerbase dips even further and things become even more difficult. Executive action is needed.

 

 

[X T D.6458]

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> @"Roxanne.6140"

>

> All valid concerns, and probably part of the reasons Anet had such trouble implementing Battlegroups, and eventually cancelled the revamp.

>

> But the people complaining about links are frankly arguing against the tide. The WvW population is shrinking, no one is going to argue with that point. You can keep things as they are, until you finally end up with a handful of players on each server fighting another handful of players. Or you can restructure things to keep WvW active, albeit on a smaller and smaller number of servers/worlds.

 

They never said they were going to, or had any intent to implement battlegroups. I don't know where you people are getting that. It was only mentioned that it was ONE of several ideas that the team was discussing, but it was shot down.

[Roxanne.6140]

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> ^More discreet units, making it easier to divide evenly. No locked servers. No having to move every two months to stay with your guild on a host server. The ability to weight time-zone specific play more accurately. To start with.

 

Now that you mentioned it, it does sound better. I guess Anet could let the battlegroups choose who to fight with, this could reduce the complaints and questions like those on the current linking system.

[Caliburn.1845]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> They never said they were going to, or had any intent to implement battlegroups. I don't know where you people are getting that. It was only mentioned that it was ONE of several ideas that the team was discussing, but it was shot down.

 

Here is the document that was leaked on Reddit last year. Judging from the other stuff in the document that we got later, I think it was probably at least mostly accurate.

 

https://pastebin.com/BsKpc7HY

 

The important part in terms of our discussion here is on line 50, "The new plan is to let the community more directly influence our priorities than they have in the past. We’d still like to do the scoring update next, and then the seasons/battlegroup stuff, but if it turns out those aren’t community priorities then we’ll strongly consider postponing them to work on whatever ends up being the #1 thing the community voted for."

 

 

[X T D.6458]

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > They never said they were going to, or had any intent to implement battlegroups. I don't know where you people are getting that. It was only mentioned that it was ONE of several ideas that the team was discussing, but it was shot down.

>

> Here is the document that was leaked on Reddit last year. Judging from the other stuff in the document that we got later, I think it was probably at least mostly accurate.

>

> https://pastebin.com/BsKpc7HY

>

> The important part in terms of our discussion here is on line 50, "The new plan is to let the community more directly influence our priorities than they have in the past. We’d still like to do the scoring update next, and then the seasons/battlegroup stuff, but if it turns out those aren’t community priorities then we’ll strongly consider postponing them to work on whatever ends up being the #1 thing the community voted for."

>

>

 

Ok a few things to point out here. First of all, rumors from alleged insiders don't mean crap, people should stop basing expectations on them. Second, anonymous pastebin posts (that anyone can put up), posted 8 days before that actual patch hit does not mean it is evidence of anything, many of us have seen "leaked patch notes" in the past. None of it matters until it becomes official. Third, here is the actual patch notes for the date listed in that "leaked" document.

 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/2016-04-19#WvW.E2.80.94World_Linking_.28Beta.29

 

No where is the word battle group listed. In fact, that entire paragraph is not listed anywhere in the official patch notes. Now back to my original point, it was never intended to be implemented because they settled on World Linking, battlegroups was only a topic of discussion among several other ideas.

[Namer.9750]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> > @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > They never said they were going to, or had any intent to implement battlegroups. I don't know where you people are getting that. It was only mentioned that it was ONE of several ideas that the team was discussing, but it was shot down.

> >

> > Here is the document that was leaked on Reddit last year. Judging from the other stuff in the document that we got later, I think it was probably at least mostly accurate.

> >

> > https://pastebin.com/BsKpc7HY

> >

> > The important part in terms of our discussion here is on line 50, "The new plan is to let the community more directly influence our priorities than they have in the past. We’d still like to do the scoring update next, and then the seasons/battlegroup stuff, but if it turns out those aren’t community priorities then we’ll strongly consider postponing them to work on whatever ends up being the #1 thing the community voted for."

> >

> >

>

> Ok a few things to point out here. First of all, rumors from alleged insiders don't mean crap, people should stop basing expectations on them. Second, anonymous pastebin posts (that anyone can put up), posted 8 days before that actual patch hit does not mean it is evidence of anything, many of us have seen "leaked patch notes" in the past. None of it matters until it becomes official. Third, here is the actual patch notes for the date listed in that "leaked" document.

>

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/2016-04-19#WvW.E2.80.94World_Linking_.28Beta.29

>

> No where is the word battle group listed. In fact, that entire paragraph is not listed anywhere in the official patch notes. Now back to my original point, it was never intended to be implemented because they settled on World Linking, battlegroups was only a topic of discussion among several other ideas.

 

Battlegroups was a topic of discussion. It was a *possible option* in one of the polls that got passed over because dumbass pugs afraid of losing "server loyalty" (hurr hurr) decided to vote for linkings over it.

 

And secondly the official patch notes are probably always reviewed. If ANet thought they would release _X_, on Sunday, they would've mentioned it in the patch notes they'd been writing up over the past month. But by Monday they realize there's a bug or some reason for which they can't release X, so they cut it out of the patch notes that get published on Tuesday.

 

Final patch notes don't mean jack. Leaked notes are likely to be more accurate when it comes to ANet's internal planning and decisions.

[X T D.6458]

> @"Namer.9750" said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > > > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > > They never said they were going to, or had any intent to implement battlegroups. I don't know where you people are getting that. It was only mentioned that it was ONE of several ideas that the team was discussing, but it was shot down.

> > >

> > > Here is the document that was leaked on Reddit last year. Judging from the other stuff in the document that we got later, I think it was probably at least mostly accurate.

> > >

> > > https://pastebin.com/BsKpc7HY

> > >

> > > The important part in terms of our discussion here is on line 50, "The new plan is to let the community more directly influence our priorities than they have in the past. We’d still like to do the scoring update next, and then the seasons/battlegroup stuff, but if it turns out those aren’t community priorities then we’ll strongly consider postponing them to work on whatever ends up being the #1 thing the community voted for."

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Ok a few things to point out here. First of all, rumors from alleged insiders don't mean crap, people should stop basing expectations on them. Second, anonymous pastebin posts (that anyone can put up), posted 8 days before that actual patch hit does not mean it is evidence of anything, many of us have seen "leaked patch notes" in the past. None of it matters until it becomes official. Third, here is the actual patch notes for the date listed in that "leaked" document.

> >

> > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/2016-04-19#WvW.E2.80.94World_Linking_.28Beta.29

> >

> > No where is the word battle group listed. In fact, that entire paragraph is not listed anywhere in the official patch notes. Now back to my original point, it was never intended to be implemented because they settled on World Linking, battlegroups was only a topic of discussion among several other ideas.

>

 

 

> Final patch notes don't mean jack. **Leaked notes are likely to be more accurate** when it comes to ANet's internal planning and decisions.

 

What?

 

Do you seriously believe that anonymously posted documents are more important or official then what the company actually puts out???

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

 

> 3) If you find particular players or guilds annoying or trolly, you would probably not have to deal with them after the world reshuffle, merely by not letting them in your Battlegroup(I like players being able to control that stuff).

 

I don't.

 

It's been proven over and over again here that players are not responsible.

 

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"Namer.9750" said:

 

> Final patch notes don't mean jack. Leaked notes are likely to be more accurate when it comes to ANet's internal planning and decisions.

 

Or if you've truly been playing WvW on GW2 these past five years, you know that stuff isn't always what it seems. That those "leaked" notes were likely player generated. Folks seem to get a kick out of social engineering on this game. Too many Eve players I think.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

Who cares if its real or fake. Argue the points he made and the mechanics of the document and see if they would work. If not then suggest something or explain why. The leaks were not player generated. They were leaked from the alpha/beta forums where they posted patch note like documents and talked about them with the community point for point. Some of us were apart of them. Thus we know if they were real or fake. Believe what you want. Just look at the content not where it came from jeez.

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> Who cares if its real or fake. Argue the points he made and the mechanics of the document and see if they would work. If not then suggest something or explain why. The leaks were not player generated. They were leaked from the alpha/beta forums where they posted patch note like documents and talked about them with the community point for point. Some of us were apart of them. Thus we know if they were real or fake. Believe what you want. Just look at the content not where it came from jeez.

 

Thanks for confirming it’s fake.

[Trajan.4953]

So when I wrote this post, I want to make clear, I really had no idea what "Battlegroups" were beyond the documents leaked.

 

I was simply postulating the idea that maybe it was worth a discussion as a group and as a concept.

 

People like Mal and others showed up to engage this idea with open minds and open ideas and others came out to attack them, thereby derailing the thread.

 

I maintain the idea of "Battlegroups" is worth a discussion, not a sling-fest of garbage. It helps nobody to try and be "right" on the internet. Lets just try and talk this out, like adults.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Trajan.4953" said:

> So when I wrote this post, I want to make clear, I really had no idea what "Battlegroups" were beyond the documents leaked.

>

> I was simply postulating the idea that maybe it was worth a discussion as a group and as a concept.

>

> People like Mal and others showed up to engage this idea with open minds and open ideas and others came out to attack them, thereby derailing the thread.

>

> I maintain the idea of "Battlegroups" is worth a discussion, not a sling-fest of garbage. It helps nobody to try and be "right" on the internet. Lets just try and talk this out, like adults.

 

Mal has a history that is hard to sweep away.

 

Within that, the flaws of battlegroups were pointed out. Those statements were labeled as attacks:

 

Battlegroups are guild centric and place militia as an afterthought.

 

Gaming Matchups would continue to be a problem. Battlegroups wouldn't change that.

 

Population disparity wouldn't be 'fixed'

 

Another concern is if

 

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

 

> A certain number of player slots on each world would be exempt from Battlegroups(I'd estimate maybe 30-40% of a world's population) and be assigned to unaffiliated players(IE pugs) to basically fill up a world. The total population cap of one of these new world's was not leaked as far I know, but it would presumably include multiple Battlegroups and a large number of unaffiliated players. You would play for a couple months with your new world, than the worlds would get remade, B Now, what benefits would this structural change bring to WvW? I can think of several off the top of my head, some of you might be able to think of others. Or perhaps disadvantages.

 

>

> 3) If you find particular players or guilds annoying or trolly, you would probably not have to deal with them after the world reshuffle, merely by not letting them in your Battlegroup(I like players being able to control that stuff).

 

So we really want players with a potential mob mentality 'kicking' someone they don't like out of their battlegroups?

 

The two parts of what was stated, is where several people are concerned this is just an elitist attempt at engineering their own experience while leaving militia to deal with the leftovers.

 

 

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

lol my history should tell you that I know what I'm talking about more than a lot of others. It's just that people like you are blinded by hate and false hoods without even understanding my history beyond that of hearsay. Also by several people you mean 2

[Caliburn.1845]

Battlegroups would be as exclusive or inclusive as their members wished. There would no doubt be guilds and players who would get fed up with one BG and move to another. The politics and wheeling and dealing would be beyond anything we have now in WvW. But the more successful BGs would no doubt be more inclusive, because there is a need for pugs, they're the sinew and tissue that hold a lot of servers together, and Battlegroups that discount that would be less successful in the field.

[zhonnika.1784]

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> According to the leaks on reddit from last year, and other places. A Battlegroup would be somewhere around 1000 players at maximum, grouped together in a number of guilds. They would opt into WvW together and always be on the same side. The number of Battlegroups would be purely player driven. You want to form your own Battlegroup with your buddies, go right ahead. Every few weeks or months(or whatever time frame Anet decided on) the Battlegroups would be allocated to worlds(temp new servers) by Anet. Anet was apparently working on a system that would measure playtime, ppt, k/d, etc and assign a balanced set of Battlegroups to each world. So your world might have a SEA time based Battlegroup, an EU time Battlegroup, an NA time PPT focused Battlegroup, and an NA time fights focused Battlegroup.

>

> A certain number of player slots on each world would be exempt from Battlegroups(I'd estimate maybe 30-40% of a world's population) and be assigned to unaffiliated players(IE pugs) to basically fill up a world. The total population cap of one of these new world's was not leaked as far I know, but it would presumably include multiple Battlegroups and a large number of unaffiliated players. You would play for a couple months with your new world, than the worlds would get remade, Battlegroups and players redistributed, and the whole thing would begin again. Essentially it would be akin to server relink time, only instead of Anet trying to link servers, they would be constructing entirely new servers out of smaller, more easily divided(and if it worked as intended, balanced) groups of players.

>

> Now, what benefits would this structural change bring to WvW? I can think of several off the top of my head, some of you might be able to think of others. Or perhaps disadvantages.

>

> 1) Every world would start the world cycle with a much closer and more balanced population. Every world might be assigned say roughly 3000 players, and no world at the start of the cycle would have an advantage like say 5000 players.

>

> 2) Inactive players coming back to play would not be lumped on the same server, and thus tilt population balance. They would be scattered to keep populations even.

>

> 3) If you find particular players or guilds annoying or trolly, you would probably not have to deal with them after the world reshuffle, merely by not letting them in your Battlegroup(I like players being able to control that stuff).

>

> 4) The number of worlds created at the beginning of each cycle would be based on the active population. Obviously the number of worlds needs to be a factor of three, but using whatever criteria you want to use to define an active WvW player you could have 9 worlds, or 12 worlds, or 21 worlds, or whatever. It would again be player driven.

>

> 5) Because worlds and Battlegroups would be shuffled and reshuffled every few months, you would never know for sure who you might be playing against, or who is going to win a match-up. This would allow season tournaments to maybe come back in a redesigned form. Sure your world might lose the first tournament, but then you get reshuffled and you find yourself on a world that has a chance at winning. Because there is no predetermined or predicted winner players would be more motivated and want to win.

>

>

 

Then I can see why anyone profiting from the current system would be fully against this. To me, it sounds awesome. Anything at all would be better than the garbage fire we currently have.