World Restructuring

[Thea Cherry.6327]

> @"Drinks.2361" said:

> > @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > Stop punishing EU for NA’s problems.

>

> ^ best post in this thread so far

 

Yeah, complain in the EU forums which are not moderated at all. xD

 

But yeah, it seems like the major problem of the NA Servers is the reason why everyone on the EU servers is getting punished.

[Comprissent.3856]

> @"Thea Cherry.6327" said:

> > @"Drinks.2361" said:

> > > @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > > Stop punishing EU for NA’s problems.

> >

> > ^ best post in this thread so far

>

> Yeah, complain in the EU forums which are not moderated at all. xD

>

> But yeah, it seems like the major problem of the NA Servers is the reason why everyone on the EU servers is getting punished.

 

This is not a punishment, this is just a fallacious argument you're making

[shiri.4257]

> @"Thea Cherry.6327" said:

> > @"Drinks.2361" said:

> > > @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > > Stop punishing EU for NA’s problems.

> >

> > ^ best post in this thread so far

>

> Yeah, complain in the EU forums which are not moderated at all. xD

>

> But yeah, it seems like the major problem of the NA Servers is the reason why everyone on the EU servers is getting punished.

 

we are not punishing you. we're just assimilating you.

[Evolute.6239]

> @"Thea Cherry.6327" said:

> > @"Drinks.2361" said:

> > > @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > > Stop punishing EU for NA’s problems.

> >

> > ^ best post in this thread so far

>

> Yeah, complain in the EU forums which are not moderated at all. xD

>

> But yeah, it seems like the major problem of the NA Servers is the reason why everyone on the EU servers is getting punished.

 

 

 

The problem is very obvious on the NA servers, but it's not like this could not become an issue for EU servers. It was just a month ago Kodash had to blackout/NOT play in order to do anything, and Desolation was rotting in T4/5 until their recent link which they shot up to T1.

 

It's just more common in NA because T1 is a dead tier where virtually nothing can compete with Blackgate.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Whenever I hear "restructuring" it's usually corporate speak for laying people off. Who is being laid off because of this policy change? Hmmm, hmmm, hmmmmmmmmmmm? D:

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"Evolute.6239" said:

> > @"Thea Cherry.6327" said:

> > > @"Drinks.2361" said:

> > > > @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > > > Stop punishing EU for NA’s problems.

> > >

> > > ^ best post in this thread so far

> >

> > Yeah, complain in the EU forums which are not moderated at all. xD

> >

> > But yeah, it seems like the major problem of the NA Servers is the reason why everyone on the EU servers is getting punished.

>

> > @"Thea Cherry.6327" said:

> > > @"Drinks.2361" said:

> > > > @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > > > Stop punishing EU for NA’s problems.

> > >

> > > ^ best post in this thread so far

> >

> > Yeah, complain in the EU forums which are not moderated at all. xD

> >

> > But yeah, it seems like the major problem of the NA Servers is the reason why everyone on the EU servers is getting punished.

>

>

>

> The problem is very obvious on the NA servers, but it's not like this could not become an issue for EU servers. It was just a month ago Kodash had to blackout/NOT play in order to do anything, and Desolation was rotting in T4/5 until their recent link which they shot up to T1.

>

> It's just more common in NA because T1 is a dead tier where virtually nothing can compete with Blackgate.

 

That’s only because NA players came over. I’m an NA player, but I joined EU four years ago. I’ve seen the shift.

 

And they went to kodash for some reason. Arrow carts I assume.

[pombear.1058]

I see a lot of people saying 'server pride will be replaced by alliance pride' and to a certain degree that is true..

However, these alliances have a player cap, forcing server communities apart...

Each server has tens of guilds, ranging from capped out, to small havoc with 10~ people, these guilds all get along, and know their community.

 

Then there are people, like me, who are members of multiple guilds, one a main WvW guild, and another smaller community of friends who are casual WvWers and will not be given a place in a main WvW guild, this change will **force** people like me to choose between 2 sets of friends...

 

Maybe being able to set individual WvW guilds up to a certain player cap would satisfy this?

 

Unfortunately Arenanet have been forced into this by the disparity between servers active times and player population, and I can see why they have chosen this possible route.

 

I applaud Anet for being honest and requesting feedback early in the development lifecycle.

 

I hope together we can reach a solution that everyone will enjoy!

[Caliburn.1845]

That graph from Raymond is the best smackdown of Blackgate I've ever seen. But aside from any petty satisfaction from seeing our assumptions about population confirmed it leads into a feature that I don't think many people have grasped yet.

 

Playtime, activity hours.

 

So I get together with a bunch of hardcore players. We make an Alliance of 500 players across all timezones. To be in the Alliance you have to be in in WvW 12 hours a day at minimum. We dominate in Season 1, we have 250 players online at any point in the day. We queue all maps. We kill everyone.

 

And the matching algorithm notes that. It assumes we are going to be putting in that level of performance EVERY season. So in Season 2, we get linked with a bunch of NA primetime players who play for 1 hour a day. They take queue space, they don't stay on pin, they don't run good builds. We lose Season 2.

 

And that is what this new system if designed properly will do, create more balanced matches, more balanced teams, and more balanced population.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

"BG's numbers are twice as big as the average world on NA (without world linking)"

 

Thank you Raymond for confirming this.

 

To everybody else, this just confirms what we already knew, this isn't some shocking revelation. No sense on beating up on BG about it, the system is finally changing, and the population balance/numbers won't be an issue anymore. Time let the dead horse RIP.

[Miki.3862]

No! Fantastic idea but man, I'll miss my server man :(

 

I always loved how WvW was a long-term tangible way of building a relation to the otherwise copy-paste server you were on (I mean beyond the unique players of course) and the old Tournaments were so much fun!

 

R.I.P Piken Square... It was good knowing you but hey-ho onto brighter days.

 

(PS, Vabbi, Vabbi you so flabby)

[Ashamir.9574]

I won't say that I'm sold on this new system, or that I like it even ... but I can admit that this is what needs to be done. It needed to be done years ago.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Richard.8207" said:

> I don’t want another guild or alliance.

> ...I want to be able to get familiar with the community. That community aspect is the important part of the game to me. If not for community, I’d be playing a different game.

 

Do you not see what you are saying? You say that community is important but you don't want to join a community. It makes no sense. Elitism of others has nothing to do with that.

[Blackarps.1974]

> @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > @"obastable.5231" said:

> > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > >We are planning to give the community some lead time before this goes live. Organizing yourselves will take time and we want to allow that to happen. Transfers are something we can monitor better with this system and respond to more quickly. Since worlds should be relatively even the amount of transferring to the higher population worlds before they become full will be less. This should prevent guilds and alliances trying to use transferring to stack servers more difficult. We're open to discussion about this though and the "fullness %s" are things be looking at and adjusting if needed until we find a good spot.

> >

> > Your wording indicates that this is largely finished and nearly ready to deploy. Also the willingness to discuss it with the community and having such concrete answers to questions.

> >

> > Will our next re-link at the end of February possibly be our last, or will we get one or two more after that? :astonished:

>

> We have just entered the early stages of development and this will take some time to complete. I was just stating that we have already recognized the need for extra time to organize when the changes eventually go live.

 

Sooooo it goes live sometime in the year 2020? Just kidding....or am I? Could we expect this system by year's end? Any kind of time frame would be nice. If more people seemed hyped about this would "Z" put more dev resources into it or just keep everyone on PvE stuff?

[Aenaos.8160]

Another nail in the coffin of WvW.

WvW will be EotM with pips.

Zero sense of world,simply alliances that will be sifted every 8 weeks,playing the same old boring campaign

and after the hype boils down,the exact same issues that have brought the game mode in decline.

 

[Evolute.6239]

> @"Aenaos.8160" said:

> Another nail in the coffin of WvW.

> WvW will be EotM with pips.

> Zero sense of world,simply alliances that will be sifted every 8 weeks,playing the same old boring campaign

> and after the hype boils down,the exact same issues that have brought the game mode in decline.

>

 

I really don't understand this view point. What do you think link servers are? They're asked to change servers every two months, their name mostly irrelevant.

[RobmannN.2689]

I assume the titles will be how you display your Server Pride (I get knocked down.... SoS) or something similar. A suggestion thread maybe in order.

Alliances I see as being useful across timezones so guilds can handover to another in their alliance at the end of their "shift" rather than to enable hand holding.

[pombear.1058]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Richard.8207" said:

> > I don’t want another guild or alliance.

> > ...I want to be able to get familiar with the community. That community aspect is the important part of the game to me. If not for community, I’d be playing a different game.

>

> Do you not see what you are saying? You say that community is important but you don't want to join a community. It makes no sense. Elitism of others has nothing to do with that.

 

I see what you are saying, but guilds/alliances have limited spaces, which leads to those who have invitation rights being picky in who they invite...

Communities should not discriminate in such a way... The more limited the spaces, the more elitest people become, in order to highten their chances of winning/having fun.

These 'communities' are not what a lot of people want to be a part of.

[Richard.8207]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Richard.8207" said:

> > I don’t want another guild or alliance.

> > ...I want to be able to get familiar with the community. That community aspect is the important part of the game to me. If not for community, I’d be playing a different game.

>

> Do you not see what you are saying? Community is important but you don't want to join a community. It makes no sense. Elitism of others has nothing to do with that.

 

Community is a lot more than a guild in the game, just like community is more than your bowling team or even entire church congregation in the real world. I can not protect my community in the game by joining a single guild or alliance.

[Taglor Anwamane.9468]

What are the implications of this change for RP? Because they seem to be very bad as far as I understand it so far. Guilding up or Alliance-ing up is not a solution, either, because of the power shifts and RP guild politics involved.

[McKenna Berdrow.2759]

> @"NeroBoron.7285" said:

> Btw: What will happen with eotm? Will it be removed and integrated as a normal map?

 

EotM will remain the same as it does now.

 

[Loosmaster.8263]

> @"pombear.1058" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > @"Richard.8207" said:

> > > I don’t want another guild or alliance.

> > > ...I want to be able to get familiar with the community. That community aspect is the important part of the game to me. If not for community, I’d be playing a different game.

> >

> > Do you not see what you are saying? You say that community is important but you don't want to join a community. It makes no sense. Elitism of others has nothing to do with that.

>

> I see what you are saying, but guilds/alliances have limited spaces, which leads to those who have invitation rights being picky in who they invite...

> Communities should not discriminate in such a way... The more limited the spaces, the more elitest people become, in order to highten their chances of winning/having fun.

> These 'communities' are not what a lot of people want to be a part of.

 

When was the last time you saw 500-1000 players in WvW?

 

Edit: ON ONE SIDE!!!

[Infusion.7149]

"Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" ... that seems low to me.

[Loosmaster.8263]

> @"Infusion.7149" said:

> "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" ... that seems low to me.

 

You have to account for map cap in that figure.

[McKenna Berdrow.2759]

> @"SailorSpira.9371" said:

> Reading through can I please get clarification on:

> 1) How many servers will there be? Will this be evolving or a constant?

 

The number of worlds can change every season. The number will always be divisible by 3, but one season could have 12 world and the next could have 15.

 

> 2) Will all servers be tried to balance at the same level or at rough tiers? I'd imagine with the EU language restrictions it will be more difficult to achieve that.

 

The goal is to have worlds be balanced at the same level. That way we can create great matches.

 

> And purely trivial side ponderances:

> 1) Will this Pre-Generated server names be anything like to aweful PvP names or will they be more in line with traditional Server namings? Will there be new names every 8 weeks or the same names in circulation?

 

This is still being determined, but we won't use any of the current names of worlds.

 

> 2) Titles based on old servers, will this be a generic "server" veteran, or could we please have something unique and relevant to each server like "Mag Swag" or "BeastGate" something that actually represents the community. One of my guildies also suggested that those with frequent transfers should be "World Traveler".

 

This is also still being determined. We will keep those suggestions in mind though :)

 

 

[Graf.1945]

The proposed changes aren't needed as I understand them.

I am a dedicated long time wvw player and havoc commander. I am in five guilds, I use the rep of the different guilds to achieve different things while playing. I often will switch rep depending on the location I intend to capture as some of my guilds are fully built out regarding wvw buffs etc. and others aren't and are only good for claiming a camp. But the point is that the majority of the players in the guilds I can rep are also able to rep most of those same guilds I'm in. We use the guild system to build alliances already within the present server based system.

I have played on several different servers, BG, CD, and a couple others my addled Charr mind can't remember , but ended up back on CD a couple years ago and have since stayed. As did many of my guild friends who were also chasing the prize of "better combat/competition" and such. I now find that I'm much more interested in creating a cooperative community of guilds on our server. Myself and many others (I don't speak for the server) on CD aren't chasing the stars, to be on tier one, no I believe that we seek to play well and enjoy the game. As such we deal with the wvw hand we're dealt and roll with it. Zergs come and go, we fight on. I'm not dissatisfied with the present system. I don't think the proposed changes are really geared to the dedicated wvw players.

Also to be considered is how the vocoms will be dealt with due the the mixing and such?