World Restructuring

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

> @"EbonFreeman.4051" said:

> Would it be possible to minimize the use of age for the algorithm? The reason why I bring it up is because you can get amazing pairs because of an accounts lack of data (pushing them to a veteran pairing) and also there are veteran players who have tens of thousands of hours and haven't really learned WvW.

All aspects of the adjusted play hours are up for discussion. We're going to do a fair bit of data crunching with different calculations and see what shakes out.

 

[fieraviolet.3160]

> @"Haeteira.4735" said:

> I'm glad to learn that ANET is exploring ways to improve the WvW experience, which is my favorite part of GW2 by far. That being said, reading this update makes me sad, as someone who has been on my server since launch and feels a lot of loyalty and pride toward my server's community. But I think I understand the issues it's trying to solve, and so am trying to remain open.

>

> A couple thoughts -

> - It's feels like people that aren't in Guilds will be left out-to-dry, which could be an issue for people who sometimes take breaks from playing and could be kicked from a Guild due to inactivity. Without the larger Server identity, it sounds like I would have to regularly start over finding people to play with and miss out on access to Commanders/Discord/Teamspeak capabilities if I am not playing regularly enough to be "valuable" in a Guild.

> - I think there is a lot to be said for the long term strategy, high level of organization, and communication investment that has taken place for my server, at least. When everyone gets shuffled every 8 weeks, it makes that level of organization pretty much impossible. Of course, this organization can happen within Guilds/Alliances, but what will be available to organize the efforts and communication of ALL the Guilds/Alliances/SinglePlayers that are placed into a World each season? (ex. if there are 3 Alliances within a World, whose TeamSpeak do we use? Or do we choose to only communicate with a third of our World?) And will organizing across a World even be worth it when there is a time limit on our efforts?

>

> It could be that I'm not fully understanding the vision ANET has for the future of WVW, so please let me know if I've misunderstood something. Again, I appreciate that ANET is interested in continuing to develop this part of the game.

 

I imagine it will be much the same as what we currently encounter with linking, if there are multiple alliances on a single "world". Currently with linked servers you often get two ts addresses, maybe throw in a few discord addresses as well. The commanders belonging to those unique addresses will generally stay there. Most pugs (who enjoy speaking to the players and hearing vocal commands) will simply join whichever voice chat the commander is on. The server I am on currently in itself provides both options, our commanders use both, whichever suits there needs most at the time. some only use one or the other.I see the pugs who use voice chat go to both,whichever their fave commander happens to be on. And I just recently in the past month discovered that our linked server also was hosting their own ts. although they are rather secretive about it(either that or i'm just on at the wrong times, highly likely at present).

As to the will it be worth our effort to organize. If an alliance wants to make that world their home, and have all their guild mates be able to enjoy their stay during the "8 weeks/however long seasons end up being" It will be highly worth it to organize it for the brief stay. Yes you will get reshuffled constantly. However there is a good chance you will eventually be reshuffled with the same players. If a commander/alliance/guild really sticks out to some of the other guilds/players. They will remember and be more willing to work with you again. All of that info can be gleaned from the linking system we currently have.

 

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

> @"ScribeTheMad.7614" said:

> Which leaves me with a quandary, I and a bunch of current guildies have been working on coordinating a server transfer to group up for WvW.

> Doing so would leave me on Crystal Desert, but it sounds like I'll need to transfer to SoR to be on my "home" server when Ragnarok happens and titles (whatever they end up being) are handed out. (I would really hate to get the title for the wrong server, honestly)

There will be lead time before the worlds get removed. I can't promise we'll be able to do anything but take the world you were on when we made the switch but it's something I can think about.

 

 

 

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

> @"Dayra.7405" said:

> > @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> > > @"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.

> >

>

> Hm, what if someone only plays EotM? If I got it right this results in 0h WvW participation, which lead to this person is not added to any world. But if you are not in a world, you don't have a color. So you have to pick a WvW-World to play EotM?

 

You would still get a world so you would correctly be assigned a color. If all you played was EofM you'd still be registered with the match maker and still get put on a world though your adjusted play hours would not really affect the population value of the world you were assigned.

[Loosmaster.8263]

I've ask this before as well as others. Might have been missed.

 

**Are we going to get to test this before implementation?**

 

Thanks

[ArchonWing.9480]

> @"Baldrick.8967" said:

> > @"Absuuurrd.1850" said:

> > If the devs are looking for more metrics to measure player skill, look at rank by time played, a high rank with low playtime can be perceived as "skilled" where a long playtime with low rank can be perceived as "low skill".

> >

> > Granted this doesn't factor in aspects like a bad server composition where this "low skilled" player probably ran solo often against a zerg. But it could give a good indication of a players skill, just not a complete representation of their skill.

> >

> > Another thing to look at is pips/tiers earned to the passive WXP earned by playing. If this is factored out you can then tell a player's "true rank". Which is an alternative to the above.

> >

> > Both metrics offer a valuable bit of information with an acceptable margin of assumption, as long as the negatives are known such as the previously stated.

>

> Utter garbage.

>

> High rank with low playtime= zerg player on a high pop server.

>

> Low rank with long playtime= scout, roamer, defender or player on a low population world.

>

> Pips/tiers are based on rank, so that's also a useless metric. A zerg spam 1111 player would earn more wexp than a scout or roamer...

>

> If anything, you could use high rank/low play time as 'zerg 1111 spammer, low skill, can only follow tag or sits in base waiting for a zerg to follow' and low rank with long playtime= 'more likely to be skilled and useful to the side as a whole'.

>

> I suspect both your method and my method are equally unreliable.

 

A lot of my ranks come from boosters. I still got like 12 birthday ones and the candy corn thing for more skills I guess.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> Are we going to get to test this before implementation?

 

Test... what? What sort of meaningful testing do you imagine there would be that doesn't involve, oh all of WvW for 8 weeks? If only 10% of people join the test and some people are still playing live, then it's not a valid test of the system, which depends on everyone playing as they normally do (some full time, some sporadically, some bingers, some burn outs, etc).

 

The only "real" test is going to be the first Season.

 

So instead, I'd ask,

* Generally, for the first few months after launch, are you prepared to make frequent changes to the formula breakpoints, ratios, and even variables used?

* If the numbers are wildly off from predicted, are you prepared to end Season 1 early and start S2 with appropriate adjustments?

* What sort of metrics will you be able to share with us post-launch to help us see whether it's going well and/or better than the current status quo? Or is the only metric how many (or how few) people complain about weak match-ups and/or overpowered sides?

 

[Donari.5237]

> @"Tolmos.8395" said:

> > @"Donari.5237" said:

> > > @"Sojourner.4621" said:

> >

> > > As a bonus to non-RPers, if the checkbox is the TOP shard sorting priority, with all others being below it... it could actually keep some non-RPers from having to see Emotes all over the place with their awful long range.

> >

> > I actually don't think making it top priority is the best idea. If we get this checkbox I'm checking it and leaving it on forever. But I still want to do non-RP PVE, and I feel that if I've joined a party, squad, or guild, or put someone on my friends list, then those are the people I want to default join in maps. It's a much smaller pool for me than thousands of RPers out there. If I've gone to the trouble of marking someone as being of particular relevance to me, however transitorily in the case of parties and squads, then the game should try to load me into the same maps as them. (Caveat: to prevent stalking, friend weighting should only occur for players who have friended each other).

> >

> > Once my list of named people has been checked through for map joining, THEN toss me in with others who have flagged as RP. The "join in" map feature is handy but it's much better to just start out sharing the map.

>

> I would imagine it would be a top priority, primarily because the logical flow for things like this is conscious decision first, followed by passive decisions next.

>

> Checking a checkbox whose sole purpose is to change your server channel is the highest level conscious decision you can make about where to end up. After that, passive things like friends list and guild, etc etc.

>

> If friends list overrode the checkbox, then folks would have to sanitize their friends list to make the box work. I doubt that would pass Anets QA to get released

 

I see your point. It's certainly an arguable one (lawyer speak for it has a solid basis). I think I'm coming from a slightly different angle, though. To me, actively selecting a person to friend, guild, party, or squad with is a conscious decision and moment-to-moment choice. Whereas flagging for RP is a one time choice that then becomes a passive factor. "Please put me in maps with random people who also say they RP" vs "Please put me in the same DS map as the squad I joined, oh and if there are non-squad RP people porting to DS hey, if enough of the squad has flagged RP odds are the loners will be with us too." Could help that my friends list is very short and with one exception contains people I'm always happy to see, that exception being a proven scam beggar who always needs just 3 more of x valuable mat, in map after map, day after day, and I want to know it's that same jerk if I see the begging.

 

Besides, think of the pool sizes. What are the odds that a dozen or two on your friends list will all simultaneously decide to join the same zone as you? Whereas out of thousands of RPers, given a goal of just randomly getting mixed with them, the odds are much higher.

[CETheLucid.3964]

> @"Donari.5237" said:

>that exception being a proven scam beggar who always needs just 3 more of x valuable mat, in map after map, day after day, and I want to know it's that same jerk if I see the begging.

Sad how common that's becoming. I hope you've been reporting them every time you see it happen.

[shippage.1983]

Very excited for this update! Hope I get to actually play with my guilds, this is a restructuring that WvW desperately needs and I can see WvW being healthy for awhile because of this.

 

I hope it gets separate balance, however, being the only PvP area that allows player equips kinda skews balance, not to mention having much bigger maps to endlessly kite that favor sustain and ranged classes. I wish rewards were better too, comparable to sPvP Ranked, then I would play this game mode far more.

[Eramonster.2718]

> not to mention having much bigger maps to endlessly kite that favor sustain and ranged classes.

 

Oh :smile: would you be surprised of the invisible walls obstructing range near camps. And how good some classes(warrior, druid, thief, etc) outruns even range couldn't stop them.

[johnnymiller.5968]

Came back to world vs world after close to 3 & 1/2 years away from the format. I'm still getting my head around the current changes lol. Anyhow, as long as I can join a casual guild, under the new format, I'll be happy. Hopefully by doing this, no one will try and dictate which class or build, myself or others in a casual guild run.

 

[MartelDeFer.5798]

i will be of the Other ppl.

I do not like the change and i do not thing it will be good.

Why for a start try to balance the current state and then do changes.

i can give example kill light armor class with 1 hit or 2 like the thieves and the revenants hammers.

or stacking 8 conditions on someone and then remove and restack them again taking seconds to kill because no armor was calculated.

or buffing all damages instead armor classes or health span.

[Zephyr.8015]

Can there be a poll or something per server for title options that the players would like if you're doing something like this before closing server WvWing?

[blackgamma.1809]

two questions

 

1. can we get exclusive titles to represent what world we used to represent when the new wvw system goes live?

 

2. Near the end of of the lifecycle of the current WvW system. will you test random jank stuff for lolz and research?

[Phizeke.9536]

I'm just being honest but I really felt like Anet abandoned WvW the past 5 years (No Offense and I might not just be the only one) but this has got me shook and I'm looking forward to this overhaul. How will discords and teamspeaks work and have to be reset every 8 weeks then? How will this work out?

[Ana.2415]

Would be possible to keep the list of the servers we already have only for PvE, and then a add the new world system only for WvW? It would be like being part of 2 different servers at the same time but they split depends if you are in WvW or PvE in that moment. Keeping the old server system for PvE and the new world system only for WvW.

 

When you first start in the game you would have to choose a PvE server (e.g: Desolation, same method we already have) so when you are on cities, open world, etc you would be in that -base- PvE server. If you move to a WvW map you automatically join your current WvW server with the new system and when you leave WvW, you go back to your PvE server.

 

PvE/RP players wouldn't be affected, as in PvE/open world they would still have their server like always and WvW would have a separate system.

 

I like to play WvW but it's not really fair for PvE players to get their servers removed, there are communities... people feel "good" being part of somewhere even if there are megaservers. Most of the players would be happy because we would be able to keep our PvE and WvW communities. So the best thing would be to split the systems, but I don't know if that would be possible.

 

Edit: Also not everybody talk English in EU, you should keep a German, French, Spanish and an Internacional PvE/WvW server at least. I feel like all those new changes are only thinking on NA.

 

 

[Darlgon.9273]

This plan for WvW sounds pretty amazing and ambitious. Thumbs up for attempting it. Eight weeks is.. kinda a weird number, but I guess its based on a 2 year cycle? Anyways... the real question.

 

How will this affect the reset on Friday nights NA in week eight? Let me try to explain.

 

Right now, the top, mid and low worlds know which tier they will go into based on how they score each week. So basically, when the matches close, everyone is kicked and you know you are going to down a tier to tier 3 because your world lost vs the other worlds in T2. Your world will start that T3 contest within a few minutes of close of the last week. That system will still continue in weeks 1-7. However, on week 8, the calculations need to be done for participation an a granular player level, creation of new world and pairings.

 

Will those calculations be done based on participation figures from weeks 1-7, or will they use the information for week 8 also? (This would prevent the need for the servers to calculate everything in the time between closing the current matches and creating the new worlds/matches. It would have a whole week to crunch the numbers and create the match ups.)

Will the current week 8 competitions need to be closed earlier, to allow the final calculations, or will the reset and new world composition and competition take place later on week 8, pushing back reset time? (I would guess you guys know Friday night, reset time, is a big deal for a lot of WvW guilds.)

 

Thanks for transparency.

[Goullmir.6490]

Aside from the pride taken in defending your home world and the resentment build-up against rival worlds which contributed a lot to WvW beeing worthwhile playing, I'm concerned about the language barrier management which is getting extremly one-sided. Not all of Europe favors exclusively English to be the common tongue, in fact it will no longer be considered an official European language in the near future. You see it already in pve teamplay where you start using English as default only to realize at 50% through the dungeon/raid/event that the group members had their mothertongue in common, generally when one of them starts swearing. WvW was the one place where you could make a choice beforehand. Even better, each language specific world had developped its own WvW terminology for quick command and actions. While many european players have multilingual means to communicate, it is still a bother to be forced to switch to one option only in a game environnement where you login for leisure purposes and unwinding from a hard day's work. I don't see any care for non-English native speakers if the only remaining options throughout the game are NA and EU, much the same as it is already in the rest of the game and on the official forums ....

[vonhellsing.2819]

ARENANET Please, said when, 6 weeks, month's or years.

 

Your post makes WvW die in most servers, becouse players think that's in next relink this will be working in production.

 

My sugestions to makes WvW grow:

 

A.) Servers Link (change ever week or each 2 weeks)

B.) Better drops in WvW and exclusive drops in WvW like in PVP have exclusive itens.

C.) WvW Border points influencing PVE drop and World Boss Drop

D.) Link servers thats have all time zones people.

E.) Kill low population servers and merge with others.

F.) Modify all maps to be like RED border ou change RED BORDER. I prefer all like RED border.

G) TREB distance reduce (its insane, HILLS treb REDWATER and Red don't treb hills)

 

SAID WHEN ARENANET THINK THATS WILL STAY IN PRODUCTUIN, i don't believe in development time less than 6 month at 1 year, but its arenanet maybe 2 years kkk

 

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> **A message from McKenna Berdrow:**

>

 

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

I do have a question on the RP stuff, are you RP'ing in WvW? Or simply just wanting it to try to make sure you end up on the same PvE instance? If its so you can try to end up on the same PvE instance I have a thought they could do something similar like giving a guild a check box to say we're a RP guild (I haven't seen too terribly many RP'ers that didn't have some sort of RP guild they belong to) so that the game trys to put them in the same instance as other guilds that have the RP check box checked. Then they can just switch it off by changing guild rep. Although if you didn't want to tie it to guild then you could put it somewhere in the hero panel. If it's so you can RP in WvW then you should just have to belong to a guild/alliance like everybody else.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> I do have a question on the RP stuff, are you RP'ing in WvW? Or simply just wanting it to try to make sure you end up on the same PvE instance? If its so you can try to end up on the same PvE instance I have a thought they could do something similar like giving a guild a check box to say we're a RP guild (I haven't seen too terribly many RP'ers that didn't have some sort of RP guild they belong to) so that the game trys to put them in the same instance as other guilds that have the RP check box checked. Then they can just switch it off by changing guild rep. Although if you didn't want to tie it to guild then you could put it somewhere in the hero panel. If it's so you can RP in WvW then you should just have to belong to a guild/alliance like everybody else.

Or just make an alliance with rpers.

 

I really dont see why people are crying about them now, proper rping died with megaservers. And if rpers say it *didnt* die well then the alliances isnt gonna kill it either.

[Loosmaster.8263]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> > Are we going to get to test this before implementation?

>

> Test... what? What sort of meaningful testing do you imagine there would be that doesn't involve, oh all of WvW for 8 weeks? If only 10% of people join the test and some people are still playing live, then it's not a valid test of the system, which depends on everyone playing as they normally do (some full time, some sporadically, some bingers, some burn outs, etc).

>

> The only "real" test is going to be the first Season.

>

> So instead, I'd ask,

> * Generally, for the first few months after launch, are you prepared to make frequent changes to the formula breakpoints, ratios, and even variables used?

> * If the numbers are wildly off from predicted, are you prepared to end Season 1 early and start S2 with appropriate adjustments?

> * What sort of metrics will you be able to share with us post-launch to help us see whether it's going well and/or better than the current status quo? Or is the only metric how many (or how few) people complain about weak match-ups and/or overpowered sides?

>

 

When it gets close enough to be able to test, announce it. Shut down WvW say for 1-2 weeks. Patch the game to allow us to make the required selections, i.e. guild/alliance and let us see how things play out.

 

Balance is not an issue as we know until things are adjusted. I think waiting 8 weeks for that is too long.

 

I mostly want to see how the pooling of players will be.

[Xillllix.3485]

This is all great but what about EotM?

It's a beautiful map that needs a place in all of this. That map needs a second chance.

Why don't you add it above EBG on the WvW world map? Make it contribute to the score for those that enjoy that map...

Integrate it into the new system.

[Loosmaster.8263]

> @"Xillllix.3485" said:

> This is all great but what about EotM?

> It's a beautiful map that needs a place in all of this. That map needs a second chance.

> Why don't you add it above EBG on the WvW world map? Make it contribute to the score for those that enjoy that map...

> Integrate it into the new system.

 

I wouldn't mind it taking the place of the 2nd AB map. Tweak it a bit, put up some invisible walls to help with falling/getting knocked off.