World Restructuring

[pareod.2635]

Hey, sorry if this has been asked already. If a guild with 500 members marks itself as a WvW guild, but only 200 of its members mark that guild as their WvW guild, how many players in that guild will count towards an alliance's player cap? 200 or 500?

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"pareod.2635" said:

> Hey, sorry if this has been asked already. If a guild with 500 members marks itself as a WvW guild, but only 200 of its members mark that guild as their WvW guild, how many players in that guild will count towards an alliance's player cap? 200 or 500?

Someone mentioned earlier than only "active" players count, ie those that have it set. But I'm not so sure. That would lead to an obvious issue - if 100 man in a 500 man guild tag up wvw and join a 400 man WvW alliance to reach 500 man cap, what happens if the other 400 people now tag it as their wvw guild? Either you would have a 900/500 man capped alliance next matchup (and you could make that much, much worse) or anet would have to disallow them choosing the guild as wvw guild if the alliance it is in has reached cap, which would be weird. But that would lead to allocation issues. First come first serve, or does alliances set the player count per guild and after that people in a guild can no longer tag it wvw and have to select another?

We are clearly missing info about the limitations of alliances.

 

[Paralent.8564]

Just want to throw in my two cents _against _this change. As someone who doesn't routinely play with a specific guild but does enjoy routinely playing with, and against, certain servers and the cultures that have developed on those servers, AND as someone who spends a considerable amount of money in support of GW2 for the purpose of transferring my several accounts, and does not mind doing so -- this is going to be the end of WvW as I know it. While I don't doubt that I can adapt to the new system (and will likely spend far less money on gems in the process), I would choose World Linking and its known flaws over the proposed changes any day of the week.

[Diku.2546]

> @"Norbe.7630" said:

> > @"Diku.2546" said:

> > > @"Diku.2546" said:

> > > Anet, sorry...but you're going down the wrong path.

> >

> > Instead...please do something about the growing numbers of hackers in WvW.

>

>

>

> you said it yourself.....

>

> "Current WvW - Top 3 Chronic Problems

>

>

> Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups

> Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds

> Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves"

>

>

>

>

Thank you for being among the very few that could really understand the significance of this post in regards to WvW.

 

Anet chooses to ignore & censure this proposed solution.

 

The solution in that post was a cumulative result of my vision on what WvW should be.

 

Fixing WvW is really that simple, but Anet would rather implement a complex solution that in the long term will destroy their golden opportunity to create the next eSport Superbowl & make future patches & design changes difficult if not impossible to do.

 

The Superbowl is wildly successful...because there's a Solid & Stable "Team" identity for players & fans to identify with.

 

Teams aren't mixed randomly.

 

Players have a chance to emotionally connect with their Team...through good & bad times...so events leading up to the annual Superbowl event can develop a life of their own.

 

This game mode needs to be Player Driven...yet ANet Controlled. WvG - World vs Globes game mode does this easily.

 

There needs to be a "deeper" meaning & a reason to fight...which this proposed ANet design does very poorly to nurture...imho.

 

Wish they'd let me be on the ANet team to help shape the future of this game mode.

[Eramonster.2718]

@Diku.2546

It won't work. Different players have different mindset for playing WvW.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Paralent.8564" said:

> Just want to throw in my two cents _against _this change. As someone who doesn't routinely play with a specific guild but does enjoy routinely playing with, and against, certain servers and the cultures that have developed on those servers, AND as someone who spends a considerable amount of money in support of GW2 for the purpose of transferring my several accounts, and does not mind doing so -- this is going to be the end of WvW as I know it. While I don't doubt that I can adapt to the new system (and will likely spend far less money on gems in the process), I would choose World Linking and its known flaws over the proposed changes any day of the week.

 

Problem with the cultures and "certain server", is that what should be the focus for the week?

 

Like, my server is fighting Drakkar Lake this matchup. Number 1 EU. They are Germans so they only sit on siege all day. And when they dont, they are lousy fighters that run 30v1. Because its Drakkar Lake. And they are shit.

 

Is that *really* what defines WvW? Is that *really* all we care about?

 

With the restructure this just shift to a smaller focus - defining an alliance or guilds by their actions, rather than an entire server. Because we dont really need an entire server for our "culture" division mind. We are humans after all, its enough with another human.

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"pareod.2635" said:

> > Hey, sorry if this has been asked already. If a guild with 500 members marks itself as a WvW guild, but only 200 of its members mark that guild as their WvW guild, how many players in that guild will count towards an alliance's player cap? 200 or 500?

> Someone mentioned earlier than only "active" players count, ie those that have it set. But I'm not so sure. That would lead to an obvious issue - if 100 man in a 500 man guild tag up wvw and join a 400 man WvW alliance to reach 500 man cap, what happens if the other 400 people now tag it as their wvw guild? Either you would have a 900/500 man capped alliance next matchup (and you could make that much, much worse) or anet would have to disallow them choosing the guild as wvw guild if the alliance it is in has reached cap, which would be weird. But that would lead to allocation issues. First come first serve, or does alliances set the player count per guild and after that people in a guild can no longer tag it wvw and have to select another?

> We are clearly missing info about the limitations of alliances.

>

 

I believe I have seen it said, and could be wrong, that the guild would either have to leave the alliance, or not allow those people to play as part of the guild. Same thing really applies to recruitment.

 

I cannot envision them not doing it that way. If they allow those people in, without removing people, it defeats the whole purpose.

[pareod.2635]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> Someone mentioned earlier than only "active" players count, ie those that have it set. But I'm not so sure. That would lead to an obvious issue - if 100 man in a 500 man guild tag up wvw and join a 400 man WvW alliance to reach 500 man cap, what happens if the other 400 people now tag it as their wvw guild? Either you would have a 900/500 man capped alliance next matchup (and you could make that much, much worse) or anet would have to disallow them choosing the guild as wvw guild if the alliance it is in has reached cap, which would be weird. But that would lead to allocation issues. First come first serve, or does alliances set the player count per guild and after that people in a guild can no longer tag it wvw and have to select another?

> We are clearly missing info about the limitations of alliances.

>

From what I read it looks like once a season starts players are locked into their WvW decision, so the alliance wouldn't have those 400 people until the next season. If those people cause them to exceed the player limit, perhaps the guild responsible will have to adjust its numbers or leave the alliance, but I'm just speculating.

 

[briggah.7910]

as long as you promote blobbing and skill spam, nothing you do will fix this game mode. its trash because any braindead player can run in a zerg and push buttons and collect bags. some people find that fun others don't. all you have been doing is promoting this type of game play since HoT. tone down damage and skill spam and just maybe this game mode will be fun again. i could really care less about your reconstruction of the game mode. more players doesn't equal more fun.

[Lunacy Solacio.6514]

> @"pareod.2635" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > Someone mentioned earlier than only "active" players count, ie those that have it set. But I'm not so sure. That would lead to an obvious issue - if 100 man in a 500 man guild tag up wvw and join a 400 man WvW alliance to reach 500 man cap, what happens if the other 400 people now tag it as their wvw guild? Either you would have a 900/500 man capped alliance next matchup (and you could make that much, much worse) or anet would have to disallow them choosing the guild as wvw guild if the alliance it is in has reached cap, which would be weird. But that would lead to allocation issues. First come first serve, or does alliances set the player count per guild and after that people in a guild can no longer tag it wvw and have to select another?

> > We are clearly missing info about the limitations of alliances.

> >

> From what I read it looks like once a season starts players are locked into their WvW decision, so the alliance wouldn't have those 400 people until the next season. If those people cause them to exceed the player limit, perhaps the guild responsible will have to adjust its numbers or leave the alliance, but I'm just speculating.

>

 

Correct, that is what Anet devs have said on it. Once the worlds are created, those that then mark it as their wvw guild will still be on whatever world those players were generated on. It was also said, however, that they will have the option, provided the world the guild is on isn't already full, to move to that world. It was also said in the OP that a percent of the population will be reserved for guilds that are marked for that world, so yes, you may be able to join a guild and then transfer to that world. That could lead to a full server, but not to an overstacked server, and come next world change, they will be split up everywhere all over again, which was part of the point.

 

As for Alliance, Anet hadn't fully decided on the population cap of the alliance, and we won't know it til the month before it's fully implemented. It may very well not allow people to select that guild as their WvW guild, if the alliance is already at it's cap. I can't think of an alternative they could take, without limiting the number of people that can designate a guild as their WvW guild.

 

I was originally against the idea of alliances and losing servers when it was first heavily talked about years ago, but after watching my server's community overrun with a sudden influx of people that many in the community did not want and the drama that occurred, I was ready for alliances. Now, I'm so disgusted that I'm waiting eagerly for this to be implemented, but still considering spending gems to move til then, if I were to decide on a server to move to.

[shiri.4257]

200. the remaining 300 may not be in the same world. they will be considered as pugs or on the world with whomever they designate as their wvw guild as yours is just secondary wvw guild.

[shiri.4257]

> Wish they'd let me be on the ANet team to help shape the future of this game mode.

 

Nah, they made the right choice in hiring raymond instead of you.

 

 

[ShionKreth.1542]

What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering?

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

> @"shiri.4257" said:

> > @"brianmiguel.8517" said:

> > So will guilds need to kick inactive members in order to not take up alliance slots?

>

> If they're designated as the WvW guild, probably so. Guild Administration should be up to the guild not anet anyways. However, if they're not designated it shouldn't have an affect.

 

I can look into adding the ability for guild administration to modify declaration status of members either by changing permissions of the member or a direct modification.

 

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

> @"Threather.9354" said:

> > @"brianmiguel.8517" said:

> > So will guilds need to kick inactive members in order to not take up alliance slots?

>

> The members need to mark one of their current guilds as WvW guild every 2 months to get counted towards alliance slot for that particular matching. Members that dont mark the guild as the one they chose to go with to a new world, dont count.

 

There is no plan to make this an active thing you need to keep setting. Once it's set you wont have to set it again unless something happens to unset it (you leave the guild etc).

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

> @"Discomfort.5987" said:

> I absolutely love this idea. High population on certain servers needs to be addressed and I think getting rid of servers and having different worlds based off of players playtime/rank/time of day play, is very important to finally get balance in WvW.

>

> I have a few questions and concerns.

>

> 1. Max # of alliances per world. I understand some alliances might have max number of players, but in the case of some alliances being low population (let's say 100 wvw'ers as opposed to one with 500 wvw'ers). Will there be extra alliances per world? Or will you compensate with extra random guilds?

There won't be a hard limit to the number of Alliances on a world. The limits will fall out of the match maker keeping everything balanced. We're going to try various things to get the worlds balanced and make the matches more even across the board

> 2. Trying to sort people into worlds based off what time of day they play will be very difficult, is this something you all are looking into? and if so, how will you count a player that plays multiple time zones?

Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

 

 

[Vegeta.2563]

> @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering?

 

It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

 

> Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

>

>

 

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

>

> > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

> >

> >

>

> If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

 

For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

 

Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

 

Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

 

There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

 

It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Celsith.2753" said:

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

> >

> > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

>

> For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

>

> Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

>

> Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

>

> There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

>

> It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

 

I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything.

Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Celsith.2753" said:

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

> > >

> > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

> >

> > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

> >

> > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

> >

> > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

> >

> > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

> >

> > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

>

> I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything.

> Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/

>

 

I think we'll see three. Problem is, with one up one down, matchups will get boring. Also feel many of them will join three main alliances.

 

And I don't necessarily blame them for that. They will actually want to fight more than doors, but it will essentially leave the other 9 worlds kinda flat.

[Euryon.9248]

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Celsith.2753" said:

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

> > >

> > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

> >

> > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

> >

> > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

> >

> > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

> >

> > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

> >

> > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

>

> I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything.

> Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/

>

 

Even if they can't perfectly spread out off-hours coverage (which I suspect they won't), the worlds with higher off-hours coverage will still only exist for a season. The following season, it will be a different world with different players who see their off-hours better covered. Right now the same people (those on BG, SoS, etc) are the ones who continue to reap the benefits of having better coverage. With the new system, different people will finally get to experience that feeling of not waking up and seeing all your T3 keeps and towers flipped overnight.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > @"Celsith.2753" said:

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

> > > > @"Celsith.2753" said:

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

> > > >

> > > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

> > >

> > > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

> > >

> > > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

> > >

> > > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

> > >

> > > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

> > >

> > > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

> >

> > I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything.

> > Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/

> >

>

> Even if they can't perfectly spread out off-hours coverage (which I suspect they won't), the worlds with higher off-hours coverage will still only exist for a season. The following season, it will be a different world with different players who see their off-hours better covered. Right now the same people (those on BG, SoS, etc) are the ones who continue to reap the benefits of having better coverage. With the new system, different people will finally get to experience that feeling of not waking up and seeing all your T3 keeps and towers flipped overnight.

 

I am definately sure that will make their day. /S

 

It's also why they can't tie rewards to winning.

[Aeolus.3615]

Makin changes from servers to alliances wont solve nothing if the core designs of the gamemode wont change wich is where the issue actually persists...

 

Is Anet willing to change WvW really that much ?

 

[Firebaall.5127]

> @"Paralent.8564" said:

> Just want to throw in my two cents _against _this change. As someone who doesn't routinely play with a specific guild but does enjoy routinely playing with, and against, certain servers and the cultures that have developed on those servers, AND as someone who spends a considerable amount of money in support of GW2 for the purpose of transferring my several accounts, and does not mind doing so -- this is going to be the end of WvW as I know it. While I don't doubt that I can adapt to the new system (and will likely spend far less money on gems in the process), I would choose World Linking and its known flaws over the proposed changes any day of the week.

 

And that's great if you're safely behind a "full" and locked server, or you don't get screwed over by server links every couple of months. Your point of view is incredibly narrow, and selfish.