Sombra.3246 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said: > **A message from McKenna Berdrow:** > > I want to update everyone on the design we currently are investigating to help achieve population balance between worlds, and the goals we hope this new World Restructuring system can achieve. > > The goals of the World Restructuring system are: > > - Create great matches > - Handle population fluctuations > - Balance teams > - Diversify WvW experiences > > It is important to keep in mind that we still are investigating and working on this system. It is possible that this system will continue to evolve as we develop it, and we will be constantly testing to make sure the system meets our goals and our expectations for a quality experience. This post is an opportunity to share with you our plans for the new system, and respond to questions before the system is far long in the development process. > > # Restructuring Worlds > > Even though world linking has brought world populations closer together, it is impossible for us to get populations and coverage any closer because the current worlds do not give us the granularity needed to do that. For example in NA, Blackgate has decent coverage across all time zones whereas worlds like Crystal Desert have higher peak times and lower off-hour times. Because world linking isn't granular enough, we don't have the ideal link that allows Crystal Desert to have coverage that is similar to Blackgate. > > This is why, in the new World Restructuring system, we will remove all players from their current worlds, and make new worlds every eight weeks. This will create more granular pieces, which allow us to avoid situations like the Crystal Desert example. > > Since worlds will not exist any longer, the "World Selection" that currently is available in character select will be eliminated, and instead a selection for playing in either North America or Europe will replace it. > > ### World Creation > > The system creates new worlds and assigns them a pre-generated name at the start of each season. We use 'season' to describe the time between World Restructuring. We plan on eight-week seasons, which is similar to the current time between links. We will discuss more about seasons later. > > World Creation builds teams so they have similar predicted participation, skill, coverage, and language. Team assignment moves players onto teams by calculating the contribution value of a player and using that calculation to distribute players fairly. We plan to track stats like play hours in WvW, commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels. The exact stats have yet to be determined and we are open to suggestions of other stats to use in this system. This new system will expand upon the current calculation that uses play hours for linking. > > If a player has played WvW before, we will be able to use the statistics from their account to sort them into a new world. The system also makes a world assignment for players who have not played WvW before, when they first begin WvW. Ideally the system will assign a new player to a world on which their friends or guild mates play, thereby making it easier than it is at present for people to play with friends in WvW. > > ### Playing with Guild Mates > > We want to make sure that playing with WvW guild mates is easy in this new system. Guilds will be able to specify if they are a WvW guild. This essentially means the World Restructuring system will consider that factor at the start of each season when assigning the guild to a world. On an individual player level, once a player's guild has specified they are a WvW guild, the individual player will be able to set **ONE** of their guilds as their personal WvW guild. When World Restructuring happens at the start of a season, as long as you have specified your WvW guild, you will be assigned to the same world as everyone else in your WvW guild, guaranteeing you will be able to play with your guild mates. > > ### Creating Alliances > > We also want to make sure that existing WvW communities can play together in this new system. A WvW guild will be able to invite other WvW guilds to their WvW Alliance. WvW Alliances function as a party for guilds. When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon. > > ### World Creation Summary > > So to summarize world creation: at the start of every season our new World Restructuring system will use recent statistics, based on similar predicted participation, skill, and coverage, to create worlds filled with alliances, guilds, and unaffiliated players. > >  > > > The above graph displays an example of what makes up a world under the World Restructuring system. Keep in mind, due to the algorithm used to keep worlds balanced, the number of alliances, guilds, and individual players can be wildly different between worlds, but the participation and playtime should be relatively the same. > > # Seasons > >  > > > Seasons break WvW into cycles where several matches will play out. The current design for seasons is 8 weeks, but we are open to feedback. Matches are still a week long, so there would be eight matches a season in the above scenario. During the season, we will still be using 1-up, 1-down. > > ### Stages: > > 1. **Season** > 1. Once new worlds have been created and everyone has been sorted onto their WvW worlds, the new season has officially began. > 2. During a season players can manage their WvW guilds and alliances after reset and through the end of Week 7, but their WvW guild and WvW alliances will not be updated until the start of the next season. > 1. Ex: If you are playing WvW with Guild A this season and decide to set Guild B as your WvW guild in the middle of the season, you will not be able to play with Guild B until the next season, unless you transfer (more about that later). > 2. **Season End** > 1. A week before the season ends, that is, during Week 8 in the season, you no longer will be able to manage your WvW guilds or alliances. Your WvW guild and alliances will be locked down at this time. > 2. Everyone is kicked out of WvW, as they are with every reset. WvW will spin back up, as it currently does after reset, and everyone will now be sorted into their new worlds. > 3. **World Creation** > 1. Alliances, guilds, and individual players are sorted to be on a world. > 2. This will happen at the same time as current WvW reset. > > # Transfers > # > > > > ### Region Transfers > > Transferring between regions, from NA to EU, will still exist. We have not determined the costs for transferring but a region selection will be available on the character select screen that will allow transfers. > > ### World Transfers > > We understand that even though this system tries to keep guilds and alliances together, there will be times during the season when people want to change teams. Because of this, there are plans to allow transfers between worlds during a season. This means that new worlds will have size restrictions on them, as they do currently. > > Players will be able to select worlds from the WvW panel in game. Worlds that are available for transfers will show up in the new WvW world panel. Worlds can be in these three different states: > >  > > > The cost of transfer worlds has not been determined. > > # Transitioning to this System > > This system is going to take time to make. As mentioned in the WvW FAQ, part of the reason we did World Linking was because it utilized a lot of existing tech and did not require a considerable amount of time. This allowed us to address the growing population issue quickly, while also being able to address other WvW issues. This new system is going to take considerably more time to make. We do not have a release date, but this is going to require several months of work and it will share resources with any other WvW changes that we work on. > > Transitioning to this system is going to be slow and we want to make this transition as smooth as possible. Once this system is ready, we plan to give everyone several weeks to form their WvW guilds and alliances. We also want to give titles related to the worlds on which players currently are playing when World Restructuring goes live. If there are other transition ideas, we would love to hear them! > > We will continue with World Linking until World Restructuring is ready to ship. > > # Feedback > > That was a lot of information and I am sure there are many questions. The team will do its best to answer them. We appreciate any feedback on this system. Your opinions of this system, as well as the community's response, will be an important part of how we tackle this project. > > If the reception is not great for this system, then the other alternative is most likely to continue World Linking. Even though making a choice between the two systems might seem like too drastic a change for some people, we have been exploring other designs to deal with WvW populations for years and we believe that World Restructuring or World Linking are the only solutions that meet our requirements. Simply "blowing up" worlds or removing people from the worlds on which they currently play is high risk (which is why we have avoided it for so long), and the only reason we are considering World Restructuring now is because it allows players to maintain and continue to build some of the communities they've created through the years. Will we get a one time free transfer when this is implemented, for players that would like to switch from EU to NA for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vermillion.4061 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 > @"Klipso.8653" said: > > @"Vermillion.4061" said: > > > @"Klipso.8653" said: > > > Does Anet have plans to add in-game voice communication so that our squads can talk to ourselves and allow commander chat between tags? > > > > > > This is an important feature that will prevent this change from becoming a new version of EotM > > > > Takes 5 seconds to have a discord link posted in team chat with API verification already being a thing anet doesn't have to add in-game voip. > > Discord does not support commander chat, problem remains Nobody outside of Blackgate uses commander chat anymore and you can do workarounds on discord with multiple accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LINKAZZATORE.8135 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 > @"Sombra.3246" said: > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said: > > **A message from McKenna Berdrow:** > > > > I want to update everyone on the design we currently are investigating to help achieve population balance between worlds, and the goals we hope this new World Restructuring system can achieve. > > > > The goals of the World Restructuring system are: > > > > - Create great matches > > - Handle population fluctuations > > - Balance teams > > - Diversify WvW experiences > > > > It is important to keep in mind that we still are investigating and working on this system. It is possible that this system will continue to evolve as we develop it, and we will be constantly testing to make sure the system meets our goals and our expectations for a quality experience. This post is an opportunity to share with you our plans for the new system, and respond to questions before the system is far long in the development process. > > > > # Restructuring Worlds > > > > Even though world linking has brought world populations closer together, it is impossible for us to get populations and coverage any closer because the current worlds do not give us the granularity needed to do that. For example in NA, Blackgate has decent coverage across all time zones whereas worlds like Crystal Desert have higher peak times and lower off-hour times. Because world linking isn't granular enough, we don't have the ideal link that allows Crystal Desert to have coverage that is similar to Blackgate. > > > > This is why, in the new World Restructuring system, we will remove all players from their current worlds, and make new worlds every eight weeks. This will create more granular pieces, which allow us to avoid situations like the Crystal Desert example. > > > > Since worlds will not exist any longer, the "World Selection" that currently is available in character select will be eliminated, and instead a selection for playing in either North America or Europe will replace it. > > > > ### World Creation > > > > The system creates new worlds and assigns them a pre-generated name at the start of each season. We use 'season' to describe the time between World Restructuring. We plan on eight-week seasons, which is similar to the current time between links. We will discuss more about seasons later. > > > > World Creation builds teams so they have similar predicted participation, skill, coverage, and language. Team assignment moves players onto teams by calculating the contribution value of a player and using that calculation to distribute players fairly. We plan to track stats like play hours in WvW, commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels. The exact stats have yet to be determined and we are open to suggestions of other stats to use in this system. This new system will expand upon the current calculation that uses play hours for linking. > > > > If a player has played WvW before, we will be able to use the statistics from their account to sort them into a new world. The system also makes a world assignment for players who have not played WvW before, when they first begin WvW. Ideally the system will assign a new player to a world on which their friends or guild mates play, thereby making it easier than it is at present for people to play with friends in WvW. > > > > ### Playing with Guild Mates > > > > We want to make sure that playing with WvW guild mates is easy in this new system. Guilds will be able to specify if they are a WvW guild. This essentially means the World Restructuring system will consider that factor at the start of each season when assigning the guild to a world. On an individual player level, once a player's guild has specified they are a WvW guild, the individual player will be able to set **ONE** of their guilds as their personal WvW guild. When World Restructuring happens at the start of a season, as long as you have specified your WvW guild, you will be assigned to the same world as everyone else in your WvW guild, guaranteeing you will be able to play with your guild mates. > > > > ### Creating Alliances > > > > We also want to make sure that existing WvW communities can play together in this new system. A WvW guild will be able to invite other WvW guilds to their WvW Alliance. WvW Alliances function as a party for guilds. When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon. > > > > ### World Creation Summary > > > > So to summarize world creation: at the start of every season our new World Restructuring system will use recent statistics, based on similar predicted participation, skill, and coverage, to create worlds filled with alliances, guilds, and unaffiliated players. > > > >  > > > > > > The above graph displays an example of what makes up a world under the World Restructuring system. Keep in mind, due to the algorithm used to keep worlds balanced, the number of alliances, guilds, and individual players can be wildly different between worlds, but the participation and playtime should be relatively the same. > > > > # Seasons > > > >  > > > > > > Seasons break WvW into cycles where several matches will play out. The current design for seasons is 8 weeks, but we are open to feedback. Matches are still a week long, so there would be eight matches a season in the above scenario. During the season, we will still be using 1-up, 1-down. > > > > ### Stages: > > > > 1. **Season** > > 1. Once new worlds have been created and everyone has been sorted onto their WvW worlds, the new season has officially began. > > 2. During a season players can manage their WvW guilds and alliances after reset and through the end of Week 7, but their WvW guild and WvW alliances will not be updated until the start of the next season. > > 1. Ex: If you are playing WvW with Guild A this season and decide to set Guild B as your WvW guild in the middle of the season, you will not be able to play with Guild B until the next season, unless you transfer (more about that later). > > 2. **Season End** > > 1. A week before the season ends, that is, during Week 8 in the season, you no longer will be able to manage your WvW guilds or alliances. Your WvW guild and alliances will be locked down at this time. > > 2. Everyone is kicked out of WvW, as they are with every reset. WvW will spin back up, as it currently does after reset, and everyone will now be sorted into their new worlds. > > 3. **World Creation** > > 1. Alliances, guilds, and individual players are sorted to be on a world. > > 2. This will happen at the same time as current WvW reset. > > > > # Transfers > > # > > > > > > > > ### Region Transfers > > > > Transferring between regions, from NA to EU, will still exist. We have not determined the costs for transferring but a region selection will be available on the character select screen that will allow transfers. > > > > ### World Transfers > > > > We understand that even though this system tries to keep guilds and alliances together, there will be times during the season when people want to change teams. Because of this, there are plans to allow transfers between worlds during a season. This means that new worlds will have size restrictions on them, as they do currently. > > > > Players will be able to select worlds from the WvW panel in game. Worlds that are available for transfers will show up in the new WvW world panel. Worlds can be in these three different states: > > > >  > > > > > > The cost of transfer worlds has not been determined. > > > > # Transitioning to this System > > > > This system is going to take time to make. As mentioned in the WvW FAQ, part of the reason we did World Linking was because it utilized a lot of existing tech and did not require a considerable amount of time. This allowed us to address the growing population issue quickly, while also being able to address other WvW issues. This new system is going to take considerably more time to make. We do not have a release date, but this is going to require several months of work and it will share resources with any other WvW changes that we work on. > > > > Transitioning to this system is going to be slow and we want to make this transition as smooth as possible. Once this system is ready, we plan to give everyone several weeks to form their WvW guilds and alliances. We also want to give titles related to the worlds on which players currently are playing when World Restructuring goes live. If there are other transition ideas, we would love to hear them! > > > > We will continue with World Linking until World Restructuring is ready to ship. > > > > # Feedback > > > > That was a lot of information and I am sure there are many questions. The team will do its best to answer them. We appreciate any feedback on this system. Your opinions of this system, as well as the community's response, will be an important part of how we tackle this project. > > > > If the reception is not great for this system, then the other alternative is most likely to continue World Linking. Even though making a choice between the two systems might seem like too drastic a change for some people, we have been exploring other designs to deal with WvW populations for years and we believe that World Restructuring or World Linking are the only solutions that meet our requirements. Simply "blowing up" worlds or removing people from the worlds on which they currently play is high risk (which is why we have avoided it for so long), and the only reason we are considering World Restructuring now is because it allows players to maintain and continue to build some of the communities they've created through the years. > > Will we get a one time free transfer when this is implemented, for players that would like to switch from EU to NA for example? "This is why, in the new World Restructuring system, we will remove all players from their current worlds, and make new worlds every eight weeks. This will create more granular pieces, which allow us to avoid situations like the Crystal Desert example." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra.3246 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 > > Will we get a one time free transfer when this is implemented, for players that would like to switch from EU to NA for example? > > "This is why, in the new World Restructuring system, we will remove all players from their current worlds, and make new worlds every eight weeks. This will create more granular pieces, which allow us to avoid situations like the Crystal Desert example." That just means that we will no longer be in our individual servers within NA or EU, it does not answer my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djamonja.6453 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > @"Zephyr.8015" said: > > SoS is putting in work, SoS is putting in the time and the effort and I applaud them for doing it. > > It seems like you didn't understand the meat of the example in the dev's post. SoS is only "putting in work" because they have a link that helps them achieve that: Borlis Pass. The dev said it is difficult for them to create teams that have the coverage profile of BG because the world linking system is not granular enough. So for example CD has the population but not the coverage. Anet was able to seemingly do it with the SoS and BP link, but their real goal is to be able to do that for all teams. The proposed system would create the granularity needed to achieve that goal. Chaba is correct -- the problem is not that they can't make some servers (links) competitive in tier 2-4, the problem is that tier 1 can't be made competitive with the current server linking system. If they stick enough linked servers in tier 1 they might be able to make it competitive, but then tiers 2-4 wouldn't be balanced. With the new system, they basically break up the top 4-5 servers and force them to become alliance based, and then Anet can split them up between worlds if they are too big/strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radymski.4987 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 What the hell is this crap? Sorry but server pride. Existing communities. However u do this u will end all that. We like our servers just kill some of the little ones screw them slackers anyway.... Limit the choice of servers. Dnt merging them temporary make perm links I really think your idea is waaaaaa to extreme.... Just delete small servers merge perm and be done with it. We dnt need a fraction or alliance crap, all that will do is best guilds farm bad pugs the new and pug casuals will quit further reducing player base and then the big bois got nothing to fight... It makes zero sense why u would make a drastic change when you have done nothing to perm address population balance by limiting or perm merge servers All u did was apply a band aid and now u go straight to amputation my leg? Wth anet.... Wth.... Seasoned commander and guild raid leader here. Maybe contact wvw commandera and guilds or community and ask them rather than com up with thus bull.... Idea... Zzzz And no I love change. But this is the wrong one. I'll probably quit tbh I hate the sound of this concept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulzi.8273 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 I forsee lots of stacking and exploiting. Something like many of the top BG guilds alliancing themselves together and/or forming a new 'wvw' guild so they stay together. Only thing they'll really lose is roaming coverage from the little guilds. But they gain that back from a 'new link' where other guilds will be in their world for the season. So basically, the name 'BG' goes away, but they will all still be together and fighting, against everyone else. Only thing this affects is the little guilds/solo roamers who will be shifted around them now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeKong.6203 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 looking forward to this! Nee change was needed. No system is perfect! But we needed this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi.1398 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 I'm concerned about playing with my friends. They aren't too active in game, but I WOULD like to wvw with them when we get a chance. With that in mind, and the fact servers only exist for 8 weeks, I think server transfers should cost: 1 time free per season (limited to within server area - eg free transfers between NA servers for someone who selected NA base, but must pay a fee to transfer to EU), a second+ server transfer that costs gold/gems to do, maybe with same limits of once per week idk. And then a third server "base" transfer for current gem cost (NA to EU or vice versa) that can happen regaurdless of season. Also..what of people with wildly conflicting wvw activity? Like me...who's on in EU and NA times inconsistently. Or is the idea for 100% timezone coverage? Oh yeah, will the "teir" system also still exist? I kinda like staying on a server that usually shifts between teirs 2 and 3 and i'd only really want to play on 1 if i have to play outside of those teirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dolcolax.1268 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 > @"mulzi.8273" said: > I forsee lots of stacking and exploiting. Something like many of the top BG guilds alliancing themselves together and/or forming a new 'wvw' guild so they stay together. Only thing they'll really lose is roaming coverage from the little guilds. But they gain that back from a 'new link' where other guilds will be in their world for the season. > > So basically, the name 'BG' goes away, but they will all still be together and fighting, against everyone else. Only thing this affects is the little guilds/solo roamers who will be shifted around them now. BG doesnt have that many big guilds. its carried mostly by pugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 > @"Lexi.1398" said: > I'm concerned about playing with my friends. They aren't too active in game, but I WOULD like to wvw with them when we get a chance. With that in mind, and the fact servers only exist for 8 weeks, I think server transfers should cost: 1 time free per season (limited to within server area - eg free transfers between NA servers for someone who selected NA base, but must pay a fee to transfer to EU), a second+ server transfer that costs gold/gems to do, maybe with same limits of once per week idk. And then a third server "base" transfer for current gem cost (NA to EU or vice versa) that can happen regaurdless of season. > > Also..what of people with wildly conflicting wvw activity? Like me...who's on in EU and NA times inconsistently. Or is the idea for 100% timezone coverage? > > Oh yeah, will the "teir" system also still exist? I kinda like staying on a server that usually shifts between teirs 2 and 3 and i'd only really want to play on 1 if i have to play outside of those teirs. It's been stated that any transfer within season will not take effect until the next season. It needs to remain that way to minimize gaming the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klypto.1703 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Hopefully there is also some plan on making it where ebg isnt queued up to a million people while bl's are empty. There should be a T6 participation requirement to be able to move to a different map if you are already in wvw. For a more healthy wvw experience because it just promotes unsatisfactory behaviors of people who just afk and take up space so it should be based on people who are playing first rather than those afking. Some may disagree but at the least they should have to do something before they can go siege objectives from inside other objectives before they do their afk pip farming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avelione.6075 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Confusing, but I hope it works. I'm not a super fan of WvW but I like to play some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalaina.8245 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 A couple of implementation questions: Some guilds have members from both NA and EU. If they set themselves as a WvW guild and people from both regions go to pick them as their WvW guild, what happens? My main WvW guild is a PvX guild with 400 members, around 40 of whom actually play WvW. For alliances, would this guild count as having 400 members when its WvW presence is notably smaller? And a couple of broader questions: In NA it was normal for servers to tank in certain weeks in order to get into more favorable matches. This also had the side effect of making worlds open up for transfers when their lack of playtime is artificial. More favorable matchups may help prevent this, but may not eliminate the problem. Will there be any systems in place to handle this sort of thing? A significant portion of the WvW community doesn't find a defensive ppt-oriented playstyle enjoyable, and accordingly prefer being in lower tiers where they're more likely to be matched up against others who similarly don't care about points or winning. Likewise, a number of people prefer being in lower population matchups where they can feel more impactful and be involved in smaller scale fights. Will this algorithm be working off a base assumption that all players want to be in high-population matchups that care about winning through score? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage.7145 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 > @"zerorogue.9410" said: > Let me just put this Simple **YOU ARE DESTROYING WvW** WvW Has survived on one and one thing alone, community. A feeling that when you go into wvw you see players you have always known. This is essentially cutting off player's arms and legs because you can't figure out how to match up two Athletes. With this system were going from community to . No more rankings, No more competition, No more strategy. Just Generic large scale pvp. We can go play battlefield for that! > > Yes alliances will allow SOME of the people you've seen, but they are limited and people will have to be cut out to keep them. This will create toxic and anger within groups as Guild A has too many players to ally with Guild B so Guild B kicks 20 players. > > This is Just putting a band-aid on a band-aid. It fixes nothing. **WvW needs dynamic balancing, that can adapt minute by minute.** You can't predict when player's are going to play a game. you can do a good job, But players can also take advantage of this. > What if a guild decides to run on a different time? > What if One world of player's get's matched up with one world of pro's? > > The only thing this will do is make WvW slightly better at the cost of anything unique about it. DO NOT DO THIS. PLEASE! you are massively wrong here imo, if anything all thise will strenghten the comunity, you will be part of a whole WvW comunity now with 100s of guilds instead of a server comunity, you can still form up alliances with the people you enjoy playing with and still be able to play with a whole lot of new peopel you didint know existed untill now soooooo yeah this argument is wrong in every possible way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zok.4956 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said: > We also want to give titles related to the worlds on which players currently are playing when World Restructuring goes live. If there are other transition ideas, we would love to hear them! Another Idea: Give special titles to players that stayed loyal to their server and never transferred to other servers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dolcolax.1268 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 > @"Rampage.7145" said: > > @"zerorogue.9410" said: > > Let me just put this Simple **YOU ARE DESTROYING WvW** WvW Has survived on one and one thing alone, community. A feeling that when you go into wvw you see players you have always known. This is essentially cutting off player's arms and legs because you can't figure out how to match up two Athletes. With this system were going from community to . No more rankings, No more competition, No more strategy. Just Generic large scale pvp. We can go play battlefield for that! > > > > Yes alliances will allow SOME of the people you've seen, but they are limited and people will have to be cut out to keep them. This will create toxic and anger within groups as Guild A has too many players to ally with Guild B so Guild B kicks 20 players. > > > > This is Just putting a band-aid on a band-aid. It fixes nothing. **WvW needs dynamic balancing, that can adapt minute by minute.** You can't predict when player's are going to play a game. you can do a good job, But players can also take advantage of this. > > What if a guild decides to run on a different time? > > What if One world of player's get's matched up with one world of pro's? > > > > The only thing this will do is make WvW slightly better at the cost of anything unique about it. DO NOT DO THIS. PLEASE! > > you are massively wrong here imo, if anything all thise will strenghten the comunity, you will be part of a whole WvW comunity now with 100s of guilds instead of a server comunity, you can still form up alliances with the people you enjoy playing with and still be able to play with a whole lot of new peopel you didint know existed untill now soooooo yeah this argument is wrong in every possible way. i dont think theres a community if you get swapped servers every 8 weeks. sure you have your "alliances" but i doubt this alliances will fill the entire server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cylon.9307 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 will there be a free guild name change, so a wvw guild could be set up in an existing guild??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage.7145 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 > @"SolitaryPillarist.5740" said: > Anet, just my 2 cents, but can you please not alienate the small roaming groups and cater only to the giant mobs that just want to kill each other. Some of us actually enjoy the challenge of taking keeps, towers etc. and not have to spend massive amounts of gold to be able to compete in those guild battles. > > I know I am going to catch so much hate from those bigger groups for this post but some of us actually want to do WVW. You can still do whatver you do just fine, you have to understand tho, big blobs are the blood and soul of WvW they cause the maps to change, without the big organized groups the maps just become stale and boring, for example as a roamer myself for years one of the most fun times i had was preventing from enemy players to upgrade a keep/tower, i would sit on a camp and gank all day just for fun, this would never be posible without a big blob that papered that keep in first place, and the big commaders benefited indirectly from what i was doing aswell so both types of gameplay are importanat and complement each other same with havock guilds and whatnot, you dont really wanna play on a server that 100% of the population are a bunch of duelers for example cuz they would take your fights and shit it would be boring as fuck, all kinds of groups coexist just fine as long the game is health dynamic and active. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlazeQ.1095 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 So the NA servers have very few guild that run in certain time zones. For example the "OCX" time zones. What is there to prevent the OCX guilds from creating an alliance that puts the majority of them on a single server eliminating any chance of coverage balance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curunen.8729 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Fantastic idea - I just wish I hadn't wasted gems on transferring only a month ago... and barely playing gw2 since then. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambit.9501 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Hi. I'm somebody who absolutely does not care about WvW one single bit (let alone about pvp in gw2 in general), but yet am also somehow someone who will end up being heavily, immensely affected by this change regardless. I just hope that change doesn't end up being a negative one. Yet, if Anet's track record with World Linking is anything to write home about, chances are it most likely _is_ going to end up being another negative. Yep, you guessed it. I'm a Tarnished Coast roleplayer. With the way this new system is designed right now, it sounds like some megaguild on our server (like TCRP) would need to become a "WvW guild" and effectively act as the gatekeeper to our entire community from now on. Speaking of which, I sure do hope you plan to make "WvW guilds" not take up one of your 5 guild slots, cuz otherwise I can count a number of people I know who would need to drop one of their guild to accommodate to this new system, all for the sake of the community. Another of my biggest fears is that you, Anet, are going to end up going with the smaller number in terms of what to set the Alliance player limit to. _Please, please, PLEASE do not._ **More is absolutely better by default in this case.** When all players of a specific niche (i.e. 'roleplayers') get narrowed into congregating into a single whole group due to the circumstances of the game they're playing, the number of people in said group tends to grow big verrrrry quickly. I saw it happen back in the day with WoW's Moon Guard server, and it happened with Tarnished Coast to a lesser extent as well. I foresee that happening all the same here with this new Alliance system. Honestly, i'm just worried that the already-rare-yet-beautiful occurrence of sporadic RP between two or more persons out in the open somewhere in the lush world of Tyria would absolutely become an extinct species with this change. I'm just fearful that Arenanet is just going to keep inadvertently making it harder and harder for us roleplayers to find/come across eachother in the open world. That they'll keep accidentially screwing us over with their server/world changes. Like a ladybug getting crushed underfoot in the grass without anyone ever knowing it even _existed_, eventually the only RP that'll end up existing will be guild-only. It shouldn't happen like that. Do take note that i'm taking extra liberties to make sure that I do NOT sound like I am accusing Anet of any sort of concerted efforts to "wipe us out". I want everyone who reads this to know that _I am in full understanding_ of the fact that Anet has no intentions of actively making it harder for ambient RPers to congregate out in the open. As far as i'm concerned, Anet sees us as a blip on the radar, if even that. These are just possibly-unforeseen consequences of a change in server function. It is my earnest hope, Anet, that **you will handle this server restructuring with GREAT CARE TAKEN to the consideration of tightly-knit, pre-existing world-based communities such as Tarnished Coast.** May you make the right choices in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eowin Of Rohan.2619 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 This is huge. Thoughts : * In order to retain the main goal (granularity for match making), Alliances can't be too big and imho shouldn't have their size at more than 20-30% of a world's activity. Knowing that they'll probably be composed of the most active wvw players, that's probably less than 10% of target population. In the end, I don't see it going further than 3-4 guilds with ~50 people, unless you somehow ensure that their raid times are different in the first place (but this should be a matchmaker rule, it's hard to enforce that as an alliance rule). 500-1000 players seems huge : if people form alliances that include basically most prime time guilds of current worlds, no granularity will be gained. * This may be an occasion to stop all fights about "wvw styles". See how people can hate each other in /t because they don't have the same goals in wvw, see how every single aspect of wvw and/or feedback thread on forums/reddit since launch showed that big portions of wvw people have totally difference points of view on how wvw should be. Having custom communities through the new guild and alliance options could open for people/guilds to select preferrences. For exemple : big fight priority (incl. open field fights just for the sake of it), full scale strategy game (my own preference - which was played in 2013 very well, where you play for map control, capture and defend, try to move based on guessed enemy positions or lure them one side and capturing other side, have roaming groups, and still have decent amounts of big fights except they're mostly part of attacking/defending objectives, distracting enemy blob, sending them back to faraway spawn, moral and so on ... basically, all part of strategy game for control and not looking for fights just for the sake of it), full KT, mixed. Divide any population that choose each preference option into at least 3 worlds (even if some mean 3 small worlds). Furthermore, it could allow for different rules (only about numbers so it's still a single wvw system to maintain for devs but with number parameters) : 0-1-2 PPK, low-mid-high PPT, number of dolyaks per upgrade ... * About languages : please don't determine this on client language like the chat filter thing (this one would need changes imho but I lost hope) and the new horrible auto wiki command. Let us choose wvw language preferrence, preferably with ability to select several of them and set priority. Also, guilds themselves should have language option near the "wvw guild" checkbox (for example my current pretty inactive guild is international, if we decide to call it a wvw guild so we can play together from time to time I wouldn't want the system to put it in a french world just because I'm sometimes more active than other people combined). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage.7145 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 > @"dolcolax.1268" said: > i feel like this would be like a game of league of legends/dota with 5 randoms against 5 friends only on a much bigger scale > Which is good thing, this game has little to no gear progression so what is the point of spending endless hours playing it anyway????? Oh yeah having fun and killing people all day long like any other PvP MMO! so yeah good change right here bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Haired Savage.5430 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 > @"HazyDaisy.4107" said: > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said: > > > @"HazyDaisy.4107" said: > > > How is the loyalty pip going to work if there are no worlds to be loyal to? Apologies if this has already been asked. > > > > It's not a loyalty pip anymore(they changed it shortly after starting it), its now the commitment pip, you get it for getting wood last week. > > And if you did not transfer, which still makes server loyalty come into play for this pip currently whatever it's called. So, I ask again, how can we hold to the loyalty stipulation assosiated with this pip if none of us have a server? Is the transfer penalty going to be removed or is the whole pip going away? There is no loyalty one anymore. The commitment pip only gives for finishing wood chest the previous week. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Skirmish_reward_track Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now