World Restructuring

[Rampage.7145]

> @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > @"Xtc Soul Dragon.2067" said:

> > In your initial post you blatantly display whom your ire and dscrimination is aimed at, and that is my home server, since prerelease, of Blackgate.

>

> They mentioned Blackgate in one paragraph merely as an example of how world linking is too blunt an instrument to allow them to balance coverage.

>

> As you have apparently missed it, population/coverage imbalances have been an issue since day 1, if you had frequented the forums then you'd remember that soon after launch there was a "nightcapping" megathread precisely because of how those imbalances basically rendered WvW has a competition meaningless.

>

> > Favoritism will determine who is tier 1, not skill or dedication or hours or sacrifice.

>

> I hate to break it to you, but part of the reason WvW needs a change and part of the reason it has died off to the extent it has, is "winning" is meaningless, no one with an ounce of logic cares less about "winning" in a game mode that is a joke as a competition, precisely because all that really counts is population/coverage. A WvW matchup is akin to having a sports match where after half time only one team comes back out and are able to score freely with no opposition, that is not competitive or skilled in the slightest.

>

> > Go ahead and replace the failed Edge of the Mists experiment; the lacklust rewards of that gamemode will not be missed. Do not delete 5 years of WvW rivalry and identity for shallow and foresight-lacking purposes, you as the developer do not write the history of your game, the players do.

>

> Maybe this is the only game you've ever played, but servers are merely a grouping, people can have "pride" or "community" around different types of grouping, take EVE Online that is based on alliances made up of corporations (guilds) and to be blunt that game has a far deeper, stronger community than GW2 will ever have, the notion that servers are the only way those things can be achieved is nonsense.

>

> > ...the moment you expunge that from the game is the moment that WvW ceases to have a reason to exist in a lot of our hearts and minds.

>

> Really maybe you should look outside your own stacked T1 server, and over both EU and NA, WvW is in a really bad state, which is why most of the actual WvW players have either left or barely play anymore.

>

 

+10000000000 for this dude, he definitelly knows what's up well written brother.

[Troft.4038]

This is your big idea to save WVW? Break up people who you have ran with for years. Sounds like a great idea!!

RIP WVW!!!!

[Rampage.7145]

> @"dolcolax.1268" said:

> > @"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.

 

So, do you think PVE comunity or PvP comunity is not a thing????? those are mega servers and those comunities are far stronger than WvW is or ever was, you play with the people you enjoy playing, end of the story dosnt matter which server they are ¨on¨, you join discords you join guilds you intereact with them in game, server system just alienates people into yet another subgroup. Sure there is some people u wanna play with in your current server but you don't get to play with the other hundreds of people on other servers that u would potentially enjoy playing with.

[Sojourner.4621]

> @"Gambit.9501" said:

> 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.

 

I think the easiest fix to this would be to make different Guild tags. To make a WvW alliance you have to tag yourself as a WvW guilds, and can only ally with other WvW guilds (if my understanding of the system described is correct). They could make this work for the non-wvw guilds by making a RP guild tag, and a PvE guild tag and a PvX guild tag, with alliances only able to be created with other guilds that share those tags (Or for simplification only two tags total, one for wvw and one for everyone else). For the purposes of WvW population, only WvW alliances would effect what guilds play with others in WvW scenarios, but for the purposes of megaservers this could allow people to group together even MORE easily than before (As I know plenty of RPers who have not been able to get in to TC as a server because of its full status). It could also help people cement their play-style identity better than ever.

[wavemix.2653]

I'm not sure if someone said this already, but an important suggestion:

 

**Allow guilds to flag themselves as GvG, OpenZerg, Roaming, All around, etc.**

 

WvW is kind of a game mode with subgame modes inside, I think this flags would help the balance match-ups for anet, so you don't get GvG guilds/allys all on same server against a server that has very low number of GvG guilds/allys, as my understanding GvG guilds want to fight each other, not facerroling zergs.

 

I'm not a veteran wvw, pls no flame :).

cheers.

[moonstarmac.4603]

Well, people have been asking for Alliances for a while now. Looks like WvW is about to become closer to a true Guild War battle ground.

 

Alas, farewell Ehmry Bay. Been with you since Beta 1

[Rampage.7145]

> @"wavemix.2653" said:

> I'm not sure if someone said this already, but an important suggestion:

>

> **Allow guilds to flag themselves as GvG, OpenZerg, Roaming, All around, etc.**

>

> WvW is kind of a game mode with subgame modes inside, I think this flags would help the balance match-ups for anet, so you don't get GvG guilds/allys all on same server against a server that has very low number of GvG guilds/allys, as my understanding GvG guilds want to fight each other, not facerroling zergs.

>

> I'm not a veteran wvw, pls no flame :).

> cheers.

 

GvG guilds do enjoy facerolling zergs it is part of the game and the reasson we play for, fighting that massive 50 man pugblob with our 20 man guild and pushing our limits is part of what we actually love doing in WvW during our raid time, if we didint have zergs/blobmanders and other guilds to fight game would be very boring.

[Tiawal.2351]

Use your mind, not just your heart, please people. Loyalty is amazing and even heavenly, and you can be loyal to your team, always. Team means the players you care about, the unhappy players of the whole WvW, thirsting to have great time again. WE ARE your team. Even the "enemies" are YOUR team. Everyone matters, the game dies otherwise. Everyone should have fun, have a chance to win, a chance to fight back, and feel good even if lost... We need each other to make this happen. Your current world NEEDS "enemies", so the game can live on.

 

Would be fantastic to have just 3 realms, each of them 3 levels: top level, advanced and starter. Or something. But no matter, the current state must go, already died when megaserver killed it. Let the dead be buried, and help the newborn live.

[Skynet.7201]

> @"BlazeQ.1095" said:

> 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?

 

I doubt that's going to happen, unless they did it for pure ppt. Otherwise they'd never get any fights.

[PrettyShield.8107]

I have a question about guilds in general relating to making them WvW focused.... Say you made a guild with a name that is fit for a PvE style but you have poured your heart & money into getting it upgraded.... Say you would like to change the name of said guild to make it Pop more for a WvW focused guild could that be done in the future... If a guild wanted to change the name of the guild itself like a player can change the name of a toon? Maybe a silly question but I think that would be a nice option to have.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Eowin Of Rohan.2619" said:

> * 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.

 

I still fail to see the the point of alliances lower than current guild cap. If 2 alliances of 3-5 "normal" guilds each with a total of 500 players go up against 500 players in a single guild that just have the players never repping it, the later definetly have an advantage. Single channel coms and announcements (guild chat) and passive guild missions (more loot woopwoop) not to mention a much bigger community (whats left of it) and pool of players. Why would I wanna be in a much more limiting alliance?

 

The OP mention no particular boon for being in an alliance otherwise.

[PrettyShield.8107]

> @"wavemix.2653" said:

> I'm not sure if someone said this already, but an important suggestion:

>

> **Allow guilds to flag themselves as GvG, OpenZerg, Roaming, All around, etc.**

>

> WvW is kind of a game mode with subgame modes inside, I think this flags would help the balance match-ups for anet, so you don't get GvG guilds/allys all on same server against a server that has very low number of GvG guilds/allys, as my understanding GvG guilds want to fight each other, not facerroling zergs.

>

> I'm not a veteran wvw, pls no flame :).

> cheers.

 

I think that would be cool.... It would also be nice if a tag/ commander could do the same when making a squad if the tag is moused over it has a little note; Running Havoc or Doing Missions. & so on

[Zjuu.5431]

WvW needed a change like this.

[Menaka.5092]

This **looks promising**, but I have a few **concerns**.

 

* **Kill/Death ratio** directly influences the result of skirmishes, but you don't seem to be considering it at all in the **"player score"** - I strongly believe you should.

* **To create a balanced world population** seems like a daunting task. What constitues a good mix for a world population? (more on this below)

* **How to create a good alliance**: alliances could possibly have the same problem and the players don't have statistics to rely on to have a good picture of what our alliances lack. As the bare minimum you can consider to expose the amount of hours played, the timezone covered and the kdr for Players and Guilds, but there's a lot more that could be useful (see below)

* **Small guilds and guild cap for alliances**: in my WvW guild with about 40 people in the roster, only a few are still playing. If the guild size is not calculated based on **active players** I would probably have to kick my friends that are not playing, or I should join another WvW guild. Both those options are bad :(

 

 

### Balancing for roles

 

Any player could have a *"profile"* accounting for how much of these activities they performed. In some cases, maybe the activity of the whole squad could influence the role for each participant?

 

**Note:** commanding is tracked separately, so you could have an *Assaulter Commander*, a *Sieger Commander* and so on.

 

**Assaulter**

 

**Kills players in enemy territories.**

Hopefully, you already have the metrics to keep track of this!

 

**Sieger**

 

**Builds and uses offensive siege. Captures enemy "walled" objectives (towers, keeps, castles).**

Not sure if ANet can already keep track of this:

 

* siege building in enemy territory

* siege usage that damages enemy objectives

* if the objectives are captured by the player's faction before the siege is destroyed or the defense timer expires (if the siege is destroyed or the defense time expire it should be considered a failed attempt)

 

**Caretaker**

 

**Builds and refreshes siege in allied territories. Escorts dolyaks. Claims and applies upgrades to objectives.**

 

Probably needs a few metrics added for the defensive siege?

Could possibly be exploited by trolls.

 

**Defender**

 

**Kills players in friendly territories.**

Again, hopefully you already have the metrics for this.

 

**Roamer**

 

**Captures enemy "open" objectives: camps, ruins and shrines. Kills dolyaks.**

Again, hopefully you already have all the metrics for this.

 

### Additional Metrics

 

A few more ideas of stuff I would like tracked.

 

This would apply to Guilds, single Players and even Commanders where it makes sense.

 

* Was engaged in a fight, but went off combat before any participant died

* Has failed to capture an enemy objective

* How many times has fired siege X (cannon, arrowcart, mortar, etc...)

 

[Vast Green.2369]

I have never changed server, and wvw is a big reason why I´m still in the game. If everything moves to this random game type you envision, have fun, see ya in a couple years maybe. The people I care about are in dozens of guilds and are not playing for 8 week temporary success hunts.

[Baldrick.8967]

So if it's based on play time and pip decay is still a thing, all those people standing around waiting on pip decay will now count towards your total alliance play time.

 

I can see this leading to threats of 'log out now or gkick!' 'you're ruining our numbers', etc.

 

Or have a guild go dormant just before start of new season, so it has 500 slots filled but only 100 count towards the alliance play total. Season starts, 500 become active, steam rolled match up. Or play on alts for 8 weeks then come back to main guild, same thing.

 

Or 'stop following us you're ruining our stats'.

 

Elitism will run rampant, especially if they then make a decent prize for winning, and within a few months we'll be back to steam rolled matches and empty borders.

[Swamurabi.7890]

Will the Anet WvW guild switch alliances each week or will they be locked into an alliance for the season?

[dolcolax.1268]

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > @"dolcolax.1268" said:

> > > @"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.

>

> So, do you think PVE comunity or PvP comunity is not a thing????? those are mega servers and those comunities are far stronger than WvW is or ever was, you play with the people you enjoy playing, end of the story dosnt matter which server they are ¨on¨, you join discords you join guilds you intereact with them in game, server system just alienates people into yet another subgroup. Sure there is some people u wanna play with in your current server but you don't get to play with the other hundreds of people on other servers that u would potentially enjoy playing with.

 

im just stating my opinion. and for the record i have a pve and wvw guild. my wvw guild still is active compared to my pve guild. for some people it takes time to accept someone to be part of his community. a server rotation of 8 weeks isnt that long to form a bond with other people. to me this implememtation is just like a few have said a meaningless group vs group. this new system was created to introduce a sense of balance. but im sure by now the wvw guilds are already making alliances. leaving out smaller groups. in the end, it will be like a random moba game of randoms vs an organized group. these sure are changes. but are they addressing some of the core issues like ping lag and skill delay

 

[Menzo.2185]

And the maps? There will be changes in the maps, Apine, Desert, new, since we are all already tired?

Will there be new siege weapons? Air combat, Mount Combat?

[Lehtikali.4152]

what a wonderful surprise!

[Rampage.7145]

> @"danserafim.7051" said:

> And the maps? There will be changes in the maps, Apine, Desert, new, since we are all already tired?

> Will there be new siege weapons? Air combat, Mount Combat?

 

Please ignore the maps and whatver add ons like mounts or whatver focus on making the game good and balanced active and fun again, then worry about all those new things, if anything 99% of the players do not really care about any of them tbh we just wanna come home from work and have fun playing with our friends, dosnt matter if it is the same 5 year old map over and over as long it is fun. Look at games like counter strike DOTA LOL or whatver same old maps, it is all about the gameplay being fun, sure u can add stuff once you actually accomplish the first.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

I see this is the only way to stop the longest lasting camaraderie that is Maguuma. Finally a solution to stop the only consistent community in this game mode (with the help of being a toxic one).

 

RIP Toxic Community.

 

Hello MagSwagAlliance

[PabbyGaul.9682]

Anet cant win. All these ppl think making wvw = eotm is the answer?

 

Well..I guess colin was right. If you love wvw then you really love pve. Lets hope the gates and walls getbsome break bars and telegraphed attacks cuz the "balance" isnt really about numbers. 10000 pugs vs 10000 alliance wvwers wont be much of a matchup...wont happen you say? ..... stack those alliances to "win". If history has taught us anything its that humans will always fund a way to unbalance a system in their favor. I think things will be more unbalanced than ever, locked into 8 wks of hell. You thought wvw was dieing now. What new player is going to pug against coordinated groups? Back to pve land for them. The squeky wheels need to stop pretending anet will save them from unfairness.

[Jerry CCH.9816]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> **A message from McKenna Berdrow:**

Excuse me " how many WvW Tiers for New Alliance?

8 weeks Season so long. 4 is ehough and better

 

[Heibi.4251]

> @"Vermillion.4061" said:

> > @"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.

 

Um, you are blatantly wrong. Our server uses commander chat all the time. And I'm sure other servers with TS do as well.