World Restructuring

[Radymski.4987]

Also why some idiot always gotta quote the whole op... Learn to use forum before learning wvw...

[Loosmaster.8263]

My biggest concern is "Are we going to get a chance to sample this or are you going to just flip the switch and deal with it?"

[Rampage.7145]

> @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> While this will likely make the game mode more competitive and give hardcore players a more balanced experience, I think it will also likely push your more casual WvWers out completely. I know dozens of players that enjoy 1-2 days a week in WvW alongside their more hardcore friends. With limited space in alliances, I don't see them making the room for those more casual players - creating a have/have nots dynamic in the game mode. So, while it may seem like a good thing for some, it may be the end of the game mode for many others.

>

> It's also worth noting that those same casual players are unlikely to be as active in this subforum as the more hardcore WvWers. Anet really needs a better way to get their feedback on this issue.

 

So you are saying everyone who plays LOL, conter strike or whatever are all ESL players???? no room for non professionals, no room for the casuals that play 1 day a week with their girlfriends???? i think you are totally wrong as long the matchmaking system is somewhat capable, there will always be room for casuals in WvW just the way casuals play any actual really competitive E-sport game and still find it fun.

[Malediktus.9250]

This sounds very horrible to me.

Instead of just deleting and merging the most inactive worlds you also kill the few server communities that are still working.

Also sounds like it will make the life of pugs who played in those server communities but are not part of a WvW guild miserable.

[Yukio blaster.9082]

> @"Araleg.3152" said:

> So if myself and a friend somehow manages to not get paired on the right server, we're not in the same guilds and have no interest in joining a WvW guild, or maybe one gets kicked due to inactivity. Are you expecting us to pay xxx gems every 8 weeks just to play together for the few weeks we decide to play?

>

> Seems like this change will alienate casual WvW play.

>

 

make a guild with two players you and your friend and make it a wvw guild if you hate everyone that match.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Meridian.9103" said:

> You could all found or join a big overall community guild and mark that as your wvw guild. Would that solve the issue for you?

 

This is the solution I am suggesting to other small guilds and roamers.

 

 

[Honest John.4673]

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> This sounds very horrible to me.

> Instead of just deleting and merging the most inactive worlds you also kill the few server communities that are still working.

> Also sounds like it will make the life of pugs who played in those server communities but are not part of a WvW guild miserable.

 

It's almost as if a server community, that is still working as you said, by definition, is fully capable of making an alliance of people they want to play with in said community. And the pugs can join that community alliance, if they cared. "Care" being the key word here.

[LindaLinda.9106]

> @"Mr Green.4157" said:

> > @"LindaLinda.9106" said:

> > In the new setup, guilds will form alliances with other guilds so they can run together.

> > But if guilds form alliances with guilds on their current respective server, we'll essentially have the same guilds on one world vsing the same guilds on the other world.

> > Wouldn't this mirror the current system? i.e. BG aligns together; they'll eventually find themselves at the top?

> > How will this fix the coverage issues?

> >

> > I'm confused.

> >

>

> I doubt the alliances will be large enough to contain every guild on a server as full as Blackgate. You'll end up with multiple alliances made up of various guilds on Blackgate that can be separated to allow for more balanced matchups.

 

Thank you for your post.

As you stated, if Anet keeps the alliances at a reasonable cap (enough to prevent stacking), I can see the potential of the new system correcting coverage issues and unbalanced matchups.

But as always, we can only wait to see if Anet can deliver.

[Malediktus.9250]

Alliance can only hold 1000 people as far as I understand. Our TeamSpeak server has several thousand people who at least log in every now and then to it.

Riverside definitely has far more than 1000 WvW players, and that only counts the TeamSpeak users.

[Sol.6213]

> @"Endelon.1042" said:

> > @"KOPPER.1458" said:

> > > @"Endelon.1042" said:

> > > > @"KOPPER.1458" said:

> > > > Hard to tell right now but it seems this system doesn't bode well for those who aren't in a guild? Am I wrong?

> > >

> > > According to the post you will just be randomly assigned to a world for the duration of that matchup season (8 weeks). So, if you really enjoy running with a certain person or guild then you'll want to join their guild or alliance.

> >

> > I don't really want to join their guilds. I'm a more casual player and this seems to hurt those people. I like to join the guilds I know now from time to time. I am not saying this is a bad idea but it seems like I'll just be thrown into a world where I don't know people and the matchup might be terrible.

>

> If you're a casual player that likes to join from time to time then pretty much nothing is changing for you. It would be the same thing if most of the guilds on your current server transferred off to somewhere else and you were left following totally new and different guilds that had transferred onto the server.

 

From the description of the system thus far, I don't believe that your statement that nothing is changing is entirely correct.

 

I've moved servers an bunch in the past few years and there are differences in culture and overall play style (zerg, roam, fight, ktrain), and player skill (yes, really) depending on what server and timezone you play in.

 

Leaving yourself to just accept where Anet's algorithm places an individual player, casual or not, doesn't sound like very good advice to me.

 

I think if you are interested in WvW at all, and certainly if you are interested in a particular WvW play style, you owe it to yourself to try to join a guild or alliance that could possibly meet your needs.

 

Otherwise you will be spending transfer gems or waiting 8 weeks to get yourself closer to where you would like to be and how you like to play.

 

I think the real difficulty in adopting this proposed system is being able to communicate with players, guilds, and alliances in order to find out where you yourself fit as a player.

[Bezerker.2379]

Really not a fan of this. One of the things that is awesome as poor as it is designed is "world identity". Dynamic worlds where people shift between them instead of worlds shifting will remove the world identity. We have gotten to know the guilds, the roamers, etc of our worlds. Some of our most infamous commanders have been doing it on our world for years. This removes that.

 

Now, it will feel like another pvp queue except longer.

 

Also, what will this do to roaming/small havoc guilds? We will not be partaking in the massive battles (and likely not even commanding) so where will we fall?

 

Do not want. Keep the existing worlds. Everyone whines about fighting blackgate but fighting QQ members was one of my favorite small group things to do. :)

[glass.3245]

> @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> Oh my! 18 pages!? Better start reading...

 

I hope that the strength of this response helps you demonstrate to the game's creative team that there is still significant interest in WvW and the mode warrants serious attention.

[Nemesis.2019]

I love this change, WvW has become boring....along with the balance patch that will finally split WvW from PvE, this might be Anet's best patch in a long time.. WvW is changing for the better..

[Vermillion.4061]

Just ignore anyone who is on Blackgate, you'll get the real opinion of the community then. :)

[Grim West.3194]

> @"Bezerker.2379" said:

> Really not a fan of this. One of the things that is awesome as poor as it is designed is "world identity". Dynamic worlds where people shift between them instead of worlds shifting will remove the world identity. We have gotten to know the guilds, the roamers, etc of our worlds. Some of our most infamous commanders have been doing it on our world for years. This removes that.

>

> Now, it will feel like another pvp queue except longer.

>

> Also, what will this do to roaming/small havoc guilds? We will not be partaking in the massive battles (and likely not even commanding) so where will we fall?

>

> Do not want. Keep the existing worlds. Everyone whines about fighting blackgate but fighting QQ members was one of my favorite small group things to do. :)

 

Alliance identity will take over.

 

WvW needs this. The current system is garbage for the vast majority of players. Many of whom gave up on GW2 years ago because of how bad it is. This will bring some of them back and help keep the current players who were about to give up on GW2.

[SkyShroud.2865]

This is some potential problems face with the solution.

 

**Alliance manipulations**

Players can possibly stack alliance, consisting of same timezones. This while has little impact on NA which is huge to begin with. It does has huge impact on other timezones. It is important to note that NA is huge, thus we are more than likely to see 3 or 4 tiers once again. Therefore, if players do stack in an alliance of similar timezone, the balance will collapse immediately even if the system hotplug non-afflicted players or guilds, it will never have enough for 3 tiers for some timezones.

 

Another concern would be highly skilled guilds align themselves in the same alliance and in the same timezone. We have seen this numerous times over the years, guilds stack and if people say it unlikely to happen again, I would like to remind everyone that human don't change that easily. In that event, how is the system going to hotplug enough skilled players to balance out 3 or 4 tiers?

 

**Inactive Players & Guilds**

Will the system identify inactive players and guilds? Will the system prune this inactive players and guilds such that they have to re-select their server?

 

Also, how is the system gonna deal with players that chose a wvw guild for the sake of choosing it despite showing no interest or never step foot into wvw? Likewise, how would this affect the calculation for alliance?

 

**Motivations**

Given that server identity is no more, or no more than 8 weeks. How will that motivate the non-afflicted players to try their best to destroy their enemies? Will there any incentive to motivate them? Likewise, would there be any motivations for pug commanders to tag up much again?

[Stand The Wall.6987]

wow this is an ambitious move, exactly what wvw needs. rather than breaking up communities, the alliance system imo would draw them closer together as if you don't group up you will be lost to the mists. ofc there will always be people who disagree, and when this change comes I hope they can enter into it with an open mind. oh, and that this new system works would be good too lol.

 

anet, ive been disappointed in the past but you continue to impress. I hope this new system works out for us!

[Swamurabi.7890]

> @"Namer.9750" said:

> > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > Oh my! 18 pages!? Better start reading...

>

> I'll make your job easier and say the vast majority of the unique responses is positive for Alliances =) Most of the unique naysayers cite community and 'small roaming' guilds, but I think you guys can go a long way by just reassuring them them they won't be left by the side.

>

> > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

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

> > > Oh my! 18 pages!? Better start reading...

> >

> > At least you added a comment on the 18th page instead of stopping after the first day like most other popular WvW threads in the past.

>

> Don't disparage him, my dude. Seattle is PST, he's opened this thread first thing after getting to work this morning at 9:15 am.

 

9:15 and just getting to work? You mean you actually see the sun while going to work? Unpossible. I get up at 4AM, arrive at work at 6AM, see the sun after 2:30 because I work in a basement.

[shiri.4257]

Now you must feel pride for the horde!!!

[Honest John.4673]

This is probably the only way ANet can fix the population/coverage issue which has been an inherent flaw to the gamemode since launch while also keeping guilds/communities somewhat intact. Funny how if you stare at a problem long enough and have explored all other options the logical solution becomes apparent to you.

[diamondgirl.6315]

 

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > The only item you need to play WvW for is Gift of Battle, which has always been required since day one for making Legendary weapons. It doesn't matter what server or other team you are on to obtain it.

 

In FACT, now that match ups will be determined by player experience and participation, it should be easier to get in and do some Gift of Battle playing around, because you will be placed with other PVEers and new players, so you might be able to get something done without the roving murderous gank squads of the more experienced vaporizing you.

 

It might make the mode MORE fun for new players.

 

[wanya.1697]

> @"KOPPER.1458" said:

> Hard to tell right now but it seems this system doesn't bode well for those who aren't in a guild? Am I wrong?

 

the best way to ensure you can play with most of the players you played before is mostlikely to join your servers community guild if there is one

[AlmightJebus.2875]

Problem with this, at least in my opinion:

1: it doesnt completely solve the bandwagon issue, if a guild who's in a bad match-up with guilds they dont like or are not good ect. Only need one person on a better server and then they can hop over. Basically (i dont know how they'll solve the gem costs) making it harder to stop bandwagoning really.

2: it completely ruins the servers who have taken time, and money, to build up a community in a particular server, the forums, ts, discords, all pretty much uselss as you'll be shoving the wh.ole community around different servers.

3: Alliance systems pretty cool. (not really a issue but i felt like i was being too negative)

4: My guild is set-up for helping those in wvw, getting the new pve players and training them to be more effective, how wvw works ect. WITH this new system i have to hope at the end of 8 weeks i get a server with a majority of pugs rather than guilds, because if i dont, then my guild is completely useless. I dont think new players to wvw would jump across servers just to train in wvw. In effect, killing my guild, and any others like it if they're around.

I dont know.. I feel like it needs a lot of work before this would actually benefit wvw :/

 

On the Plus side, Alliance system is great, if we could get a alliance chat with it as well, that would be awesome, be able to cross communicate through wvw, hell yeah im down

 

[ReaverKane.7598]

@"Raymond Lukes.6305" I have a question:

What happens if an alliance during a season ends up with more members than allowed?

Like if you have a guild of 250 guys but only 30 of those are active in WvW, but you make it a WvW guild, and ally with other guilds, and hit the 1000 cap. And if during the season all 250 of those players start being active in WvW (potentially in the same world, dunno how that would work - i guess it's two questions), which would make the alliance at least 1220 strong (considering that the max should be 1000 as per previous posts).

 

So questions are:

- What would happen in that scenario?

- Would the extra 220 be allowed to join the same world as their guild's alliance (if it wasn't full). Or because the alliance had hit max they'd be split?

- Would the alliance be forced to break apart on the next "season"?

- Also what would happen to a new player or a guildless player that joins a guild within a full alliance? Is he denied the option to join the same world?

- What if the previous player had joined the alliance from a different guild that happened to be on the same world in that matchup? What would happen in the next one (given the alliance would be over capacity)?

 

PS: Yeah i guess it was a few more questions than i antecipated :mrgreen:

[Blinding.6457]

First of all thx for the hard work =)!

 

"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. "

 

I think it is important to take in consideration the fighting skill of every person, guild, and Alliance. Some servers might score high on points per tick and lead machups because of it. However sometimes those servers are less skilled in fights because they just spend less time on it (or value it differently). Some players like to fight more then others. When you take kills into consideration you could make it so that every matchup has a decent fighting base. Therefor the fighters alway have decent fights in every matchup. And the people that like to point per tick more will be satisfied because of the other parameters you are taking into account.

 

This should lead to not having matchups where: 1. Fighters need to bang their heads against the wall over and over again against fully sieged up towers or keeps. 2. Having machups with such superior fighting forces that the world is almost incapable of holding a keep regardless of the siege inside. Therefore I believe that a players's kills may contribute to creating a challenging and balanced matchup.