World Restructuring

[Tiawal.2351]

> @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> If this change came to pass that'll be it for my girlfriend and I; I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's a good idea. Who wants a world-mmo without a stable world and community? Every two months everyone outside of your alliance is gonna be a stranger - do people literally only talk to and do things with their guild mates? They're basically saying that if you're not a wvw enthusiast this isn't the game for you anymore.. so it's not the game for us anymore.

 

Nope, not a stranger, but a fellow WvW player. Don't be a stranger. You will be part of a team that has the chance to fight back, with numbers & quality players comparable to that other "stranger" world you gonna play against.

[shiri.4257]

> @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> If this change came to pass that'll be it for my girlfriend and I; I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's a good idea. Who wants a world-mmo without a stable world and community? Every two months everyone outside of your alliance is gonna be a stranger - do people literally only talk to and do things with their guild mates? They're basically saying that if you're not a wvw enthusiast this isn't the game for you anymore.. so it's not the game for us anymore.

 

various worlds are already taking steps to try and establish a server alliance mentality. perhaps you should get more involved with your world in their discords/voicecoms/forums and help with the process. guilds coming and going from the worlds every 2 months is just the same as guilds hopping servers every couple months or even linked guilds hopping every couple months. the primary differences with this method is 1) more granularity for anet 2) guilds/alliances have the power to pick and choose who they want on their team for 2 months 3) there's a cap in comparison to initial wvw where 5000 man alliances overwhelmed the 500 man ones.

[Ilvanor.1986]

In the original post, it was stated, "play hours in WvW, commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels" to be contributing factors towards placement in worlds. People have chimed in that kill/death ratios should also factor into this equation, but my concern is people's ability to manipulate the system. While there are people who enjoy the challenge, there are also those who just want to dominate with little to no effort, so they cut back on hours played, or log in at different times and perhaps idle on a map to throw off the actual numbers. It doesn't take into consideration of commanders leading 30-50 people without a tag. People can stop their participation by taking a sentry point every so often, or not at all. And kill/death ratio, as suggested by the community, can be altered simply by being killed again and again without ever trying to fight back. All in the name of hoping to get a season where individuals and guilds can steam roll a potentially easier targets.

 

That said, I hope that it will be taken into consideration the numbers of a player then toss out X amount of anomalous data. For an example, if a player often sees three hours of play time from 8-11, then suddenly drops to zero a few days, and one to two in a different time area for three weeks, the first week of change would be disregarded.

The next two would be more of a pattern. Something like this could make changing play habits more difficult in manipulating the system. This would also help players who want the challenges of competitive game play to allow for real life issues to happen without feeling like they are being unduly punished for it.

[Euryon.9248]

> @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> If this change came to pass that'll be it for my girlfriend and I; I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's a good idea. Who wants a world-mmo without a stable world and community? Every two months everyone outside of your alliance is gonna be a stranger - do people literally only talk to and do things with their guild mates? They're basically saying that if you're not a wvw enthusiast this isn't the game for you anymore.. so it's not the game for us anymore.

 

Do you only "talk and do things" with people on your server right now? You never do any PvE or PvP with people outside your server? If you're "not a wvw enthusiast" that makes me think you primarily PvE/PvP, and those things won't change a whit. This sounds like yet another Chicken Little post about things that will never come to pass.

[Blaeys.3102]

> @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > @"obastable.5231" said:

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

> > >We are planning to give the community some lead time before this goes live. Organizing yourselves will take time and we want to allow that to happen. Transfers are something we can monitor better with this system and respond to more quickly. Since worlds should be relatively even the amount of transferring to the higher population worlds before they become full will be less. This should prevent guilds and alliances trying to use transferring to stack servers more difficult. We're open to discussion about this though and the "fullness %s" are things be looking at and adjusting if needed until we find a good spot.

> >

> > Your wording indicates that this is largely finished and nearly ready to deploy. Also the willingness to discuss it with the community and having such concrete answers to questions.

> >

> > Will our next re-link at the end of February possibly be our last, or will we get one or two more after that? :astonished:

>

> We have just entered the early stages of development and this will take some time to complete. I was just stating that we have already recognized the need for extra time to organize when the changes eventually go live.

 

So is the implementation a foregone conclusion?

 

There are a lot of people who think this is a very bad direction to go. You need to take that into account.

[Uthrax.4975]

Should have been this way from the beginning. I think it was obvious to some that the server/world setup would eventually fall prey to the same issues that Warhammer Online had; the 'There Can Only Be One (Highlander)' syndrome, as I like to call it. Basically, no one likes to get zerg-stomped over and over, so a lot of folks constantly server-hop to the 'best' servers, leaving others to 'die', finally devolving down to one dominant server (da ONE); even with a paywall such as GW2 has. I've always thought a faction would help resolve server-hop somewhat, if done right, and it looks like the plan laid out may be pretty solid. I'm looking forward to see how it all plays out....

 

Thanks for putting some effort into keeping WvW alive Anet, for a 5 year old game I'm impressed.

[Ragnarox.9601]

this is actually crap for roamers....

[Basharic.1654]

I understand something must be done, but this plan does not seem to speak to the biggest issue WvW has.

 

*****The vast bulk of people who play at certain times all play on the same side.*****

 

Because of this all you are really going to be doing is trading Blackgate's dominance for the Blakgate Alliance's dominance. Your player analysis metrics are great and all, but my read on this is player choice, through guilds and alliances, are going to override those metrics. To be honest I agree with that choice. It's the right thing to do. But by letting players self select you are opening the door to the same old BS.

 

The only way I can see to overcome this is a solution you should have already implemented years ago:

 

*****What WvW needs more than anything else is variable map population caps based on the time of day.*****

 

Cut the asian time zone population cap to HALF of North America's cap and this problem will be radically reduced.

 

There are not enough players in the asian time zones to populate three factions evenly at the same population caps you have for NA. If you allow them to, that population will always cluster in one place. It doesn't matter if you call it a server or an alliance.

[ShionKreth.1542]

> @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > If this change came to pass that'll be it for my girlfriend and I; I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's a good idea. Who wants a world-mmo without a stable world and community? Every two months everyone outside of your alliance is gonna be a stranger - do people literally only talk to and do things with their guild mates? They're basically saying that if you're not a wvw enthusiast this isn't the game for you anymore.. so it's not the game for us anymore.

>

> Do you only "talk and do things" with people on your server right now? You never do any PvE or PvP with people outside your server? If you're "not a wvw enthusiast" that makes me think you primarily PvE/PvP, and those things won't change a whit. This sounds like yet another Chicken Little post about things that will never come to pass.

 

You're correct, of course I do. But, it's much less satisfying for that specific content with people you run one thing with then never see again. My girlfriend and I left ffxiv for gw2 because all the content is like that there and nothing happens in the world, and now the world is going to be secondary in this as well.. even less than secondary; disposable. Even if you don't feel the same way surely you can understand our disappointment.

[misterman.1530]

I like the idea, but fear the implementation. If many people select a specific guild, how do you factor in play time? I mean, if every guild on Blackgate decides to stick together and form an alliance, what then? Will they be forcibly split up?. Not sure how many play on Blackgate - since ANet won't talk population numbers - but if 500 different people play on, say, my server, I would be surprised. So, what we will have is a 500 player alliance called "Blackgate" - so nothing will really change?

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > > @"CETheLucid.3964" said:

> > > > @"Keviin Snow.5760" said:

> > > > I Hate it , been playing wvw for a long time , that's all I do

> > > > but what can I do they took the money , anet just put out what they like

> > > > ppl who hate this are going leave , and play other game

> > > > its a good way for anet to make money , every 8 weeks

> > > > ppl need to PAY to transfer to the server he or she like

> > > > since u cant stay in the same server

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Not how it works. You don't have to pay to transfer anywhere if you and your buddies come together and alliance/guild with one and other before hand. Paying to transfer is you changing your mind about it. You have months, maybe a year, to get it all figured out. Get to it.

> >

> > Oh?

> >

> > You're saying that you get put into one alliance, hate it, you can move freely elsewhere? Or will there be a transfer fee?

> >

> > You get put in with a bunch of guilds you really don't like, and you're stuck or you move. They're not going to have a 25 person "alliance" .. they'll fill it up. You won't have a choice, unless you have moved your chess pieces and *stacked your alliance*

> >

> > The alliance is just another name for a server. I don't think people get that. Only it gives guilds more power. Think about that. Then think about the history of this game.

> >

> > And I'm also thinking there will be a transfer fee.

> >

> > And lots of revenue, because very few people will be happy with first choices.

>

> You dont get "put into an alliance" you either decide to join a guild and that guild gets into an alliance and then u play with all those people, or you just RNG it as a pug cuz u dont care, either way u chose who you play with or simple u just dont care enough to actually join a WvW group u want to play with in which case there is absolutely no point on you posting this since you are the one choosing not to play with people you enjoy..

 

... as a pug you don’t care. The start of an inclusive gaming environment. And it hasn’t even launched.

 

Just re-read this response.

 

I said what if you have a small guild and you don’t have an alliance. You will get placed randomly. If you dislike your placement, pay to transfer or don’t play for eight weeks.

 

It takes away choice, and gives it only to the most stacked servers, I mean alliances.

 

In the end, it resolves nothing, but alienates a core group.

 

[cobracommander.5861]

I’m reading a lot of complaints about “alliance stacking”, but I think you’re forgetting that Anet will be controlling the pop size of them, how many will be allowed together on each world, while also taking into account individual player contribution. I’m assuming alliances of similar sizes/player time will be matched against each other.

 

If BG culls their guilds of players who don’t contribute or log and “stack” to the alliance pop limit with their top tier players who do, I don’t have a problem with that. Other alliances will also have to work to bring in players who contribute. It’s a competitive game mode folks, and there just is no way to do this perfectly. The biggest problem with WvW has always been “coverage wars,” and this solves that.

[zinkz.7045]

> @"Tom.6032" said:

> 2) Some servers are able to maintain a high tier position simple by night capping objectives when they face little opposition. Of course come prime time on the opposing servers they are unable to compete - while the proposed change may serve to 'equalize' populations across servers at all times it would seem that simple decreasing war score for a server when they outnumber the opposition/out of prime time would be a better way.

 

Adding a sort of handicap system to the scoring is not the better way, because all it does is move the odd outlier server that relies heavily on off-peak PPT down the rankings, it doesn't improve imbalances of population/coverage at all, so all that will happen is other servers will face those outlier servers in lower tiers, they will be vastly outnumbered at night, they will still in most cases outnumber them in prime, so nothing has really changed, other than it is some other server's problem.

 

Nor does your method do anything to address more subtle differences in population - e.g you have servers that have strong morning presence in the same matchup as those who stronger in the afternoon (both are fine at prime), which makes for a dull matchup a lot of the time, Anet's suggestion in theory could at least improve that, where as yours would do nothing.

 

[Rampage.7145]

> @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > > @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > > > @"CETheLucid.3964" said:

> > > > > @"Keviin Snow.5760" said:

> > > > > I Hate it , been playing wvw for a long time , that's all I do

> > > > > but what can I do they took the money , anet just put out what they like

> > > > > ppl who hate this are going leave , and play other game

> > > > > its a good way for anet to make money , every 8 weeks

> > > > > ppl need to PAY to transfer to the server he or she like

> > > > > since u cant stay in the same server

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Not how it works. You don't have to pay to transfer anywhere if you and your buddies come together and alliance/guild with one and other before hand. Paying to transfer is you changing your mind about it. You have months, maybe a year, to get it all figured out. Get to it.

> > >

> > > Oh?

> > >

> > > You're saying that you get put into one alliance, hate it, you can move freely elsewhere? Or will there be a transfer fee?

> > >

> > > You get put in with a bunch of guilds you really don't like, and you're stuck or you move. They're not going to have a 25 person "alliance" .. they'll fill it up. You won't have a choice, unless you have moved your chess pieces and *stacked your alliance*

> > >

> > > The alliance is just another name for a server. I don't think people get that. Only it gives guilds more power. Think about that. Then think about the history of this game.

> > >

> > > And I'm also thinking there will be a transfer fee.

> > >

> > > And lots of revenue, because very few people will be happy with first choices.

> >

> > You dont get "put into an alliance" you either decide to join a guild and that guild gets into an alliance and then u play with all those people, or you just RNG it as a pug cuz u dont care, either way u chose who you play with or simple u just dont care enough to actually join a WvW group u want to play with in which case there is absolutely no point on you posting this since you are the one choosing not to play with people you enjoy..

>

> ... as a pug you don’t care. The start of an inclusive gaming environment. And it hasn’t even launched.

>

> Just re-read this response.

>

> I said what if you have a small guild and you don’t have an alliance. You will get placed randomly. If you dislike your placement, pay to transfer or don’t play for eight weeks.

>

> It takes away choice, and gives it only to the most stacked servers, I mean alliances.

>

> In the end, it resolves nothing, but alienates a core group.

>

 

And again if your guild actually cared even as a small guild u would try to find and alliance of people u want to play with so u would never hate your matchup, you would be playing with all the people you enjoy playing with. If 3 20 man gulds form up an alliance they count as 60 players, you will be placed as part of a big world alongside 500 or 1000 other players that includes multiple guilds and whatnot but you will 100% play with the people u want to play with whover else is on the world for the matchup duration u don't really care cuz all that matters is that u will be playing with the people u actually wanna play with. If you form up an alliance with 3 10 man guilds u will not be facing big blob guilds on your own, you will have your own world with 1000 players including big alliances to fight the other worlds.

It is all about creating your won comunity now, be part of a guild make sure u join and alliance full of people u want to play with, so no matter what the match is u will always have fun with your people regardless of whoever the other guilds are, u may like them u may not, but that should not matter since u will already be playing with all your friends.

No more servers closed, no more server transfer to play with friends, none of that will be a thing anymore if anything, if anything this makes WvW a new playground for comunities to form up, i can tell you what alienate is: to be on a server closed for 7 months and having friends waiting to transfer there to play with you during all that time and not being able to, sending tickets to arenanet everyday begging for them to manually move your friend into your forever closed server, that is an alienated comunity bro.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

> @"Weez.6315" said:

> can we get some nice rankings after each season?

> stuff like

> player without squad with the best k/d

 

could be some siege monkey tho

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Richard.8207" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > I don't understand the logic of people who want to remain on some specific team but don't want to invest in being a team member by joining or making a guild or alliance. Why should you get preference over someone who is more dedicated to team-building?

>

> This is exactly what people are talking about when they say elitism will ruin this new system.

>

> I do not blame you at all, by the way. The system basically demands elitism. You only have X slots in an alliance, and you want the most fun possible to result from those slots, so you want people most committed to adding to your enjoyment to have those slots. Your response is the only one that makes sense. But hopefully you can understand casual players are not served well at all.

>

> The thing is most casual players, myself included, recognize the hardcore players create the environment we have. The hardcore players have the required knowledge and expertise to lead everyone else. So I definitely want you to have tons of fun. But I also really hope the developers make a system that encourages a positive experience for casual players. But you guys will be wasting so much energy coordinating with the other guilds that random casuals will be an after thought. And I would completely understand.

 

I'm addressing the people who don't want to keep their current player relationships together by joining a community WvW guild or alliance. Are you saying you refuse to join a guild or alliance? You are prejudging that some community guild or alliance is going to only want "the most committed". There will certainly be those, but that does nothing to prevent anyone from making their own alliances with different goals.

[Upperground.6849]

It would probably be wise to increase the amount of guilds one can join with at least 1 together with this change so nobody can complain about not being able to join a new guild for wvw alliance specifically because they already are in 5 guilds they don't want to leave.

Looks like a small cost change with big profit to me.

So any individual who claims server loyalty can join or create a server community wvw guild where every other individual can join, fitting into an old-server-alliance or creating one.

 

Fixes most complaints except those that fail at reading I guess.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Atlas.9704" said:

> A change like this just might make a casual like me actually want to try WvWvW again in the future.

 

I have another guild mate that hasn't played WvW in about 3 years now who said the same thing.

 

 

[Donari.5237]

> @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> So is the implementation a foregone conclusion?

>

> There are a lot of people who think this is a very bad direction to go. You need to take that into account.

 

Re-read the OP, they already are taking that into account:

 

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> **A message from McKenna Berdrow:**

> 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.

 

 

[Mystic Moon Maiden.3786]

I'm not certain why the servers are not set up to just block entry when another server outnumbers another server by a certain number of players. If 2 servers have 50 +/- people on a map and the third server only has 30 on, then just block entry onto the map of x number of additional players until the lower population increases. This would stop the blob fests we see and make fights a bit more balanced. Seems like a much simpler solution to try rather than completely destroying the system that is currently in place.

[Rod.6581]

> @"HardRider.2980" said:

> > @"Rod.6581" said:

> > So, when do we get this?

> >

> > Do we get it this year, or wait for next expansion. Or we will get this in Q3 2025?

>

> I don't think they have a set in stone period yet, which is very wise... just a more hopeful time period..

> A period I dont think players should know right now. But from the wording sounds like it's many months off from launch to live yet

 

Well, I didn't expect them to give the exact date. But they can at least say year (or a decade) in which we are to get this implemented in game.

[Alecu.4786]

Oh my gosh! I am beyond excited to see this change go through! The plan sounds really solid! So glad you guys decided to restructure the system, alliances like back in GW1 would be amazing! Keep up the good work ArenaNet!! <3

[Kaiser.9873]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> Wow anet... just wow... You just greenlighted this pathetic Battlegroups concept. I am beyond disappointed and shocked. You just made WvW completely meaningless. I wonder how long it will take until everyone is running around in an EoTM style ktrain.

>

> I no longer as a player can control what server I get to play and stay on, who I get to play with, when I get to play, how long I can play. I am now going to be "evaluated" to see if I am worthy enough? What kind of ridiculous nonsense is this? How in the world are you expecting to improve WvW like this? This is not even WvW anymore, this is randoms vs randoms.

>

> How will people communicate when everyone like this? Is every group supposed to be in a different comm? This will lead to a total break down in communication, coordination and teamwork of any kind.

>

> I cant believe you are doing this anet, I am just shocked...

 

Agree with you on this. This is just silly. Guild stacking will be ridiculous. Individual player evaluation based on play hours? Why on Earth would you go to this over timezone map caps, which would be easier to implement?

 

Why would any alliance invite a relatively unknown guild?

 

The player that plays 2 hours a day is valued less than a scout that might sit in a keep for 6 hours a day, even if that 2-hour player is a top end player and the scout afk's 4 of the hours they play?

 

You are going to make a fortune on transfers. Which seems to be the end point on this.

 

The worlds/guilds that have massive warchests are going to dominate like never before. Stackgate situation will feel amateurish compared to what this will be.

 

Better find that WvW guild now, because they are going to be very very choosy soon. Hope you don't get processed out.

 

[Sister Saxifrage.7361]

Here is my hope: that the initial "Alliance" groups are large enough to accomodate the entire active WvW population of a server. So that we head into this thing with communities that want to stay together, able to do so via "(Server) Alliance".

[Xernth.8561]

First impressions, it seems like a good idea. Please be Very conservative with Alliance sizes. Even 500-1000 seems too large. Let people have a core group they play with and get others to play with every eight weeks, seems great.