World Restructuring

[Odynol.4786]

> @"Suddendeath.2035" said:

> Please get this done asap sample of a discord page from REKT FA guild the lengths they are going to to tank

>

 

 

I'm literally the only person in the guild who's been on all day lmao but thanks for caring enough to spy on us

[JVJD.4912]

So what does this do with Non-wvw guild players that go to just farm tickets with roaming commanders?

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

> @"EbonFreeman.4051" said:

> Dear Anet, I love this and I'm sorry to drown you in questions.

There are 31 pages of replies to this post you cannot really make us drown more.

> When will this be implemented (approx. quarter)?

Unknown. We will try and keep the community updated as to the status of this change as we go.

> Without saying too much about the algorithm, is alliance linked mainly limited by PPT skill, K/D skill, rank, (WvW) activity, or running coverage?

Not sure what you mean here. The idea will be to balance worlds based on adjusted play hours of players. Alliances/guilds are groups of players that the system assigns to a world together. The system when creating worlds will fit the pieces (Alliances, Guilds, and Individual Players) together so the end total adjusted hours per world are even. This means there will be a mix of Alliances, Guilds and Individuals on all worlds. At this time there is not plan to track PPT, K/D, rank, etc into this calculation (though we are open to discussing the pros and cons for using any of those). We are trying to make a number of evenly matched worlds for the season and not three tier-1-worlds three tier-2-worlds etc.

> Will/can we get the information about the alliance via the API?

We will look to update the API with any relevant changes needed as a result of this change.

> Can we get match awards for match wins like PvP with guilds? Guild with the most kills, most defensive/offensive points, most healing/revives?

> Something for winning a match even if its map selection?

The proposed system opens the door discussing these kinds of changes internally and with the community. If the matches are, even then there can be discussion about match rewards etc. This is not, however, part of this initial proposal and eventual release.

> If a player changes their alliance server or main WvW guild, when or how long before it becomes active?

If a player changes their alliance/wvw guild they will remain on the world they were assigned until the next season. Then any changes they made will take effect and they will get places accordingly.

> When changed, does it still carry the stigma of no pips for a week?

No you will receive pips normally provided you do not transfer.

> When a player is in WvW, are they required to rep their main WvW guild?

No there is restriction on our end. You can rep any guild you wish.

> In PvP, I have a tendency not to get linked with people I've blocked? Will the relinking be affect that? Or can we get a guild block list?

I have added this to my list of more things to think about but at first blush no you will not be able to block guilds.

> Is there a way we could get a mechanism to hire small/guildless groups even if we had to pay gems to get in for a limited period of time?

What does this mean? There will be a number of individual players on every world. There will be small guilds on every world. Why would you need to heir them?

 

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> Player activity is the only thing that determines population status. Do you understand. And BG had everyone beat by double. Counting physical accounts is largely pointless because if we were to do that then each server has about 100k+ accounts able to enter wvw. Your points dont make sense. BG is stacked to death. Arena Net pointed it out.

 

And all those guys will join the same alliance and we will have the exact same issues in WvW -- well except for a large chunk of loyalists gone.

 

[DeadlySynz.3471]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > And BG had everyone beat by double.

> Careful. The chart shows that BG only doubled playtime of half the other other worlds. They beat out every world substantially, but doubled only the average. That makes it a useful metric for explaining why BG is never linked, why they win their match-ups most of the time, and why they remain in T1. It's also helpful in explaining why "world" is no longer a useful tool in building even match-ups.

>

> Let's be careful, however, not to overstate the actual numbers or the importance of the metric.

>

 

The quote was (in addition to more active play hours), was in fact, BG **population is double** (not including links). That means minus links, BG's population is at minimum double that of any other population. If we are talking about NA, I'm going to assume that say MAG, YB, and SOS are next in line for population, but at **minimum**, BG's population **doubles theirs**.

 

Now when you add the very links of those 3 servers, we have Bolis Pass, Anvil Rock, and Devona's Rest. In order for YB, Mag, or SoS to match BG's population, those 3 servers on their own must have an equal population to YB, Mag, and SoS. Obviously this isn't the case because they are links. **That means BG still outnumbers the servers even with their links**. That's why it's crystal clear they keep winning

 

Look at it this way, grading on the curve with BG as an example. BG's population is 100, that means that Mag, SoS, and YB are around a population of 50. Borlis pass, Anvil Rock, and Devona's Rest are links and don't obviously have a population close to 50. It might be somewhere between 20-30. That means adding them to the other 3 servers, brings the total population up to 70 - 80. BG's population is still 100, still outnumbers the competition, and falls completely in line with the **"30% bigger"** comment.

 

Individual play hours are a moot point because of this. All it means is BG can slack off and still win; but the fact they play longer hours just exacerbates the problem. Now you can't fault a player for playing longer hours, but you certainly can fault a server for over-stacking themselves and buying guilds en mass.

[Zephyr.8015]

Alright so BG had a scout last night put in 20hrs, 1 person putting in 20hrs of WvW game play time. Player play time may be the only metric they use to determine population but as I have stated its easily skew-able in either direction and is not entirely accurate that more play time is equal to more population. We have servers like JQ who intentionally did a black out to tank to T4 to attempt to get their server opened. Once again tanking out of a tier is not an accurate representation of their population. I will also mention Maguuma who has solid numbers in T2, but as soon as they come into T1 they go away and are at the bottom. So if Anet is only using played WvW hours to determine if a server is "stacked" or "dead" I feel that it is unfair to both parties. If you have a player base that cares you will have more play time, its as simple as that. I will agree with Anet saying Blackgate has the most played WvW hours, being a BG player and being an active WvW'er I see this, but I will not agree with the assumption that is being made that BG has the most players in comparison to other servers. We have dead zones just like everyone else weather others choose to believe it or not.

[Richard.8207]

> @"StormPE.8201" said:

> * Why do you choose to play WvW alone?

 

I’m an introvert.

 

> * What benefit do you gain from avoiding guild association that you do gain from server association?

 

Guilds have expectations I can fail to meet. The world has no expectations of me. Guilds are social by design, and I’m an introvert.

 

> * What would be the difference between your current situation if you were to join a 'casual/community' guild/alliance for shard placements only and not rep a guild tag?

 

I would have to spend time and energy finding that group. They’d probably be social. I already have a server. In fact I have more than one since I have multiple accounts. That guild wouldn’t provide as many tags at predictable times as an entire server does.

 

> * What kinds of accolades bring you to WvW in the first place as a solo player?

 

I can do the same things as you can, so this is just an insulting question. I’ll ignore it so I don’t get more annoyed.

 

> * What options exist for the proposed WvW changes to be implemented while addressing your concerns for losing your identity?

 

There is no solution trying to maintain community while also forcing everyone to have more diverse WvW experiences. You’d have to have two options, so basically a server queue and a “balance the fights” queue. The balance queue would obviously have diverse experiences, while the servers would just be more balanced versions of what exists today. This works in other games, but is apparently undesirable to the developers. (It was surely considered as it is the most common solution to this type of problem)

 

> **2. There will be guilds/alliances that will use performance metrics to trim their rosters and create elite fight squads.**

> * As this already happens on every server I've played on in WvW, why is this suddenly a serious concern?

> * If you aren't interested in joining an elite fight squad with strict regulations, why would this effect you?

> * Since 'stacked' alliances will likely be matched against each other because of algorithm metrics, what prevents you from joining a large casual alliance to avoid them?

 

The only impact of this elitism is the impact on how friendly the environment is to randoms. A large casual alliance will not have even close to the same coverage of tags to join as the entire server has, especially as the most knowledgeable and dedicated players have the most reason to ensure they join an appropriate group.

 

> **3. There are some players that belong to multiple WvW guilds or already have full guild slots, and these changes would be difficult for those players to embrace.**

> * Would your issue be resolved if there was an extra guild slot added with the changes to compensate for the more strict 1 guild/alliance requirement for shard placement?

> * Would you be better able to accommodate your multiple guilds if WvW tagged guilds were more easily able to aquire the WvW buffs?

> * How open are your multiple guilds about forming an alliance to allow their players to play WvW together?

> * Would you be better off being sorted based on your friends list rather than a guild?

 

No single guild fixes wanting to play with different groups at different times. If someone plays with 3 different groups of 4 people, but each of those people play with 3 groups of 4, it chains into far too large a group (12 at first stage, 96 at 2nd stage, 768 at 3rd stage, etc). And a lot of people play with more than 3 groups or groups larger than 4 people. Someone will prioritize one of their other groups, and rightly so as people have different priorities. The end result will likely mean casuals that enjoy hanging out with hardcore players on their “off day” won’t get to do so any more.

 

I’ll skip role playing questions as I can’t answer for role players.

[Khain.9436]

So they change the entire "wvw" because of 1 server on a US server? Just because the other servers cant handle them?

Double the population, who cares? Isnt that the reason why there are Q's on the maps? Yes, they maybe have Q's the whole day but if you have a decent defence/commanders then they arent that hard to be stopped...

Making a whole new system wont solve this problem because the bigger/stronger/hardcore guilds will ally with each other and then it will become even worse, especially for the people who don't wanna join those type of guilds.

It's a bit hypocrit to change the whole system just because a server with "double the population"... And let me guess, 95% of the people who like this change are US people > people who cant win against BG (And ofcourse the people who dont even play wvw anymore)

Would love to see a Poll about this, if the real wvw'ers actually like this (and NOT only from US wvw'ers)

[OriOri.8724]

> @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > @"EbonFreeman.4051" said:

> > Dear Anet, I love this and I'm sorry to drown you in questions.

> There are 31 pages of replies to this post you cannot really make us drown more.

> > When will this be implemented (approx. quarter)?

> Unknown. We will try and keep the community updated as to the status of this change as we go.

 

Sorry if this has already been answered somewhere in the 31 pages preceding this question, but how long has this been in development by the WvW team? Or, in other words, has this been why the WvW team has been relatively silent on changes to the game mode recently, while you guys were busy coming up with the details fo rthis change and getting it approved? I imagine this was no small undertaking, and a lot of people feel like you guys have abandoned the game mode, but if its because you were working on this complete overhaul I'm sure some people would be understanding of that

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > And BG had everyone beat by double.

> > Careful. The chart shows that BG only doubled playtime of half the other other worlds. They beat out every world substantially, but doubled only the average. That makes it a useful metric for explaining why BG is never linked, why they win their match-ups most of the time, and why they remain in T1. It's also helpful in explaining why "world" is no longer a useful tool in building even match-ups.

> >

> > Let's be careful, however, not to overstate the actual numbers or the importance of the metric.

> >

>

> The quote was (in addition to more active play hours), was in fact, BG **population is double** (not including links). That means minus links, BG's population is at minimum double that of any other population. If we are talking about NA, I'm going to assume that say MAG, YB, and SOS are next in line for population, but at **minimum**, BG's population **doubles theirs**.

>

> Now when you add the very links of those 3 servers, we have Bolis Pass, Anvil Rock, and Devona's Rest. In order for YB, Mag, or SoS to match BG's population, those 3 servers on their own must have an equal population to YB, Mag, and SoS. Obviously this isn't the case because they are links. **That means BG still outnumbers the servers even with their links**. That's why it's crystal clear they keep winning

>

> Look at it this way, grading on the curve with BG as an example. BG's population is 100, that means that Mag, SoS, and YB are around a population of 50. Borlis pass, Anvil Rock, and Devona's Rest are links and don't obviously have a population close to 50. It might be somewhere between 20-30. That means adding them to the other 3 servers, brings the total population up to 70 - 80. BG's population is still 100, still outnumbers the competition, and falls completely in line with the **"30% bigger"** comment.

>

> Individual play hours are a moot point because of this. All it means is BG can slack off and still win; but the fact they play longer hours just exacerbates the problem. Now you can't fault a player for playing longer hours, but you certainly can fault a server for over-stacking themselves and buying guilds en mass.

 

Double the AVERAGE. Might want to fix that. Not ALL of the worlds. And there was nothing saying BG was THE most populated world in game.

[Grim West.3194]

BG stacked their server with the most players AND the most dedicated WvW players. They didn't care about the health of the game or competition. And they pulled every trick to trick the system to allow even more people in even though they already had by far the most players.

 

When you game the system, the system dies. So now we are getting a new system. One that is designed to not have a repeat of BandwagonGate.

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"Khain.9436" said:

> So they change the entire "wvw" because of 1 server on a US server? Just because the other servers cant handle them?

> Double the population, who cares? Isnt that the reason why there are Q's on the maps? Yes, they maybe have Q's the whole day but if you have a decent defence/commanders then they arent that hard to be stopped...

> Making a whole new system wont solve this problem because the bigger/stronger/hardcore guilds will ally with each other and then it will become even worse, especially for the people who don't wanna join those type of guilds.

> It's a bit hypocrit to change the whole system just because a server with "double the population"... And let me guess, 95% of the people who like this change are US people > people who cant win against BG (And ofcourse the people who dont even play wvw anymore)

> Would love to see a Poll about this, if the real wvw'ers actually like this (and NOT only from US wvw'ers)

 

Better still, they “implement this new system” in NA only, and see which style is working better a year later. My vote is on EU and single servers.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > @"Khain.9436" said:

> > So they change the entire "wvw" because of 1 server on a US server? Just because the other servers cant handle them?

> > Double the population, who cares? Isnt that the reason why there are Q's on the maps? Yes, they maybe have Q's the whole day but if you have a decent defence/commanders then they arent that hard to be stopped...

> > Making a whole new system wont solve this problem because the bigger/stronger/hardcore guilds will ally with each other and then it will become even worse, especially for the people who don't wanna join those type of guilds.

> > It's a bit hypocrit to change the whole system just because a server with "double the population"... And let me guess, 95% of the people who like this change are US people > people who cant win against BG (And ofcourse the people who dont even play wvw anymore)

> > Would love to see a Poll about this, if the real wvw'ers actually like this (and NOT only from US wvw'ers)

>

> Better still, they “implement this new system” in NA only, and see which style is working better a year later. My vote is on EU and single servers.

 

You must actually be from BG as they are the only ones opposed.

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"Grim West.3194" said:

> BG stacked their server with the most players AND the most dedicated WvW players. They didn't care about the health of the game or competition. And they pulled every trick to trick the system to allow even more people in even though they already had by far the most players.

>

> When you game the system, the system dies. So now we are getting a new system. One that is designed to not have a repeat of BandwagonGate.

 

I’m curious how you see this not repeating itself. The most dedicated will become one alliance and dominate. Could just be called BG 2.0.

[Vova.2640]

Not a question, but since I see this thread is still getting attention from Anet, I wish to re-iterate 2 things.

 

a. Personally, I feel like 8 weeks is a bit too much (based off the current re-link schedule). 4 week would probably be enough. I saw some replies stating similar things as well. Please consider making an official poll on the forums about this duration.

 

b. I know McKenna said these are no plans for this yet, but...

Please consider some sort of leaderboard or ability to track scores between guild and/or alliances.

Include stuff like total kills per guild/alliance, kdr, ppt(or how many objectives have been flipped, divided into number of smc, keeps, towers and total objectives flips).

This is just an example to get the main idea across.

I strongly feel like something like this would promote the competitive aspect of this game mode.

 

Thanks.

[Grim West.3194]

> @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > @"Grim West.3194" said:

> > BG stacked their server with the most players AND the most dedicated WvW players. They didn't care about the health of the game or competition. And they pulled every trick to trick the system to allow even more people in even though they already had by far the most players.

> >

> > When you game the system, the system dies. So now we are getting a new system. One that is designed to not have a repeat of BandwagonGate.

>

> I’m curious how you see this not repeating itself. The most dedicated will become one alliance and dominate. Could just be called BG 2.0.

 

Alliance sizes are too small for that to happen. And easily adjustable.

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > > @"Khain.9436" said:

> > > So they change the entire "wvw" because of 1 server on a US server? Just because the other servers cant handle them?

> > > Double the population, who cares? Isnt that the reason why there are Q's on the maps? Yes, they maybe have Q's the whole day but if you have a decent defence/commanders then they arent that hard to be stopped...

> > > Making a whole new system wont solve this problem because the bigger/stronger/hardcore guilds will ally with each other and then it will become even worse, especially for the people who don't wanna join those type of guilds.

> > > It's a bit hypocrit to change the whole system just because a server with "double the population"... And let me guess, 95% of the people who like this change are US people > people who cant win against BG (And ofcourse the people who dont even play wvw anymore)

> > > Would love to see a Poll about this, if the real wvw'ers actually like this (and NOT only from US wvw'ers)

> >

> > Better still, they “implement this new system” in NA only, and see which style is working better a year later. My vote is on EU and single servers.

>

> You must actually be from BG as they are the only ones opposed.

 

Nope. EU. And really quite pissed we are suffering for NA’s inability to spread out.

[cobbah.3102]

Just my 2 cents worth I am happy for this chsnge , but just throwing it out there get rid of shield gens and drop the range of AOE to 900 love what you propose . Lets make them work for thier kills :astonished:

[KingPuki.1075]

Omg yes it's happening <3 Please do this! Playing on a pretty empty Ring Of Fire for years now and a change is most welcome. Looking forward to how this will roll out.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

> @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > @"Grim West.3194" said:

> > BG stacked their server with the most players AND the most dedicated WvW players. They didn't care about the health of the game or competition. And they pulled every trick to trick the system to allow even more people in even though they already had by far the most players.

> >

> > When you game the system, the system dies. So now we are getting a new system. One that is designed to not have a repeat of BandwagonGate.

>

> I’m curious how you see this not repeating itself. The most dedicated will become one alliance and dominate. Could just be called BG 2.0.

 

It’s called low pop caps since an alliance can’t make up the majority of a World population, how can’t you see that?

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > > > @"Khain.9436" said:

> > > > So they change the entire "wvw" because of 1 server on a US server? Just because the other servers cant handle them?

> > > > Double the population, who cares? Isnt that the reason why there are Q's on the maps? Yes, they maybe have Q's the whole day but if you have a decent defence/commanders then they arent that hard to be stopped...

> > > > Making a whole new system wont solve this problem because the bigger/stronger/hardcore guilds will ally with each other and then it will become even worse, especially for the people who don't wanna join those type of guilds.

> > > > It's a bit hypocrit to change the whole system just because a server with "double the population"... And let me guess, 95% of the people who like this change are US people > people who cant win against BG (And ofcourse the people who dont even play wvw anymore)

> > > > Would love to see a Poll about this, if the real wvw'ers actually like this (and NOT only from US wvw'ers)

> > >

> > > Better still, they “implement this new system” in NA only, and see which style is working better a year later. My vote is on EU and single servers.

> >

> > You must actually be from BG as they are the only ones opposed.

>

> Nope. EU. And really quite pissed we are suffering for NA’s inability to spread out.

 

I know cayne. Was being sarcastic. Reading through the thread, if you listen to the most vocal, they have stated multiple times that the only people opposed are from BG.

[Kovu.7560]

> @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > @"EbonFreeman.4051" said:

> > Dear Anet, I love this and I'm sorry to drown you in questions.

> There are 31 pages of replies to this post you cannot really make us drown more.

 

Yeah, I don't envy your work load of sifting through all of the chatter in this thread to find the legitimate issues.

I think the general opinion is that the majority of people who care about this gamemode enough to post in this thread are in favor of this change, though there are a lot of questions and specific issues to be addressed. Obviously not everyone will agree that change is good -- but I've yet to hear alternatives suggested in the 5-6 pages of this thread I've actually read.

 

Potentially related, I'm not sure we'll be able to come up with a system that appeases the people who are interested in playing the ppt game, and the people who are more interested in balanced timezones for their fights. These are two very different sets of people with sets of different priorities. Its a see-saw that may be impossible to balance.

 

Nevertheless, the existing game has gotten sufficiently stagnant that I hope this new system works out. It would be good to see more time invested in this gamemode in the form of special tournaments, new map ideas and more in depth split wvw skill balance -- just as examples.

 

~ Kovu

 

edit- In contrast to an above poster, I might put in 20 hours in a week.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Grim West.3194" said:

> > @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> > > @"Grim West.3194" said:

> > > BG stacked their server with the most players AND the most dedicated WvW players. They didn't care about the health of the game or competition. And they pulled every trick to trick the system to allow even more people in even though they already had by far the most players.

> > >

> > > When you game the system, the system dies. So now we are getting a new system. One that is designed to not have a repeat of BandwagonGate.

> >

> > I’m curious how you see this not repeating itself. The most dedicated will become one alliance and dominate. Could just be called BG 2.0.

>

> Alliance sizes are too small for that to happen. And easily adjustable.

 

Not sure it can't be gamed from what's been said since I could see conflicting business rules.

 

People are assigned based on the guild they mark as their WvW guild. WvW guild joins alliance with only 20 members of its 200 flagging this as their WvW guild. If the impact on the alliance is only credited as 20 members and then reaches max size for an alliance and then the other 180 mark the guild as their WvW guild alliance is now over sized next week. Or space is accounted from all 200 even though only 20 have marked it as such and then alliance can never reach full size unless those members later appear. There are still map caps but it still means one pool is larger than the others unless the game is going to block guilds from playing with their member since alliance reached full.

[shiri.4257]

> @"Zephyr.8015" said:

> Alright so BG had a scout last night put in 20hrs, 1 person putting in 20hrs of WvW game play time. Player play time may be the only metric they use to determine population but as I have stated its easily skew-able in either direction and is not entirely accurate that more play time is equal to more population. We have servers like JQ who intentionally did a black out to tank to T4 to attempt to get their server opened. Once again tanking out of a tier is not an accurate representation of their population. I will also mention Maguuma who has solid numbers in T2, but as soon as they come into T1 they go away and are at the bottom. So if Anet is only using played WvW hours to determine if a server is "stacked" or "dead" I feel that it is unfair to both parties. If you have a player base that cares you will have more play time, its as simple as that. I will agree with Anet saying Blackgate has the most played WvW hours, being a BG player and being an active WvW'er I see this, but I will not agree with the assumption that is being made that BG has the most players in comparison to other servers. We have dead zones just like everyone else weather others choose to believe it or not.

 

This is a 1st world game. Please support Anet in disbanding Blackgate sweatshops. We must unite and not condone such poor labor practices!

[Drinks.2361]

I hope you folks at Anet realise how excited people are for changes in Wvw with this many posts