World Restructuring

[Aeolus.3615]

So basicly this will make every guild stack in one server for domination and the other matches will be manipulated results to keep ktrain alive, ort they cant find decent and equal timezone groups to fight....

 

So far this changes feel like a placebo is on the work.... i would not expect otherwise from LamerNet.

[Norbe.7630]

500-1000 alliance limit.....

alliance per world limit...?

1 BG is how many alliance?

 

new question, will the new system sustain all of BG in 1 world or not :s

 

....the answer will decide the future of WvW

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Norbe.7630" said:

> 500-1000 alliance limit.....

> alliance per world limit...?

> 1 BG is how many alliance?

>

> new question, will the new system sustain all of BG in 1 world or not :s

>

> ....the answer will decide the future of WvW

 

According to everyone on the forums, no.

 

BG has 24/7 queues on 5 maps (yes, people think BG queues OS) for 6/7 days of the week. Because that is the only way BG wins.

 

So... unless the alliance cap is 50000, BG can't fit on one.

[Ubi.4136]

> @"Norbe.7630" said:

> 500-1000 alliance limit.....

> alliance per world limit...?

> 1 BG is how many alliance?

>

> new question, will the new system sustain all of BG in 1 world or not :s

>

> ....the answer will decide the future of WvW

 

The new worlds will likely have fewer players available then BG currently does. It looks to be that worlds will be around 2000-2500 players.

Guilds are currently limited to 500 players. It looks like they may also make the alliance limit 500 players (with no guild limit set, just a player limit).

The 'number' of players in an alliance isn't the problem (although, the larger the allowed alliance size, the greater the imbalance gets).

 

The first problem comes down to time played. If one alliance can get 500 dedicated players who all play 40 hours a week (which seems probable), than that one alliance will have 20000 hours of playtime a week. Organized, meta build, voice comm, playtime. It is going to be really hard to come up with two more worlds with alliances that will also be on equal footing. Anet will match them with two more worlds that have a similar total playtime, but those three worlds are NOT going to be equal. I imagine that two worlds will be able to create that level of organized coverage and playtime.

 

The second problem is that the map spawns are not equal. So, the most competitive matchup will likely consist of a BG-level organized alliance (possibly 2) and a third world that is not quite as well organized. That world will be red in the matchup and is handicapped by map design before players are even alotted. Desert borderland is harder to defend than the alpine borderlands and the layout in EB puts red at a further disadvantage.

Green has the easiest third to defend and is the strongest world in a matchup.

Blue has the next easiest third to defend. If they are as strong as green in a matchup, being blue is not really a disadvantage.

Red has the hardest third to defend, and their keep can be trebbed from the castle (almost always owned by the strongest world).

Tower design, location, and distances make red's third the worst spawn to get, and it is given to the losing team in a matchup.

 

It's not a question of IF someone is going to stack an alliance, but how strong that stack will be and whether or not at least one other stack can match it.

That said, if Anet doesn't switch the spawns there is no chance in balancing these matchups. If the goal is to create some semblence of balance, than the weakest world in each matchup has to be green and the "strongest" world in a matchup has to be red. At a minimum, the red keep HAS to be moved back so that it can NOT treb (or be trebbed from) SMC. They can work on the rest of the redesign of red's third later, but that HAS to happen.

[Euryon.9248]

> @"Ubi.4136" said:

> > @"Norbe.7630" said:

> > 500-1000 alliance limit.....

> > alliance per world limit...?

> > 1 BG is how many alliance?

> >

> > new question, will the new system sustain all of BG in 1 world or not :s

> >

> > ....the answer will decide the future of WvW

 

> The first problem comes down to time played. If one alliance can get 500 dedicated players who all play 40 hours a week (which seems probable), than that one alliance will have 20000 hours of playtime a week. Organized, meta build, voice comm, playtime. It is going to be really hard to come up with two more worlds with alliances that will also be on equal footing. Anet will match them with two more worlds that have a similar total playtime, but those three worlds are NOT going to be equal. I imagine that two worlds will be able to create that level of organized coverage and playtime.

 

I am very dubious of this. A single alliance stacking the 500 most dedicated players, to the exclusion of all others (including the less dedicated friends of those 500), and which no other alliance can come close to matching? I am very skeptical that this will happen. Further, even if this kind of thing somehow does shake out, the world on which this alliance is placed is going to be bolstered mostly by the least dedicated randoms and other casual/low-playtime alliances to balance them out, while the lion's share of dedicated players not in this hypothetical stacked alliance is funneled to other worlds.

 

I do agree about the BLs, though. Either randomly assign each world to a BL each matchup, regardless of where they finished previously, or give the winning worlds the red BL and the losing worlds the green one. In a sense that's what's happening now (the previous week's winners have red in the next higher tier while losers have green), but Tiers 1 and 4 are skewed because you can't move up/down, so the top T1 server maintains green and the bottom T4 server maintains red.

 

[morrolan.9608]

> @"ixl.7190" said:

> Full Disclosure: The following wall of text is coming from the deepest salt mine on Blackgate.

>

> We have to start by being 100% honest about the root cause of our problem. I believe the blame is 90% on players for our selfish behaviors, and 10% on ANET for not beating us hard enough for our actions (or turning a blind eye and just ignoring the problem altogether). Take yourself out of your POV and consider what it is like creating a game where your customers will always break and exploit anything good you try to give them.

>

 

Welcome to every game ever, its up to anet to design the game to mitigate that.

 

>

> Blackgate didn't do a single thing any other server could not have done. What we did is snowball together a large number of motivated players and retain them, because it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that "good players are on Blackgate" once it starts being proven to be true. A month before pre-launch I started lurking different forums to get a gauge for where a good community of "players motivated to be successfull" was being planned. My ( PVP guild plus PVP community friends from the previous MMO) and i looked at a couple different options while leveling and gearing our first 80's. Then I collected my friends and dragged them here. Alot of other people did the same, for different reasons and game modes. Enthusiasts. Collectors. Die hard YouTuber fanboys. People who just like being around "where things are happening" because it makes them feel more connected to the experience overall. And Elitists (Duh and/or Hello). A large number of people are all of these things combined. Consider the notion that the BG roamer you're about to ambush *MIGHT* have xferred to BG 4 years ago because they wanted to join or just hang out near [DnT] for PvE glory reasons, and they are capping that camp to maintain participation so they can finish their WvW Legendary Armor to match their PVE and SPvP sets. You didn't really get ganked by them just now because they are especially good at WvW, they simply developed the skill to theorycraft a good build in PvE, had the gold to assemble BiS gear, and learned to 1v1 like a champ while getting their SPvP Legendary suit finished. Every server has these motivated players; BG just has an above average amount of them.

>

 

BG treats the mode as a job, always has back to the days of Chocpudding and is the only NA server to do that and thus it attracted all like minded guilds and people as your post shows, plus all the other players who just want ez mode WvW. This makes the mode miserable to everybody else especially once Maguuma beat you regularly and you devolved to completely cancerous ppt tactics rather than fighting to start winning again, anets ridiculous design decisions completely played into this play style as well..

[Nocturnal Lunacy.8563]

Why don't we just remove all ppt and pve from wvw. have on huge open space in which to fight and no servers or guilds , first come first serve to each map. if people want to ktrain and ppt they can go eotm. problem solved.

[Sarrs.4831]

> @"ixl.7190" said:

>10% on ANET for not beating us hard enough for our actions (or turning a blind eye and just ignoring the problem altogether).

 

Seems like we can stop here; they're doing something now.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Nocturnal Lunacy.8563" said:

> Why don't we just remove all ppt and pve from wvw. have on huge open space in which to fight and no servers or guilds , first come first serve to each map. if people want to ktrain and ppt they can go eotm. problem solved.

Thats called sPvP. No servers, no guilds, just click a button to join.

 

[Nocturnal Lunacy.8563]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Nocturnal Lunacy.8563" said:

> > Why don't we just remove all ppt and pve from wvw. have on huge open space in which to fight and no servers or guilds , first come first serve to each map. if people want to ktrain and ppt they can go eotm. problem solved.

> Thats called sPvP. No servers, no guilds, just click a button to join.

>

 

No spvp is a game mode where the max numbers on each side is 6 and the gear is limited. In wvw 3 different teams fight each other at max of 80 i think the max map queue is. With pve gear. Not the same thing.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Nocturnal Lunacy.8563" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"Nocturnal Lunacy.8563" said:

> > > Why don't we just remove all ppt and pve from wvw. have on huge open space in which to fight and no servers or guilds , first come first serve to each map. if people want to ktrain and ppt they can go eotm. problem solved.

> > Thats called sPvP. No servers, no guilds, just click a button to join.

> >

>

> No spvp is a game mode where the max numbers on each side is 6 and the gear is limited. In wvw 3 different teams fight each other at max of 80 i think the max map queue is. With pve gear. Not the same thing.

You dont say? But you wanted to remove all ppt and pve and WvW just a moment ago. Now you want it?

 

[Teleoceras.1298]

> @"TheQuickFox.3826" said:

> **Disclaimer**: I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but I don't feel like reading through 37 pages of this topic to find out.

>

> What about guildless players or players who are still in an inactive guild?

>

> My guild is mostly inactive and I mostly play with random commanders and some fellow players of my Ruins of Surmia (EU) server. I might just as well leave my guild. What does the change mean to me? Will WvW still be as accessible to random players (not in a guild or ally). Will there be as many open commanders who accept players regardless of alliance? Is there a way to continue to play with the players of my Ruins of Surmia server who i frequently come across?

 

Also my guild is active but the guild leader has pretty much quit the game without having a replacement since last April. Is the guild leader required for making alliances with other guilds?

[SolarDragon.7063]

One flaw I can see is that this could be rather prone to abuse by deliberately lowering player and/or guild activity previous to reshuffling, so that players/guilds get an easier matchup than they might have otherwise. Apologies if this has been though of earlier and I've missed it in 40 pages of replies.

I'm overall supportive, the linking system has not helped the WvW situation as much as hoped, especially with the strange reluctance to allow links in T1-I've been on a world which has won T2 with links because of good coverage, then gets unlinked to T1 and gets flattened predictably.

[Nocturnal Lunacy.8563]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Nocturnal Lunacy.8563" said:

> > > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > > @"Nocturnal Lunacy.8563" said:

> > > > Why don't we just remove all ppt and pve from wvw. have on huge open space in which to fight and no servers or guilds , first come first serve to each map. if people want to ktrain and ppt they can go eotm. problem solved.

> > > Thats called sPvP. No servers, no guilds, just click a button to join.

> > >

> >

> > No spvp is a game mode where the max numbers on each side is 6 and the gear is limited. In wvw 3 different teams fight each other at max of 80 i think the max map queue is. With pve gear. Not the same thing.

> You dont say? But you wanted to remove all ppt and pve and WvW just a moment ago. Now you want it?

>

 

I'm not sure what you're not understanding here. I've made it as simple as I could. Removing pve doesnt mean remove the gear it means removing the stupid side events and creatures. And I didn't say to remove WvW. Why would I want to remove WvW from WvW?

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Teleoceras.1298" said:

> > @"TheQuickFox.3826" said:

> > **Disclaimer**: I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but I don't feel like reading through 37 pages of this topic to find out.

> >

> > What about guildless players or players who are still in an inactive guild?

> >

> > My guild is mostly inactive and I mostly play with random commanders and some fellow players of my Ruins of Surmia (EU) server. I might just as well leave my guild. What does the change mean to me? Will WvW still be as accessible to random players (not in a guild or ally). Will there be as many open commanders who accept players regardless of alliance? Is there a way to continue to play with the players of my Ruins of Surmia server who i frequently come across?

>

> Also my guild is active but the guild leader has pretty much quit the game without having a replacement since last April. Is the guild leader required for making alliances with other guilds?

 

Reform the guild. Get the active members who still play to create a new guild with a new guild leader and make that change now.

 

Use that former guild for its buffs if you don't want to build up the new guilds buffs.

[Ubi.4136]

I just hope they eventually get around to removing the dredge turrets and moving red keep back so the 3 sides are a little more balanced.

The population thing is going to be whatever we get, will be exploited to the maximum it can be, but Anet isn't likely going back on this idea so we might as well get used to the thought.

[Korgov.7645]

First if all I am thrilled ANet is addressing the team balance issue. It is the biggest flaw in this game mode. It's the reason matchups cannot have any meaningful rewards.

 

Few topics that may have already been covered by earlier posts, but here's my 2 cents.

 

**Matchmaking transparency**

 

The world linking never produced equal teams. There are too few ways to combine worlds. Especially in EU where you have to consider language barriers, too. The system is not transparent and it feels unfair.

 

I want to know the exact formula that would be used to form teams under the alliances system. Whatever is input to the formula must also be visible.

 

The system should prevent meta gaming. Like preventing alliances to tank down to easier matchups.

 

The formula has to create an equal opportunity for each team to win the season.

 

**Motivation to win**

 

With the world linking guest worlds have no reason to fight for the victory. Their war efforts are not acknowledged nor expected. Players on guest worlds are just cruising through matchups without a purpose.

 

Winning a matchup/season should have lasting (but not permanent) glory rewards for all players participating. For example unique skins, markers, decorations, titles, finishers. Leaderboards for players, guilds and alliances.

 

 

[Mrs Qurly.9372]

When these restructuring changes take place, perhaps guilds could have the option to change their name? A lot of guild names are relevant to the server they’re currently on, which will no longer exist.

[Teleoceras.1298]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Teleoceras.1298" said:

> > > @"TheQuickFox.3826" said:

> > > **Disclaimer**: I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but I don't feel like reading through 37 pages of this topic to find out.

> > >

> > > What about guildless players or players who are still in an inactive guild?

> > >

> > > My guild is mostly inactive and I mostly play with random commanders and some fellow players of my Ruins of Surmia (EU) server. I might just as well leave my guild. What does the change mean to me? Will WvW still be as accessible to random players (not in a guild or ally). Will there be as many open commanders who accept players regardless of alliance? Is there a way to continue to play with the players of my Ruins of Surmia server who i frequently come across?

> >

> > Also my guild is active but the guild leader has pretty much quit the game without having a replacement since last April. Is the guild leader required for making alliances with other guilds?

>

> Reform the guild. Get the active members who still play to create a new guild with a new guild leader and make that change now.

>

> Use that former guild for its buffs if you don't want to build up the new guilds buffs.

 

Do you realize just how hideously expensive it is to upgrade a new guild hall? My guild has been maxed out for over a year now and it took a LOT of people to get it maxed out, decorated, etc.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Teleoceras.1298" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Teleoceras.1298" said:

> > > > @"TheQuickFox.3826" said:

> > > > **Disclaimer**: I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but I don't feel like reading through 37 pages of this topic to find out.

> > > >

> > > > What about guildless players or players who are still in an inactive guild?

> > > >

> > > > My guild is mostly inactive and I mostly play with random commanders and some fellow players of my Ruins of Surmia (EU) server. I might just as well leave my guild. What does the change mean to me? Will WvW still be as accessible to random players (not in a guild or ally). Will there be as many open commanders who accept players regardless of alliance? Is there a way to continue to play with the players of my Ruins of Surmia server who i frequently come across?

> > >

> > > Also my guild is active but the guild leader has pretty much quit the game without having a replacement since last April. Is the guild leader required for making alliances with other guilds?

> >

> > Reform the guild. Get the active members who still play to create a new guild with a new guild leader and make that change now.

> >

> > Use that former guild for its buffs if you don't want to build up the new guilds buffs.

>

> Do you realize just how hideously expensive it is to upgrade a new guild hall? My guild has been maxed out for over a year now and it took a LOT of people to get it maxed out, decorated, etc.

 

Absolutely. That's why you don't leave your current guild. You can use all of their claiming and items while in WvW despite being listed as a different WvW guild for population purposes.

[SailorSpira.9371]

> @"Teleoceras.1298" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Teleoceras.1298" said:

> > > > @"TheQuickFox.3826" said:

> > > > **Disclaimer**: I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but I don't feel like reading through 37 pages of this topic to find out.

> > > >

> > > > What about guildless players or players who are still in an inactive guild?

> > > >

> > > > My guild is mostly inactive and I mostly play with random commanders and some fellow players of my Ruins of Surmia (EU) server. I might just as well leave my guild. What does the change mean to me? Will WvW still be as accessible to random players (not in a guild or ally). Will there be as many open commanders who accept players regardless of alliance? Is there a way to continue to play with the players of my Ruins of Surmia server who i frequently come across?

> > >

> > > Also my guild is active but the guild leader has pretty much quit the game without having a replacement since last April. Is the guild leader required for making alliances with other guilds?

> >

> > Reform the guild. Get the active members who still play to create a new guild with a new guild leader and make that change now.

> >

> > Use that former guild for its buffs if you don't want to build up the new guilds buffs.

>

> Do you realize just how hideously expensive it is to upgrade a new guild hall? My guild has been maxed out for over a year now and it took a LOT of people to get it maxed out, decorated, etc.

 

I would recommend getting the highest ranked active member of your guild to send a ticket to Anet asking to promote them to GL rank due to inactivity of the current rank holder.

Or if you do go the second guild option you don't need to rep it or upgrade a guild hall, you just need it to be set to WvW for the purpose of alliances and continue to Rep your existing guild. That would only cost 1 gold.

[Swamurabi.7890]

Is it possible for two players, both in the same guild, both in different "WvW" chosen guilds, to be on different sides of the same matchup AND claim structures?

 

Do you see a problem with this?

[mulzi.8273]

> @"Korgov.7645" said:

> First if all I am thrilled ANet is addressing the team balance issue. It is the biggest flaw in this game mode. It's the reason matchups cannot have any meaningful rewards.

>

> Few topics that may have already been covered by earlier posts, but here's my 2 cents.

 

It is not the team balance that is causing the biggest WvW issues. It is the class imbalances. After this change, there will be no more excuses that 'X server has more coverage'. Everyone will point to the class imbalances more than they already do.

 

This is just another band-aid. Another hood-wink to divert the players attention from the real problem.

[Korgov.7645]

> @"mulzi.8273" said:

> > @"Korgov.7645" said:

> > First if all I am thrilled ANet is addressing the team balance issue. It is the biggest flaw in this game mode. It's the reason matchups cannot have any meaningful rewards.

> >

> > Few topics that may have already been covered by earlier posts, but here's my 2 cents.

>

> It is not the team balance that is causing the biggest WvW issues. It is the class imbalances. After this change, there will be no more excuses that 'X server has more coverage'. Everyone will point to the class imbalances more than they already do.

>

> This is just another band-aid. Another hood-wink to divert the players attention from the real problem.

 

The profession/skill balance is important for enjoyment of the game play, diversity, and freedom to choose your playstyle. However every team is free to force their players to play the FOTM profession and be on an equal footing. There's nothing a team can do solve coverage imbalance.

 

With true coverage balance the matchup/season victory can have meaningful rewards. Something that makes players try to win instead of bragging on the best KD ratio.

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> Is it possible for two players, both in the same guild, both in different "WvW" chosen guilds, to be on different sides of the same matchup AND claim structures?

>

> Do you see a problem with this?

 

It happens now. And no. I don't see a problem with it.