World Restructuring

[shiri.4257]

> @"Hellbound.5610" said:

> > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > There won't be a hard limit to the number of Alliances on a world. The limits will fall out of the match maker keeping everything balanced. We're going to try various things to get the worlds balanced and make the matches more even across the board

>

> Hi Raymond

>

> You guys are currently making a great effort to "restructure" World vs World...

>

> I would like to point out 2 major issues which will not change a thing with all the work you are doing unless it is addressed.

>

> Firstly, just this past Friday we had a new re-link for servers.

>

> I am not sure if you guys are aware of developments like these, but I play on Far Shiverpeaks and with the new re-link we lost no less than 3 core guilds contributing to more than 100 players who all transferred to another world.

>

> Now I am not talking about your average player who jumps into WvW for "30 odd minutes" to get some dailies etc, I am talking about players who form the backbone of the server community and contribute more than 20 hours a week in WvW.

>

> The impact of this migration is very obvious. We went from a world coalition who contends for Tier 1 to one who will now drop down to Tier 4. This is a big blow to us and we now have to wait until some other group decides to move over to us should that even happen.

>

> I completely understand that server transfers are very important to the game business model, but by allowing transfers after a re-link ruins the whole intention of balancing matchups to the point where you might as well not bother with it.

>

> Transfers should be allowed during a set window BEFORE re-linking.

>

> Secondly, core guilds as you should well know have a big impact on the result of your world.

>

> Yes, we did have the poll where many players voted for the Desert Borderlands to be part of WvW.

>

> As a prominent member of the Far Shiverpeaks community I can tell you that our players simply do not enjoy having Desert Borderlands as our home border. The core guilds avoid this border like the plague to the point where it is a struggle to hold our ground on it.

>

> With the Desert Borderlands being the allocated border during tier promotion, we are sitting with a situation on Far Shiverpeaks in particular where the core guilds and many players limit their effort for us to not promote.

>

> In my view it would be more ideal to instead assign Desert Border/Red Border to worlds that DEMOTE from their tier. This will server as motivation for communities to always try to play to win instead of manipulating a matchup's outcome and avoid being on this border.

>

> If you are not aware of these issues from where it you can actively strive to address it, you will only be wasting your energy with all the work you are doing for the new restructure, since the fundamental issues will still remain which cause unbalanced matchups.

 

Those don't sound like core guilds. How much did you pay for them? How long were they on your server?

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Hellbound.5610" said:

> > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > There won't be a hard limit to the number of Alliances on a world. The limits will fall out of the match maker keeping everything balanced. We're going to try various things to get the worlds balanced and make the matches more even across the board

>

> Hi Raymond

>

> You guys are currently making a great effort to "restructure" World vs World...

>

> I would like to point out 2 major issues which will not change a thing with all the work you are doing unless it is addressed.

>

> Firstly, just this past Friday we had a new re-link for servers.

>

> I am not sure if you guys are aware of developments like these, but I play on Far Shiverpeaks and with the new re-link we lost no less than 3 core guilds contributing to more than 100 players who all transferred to another world.

>

> Now I am not talking about your average player who jumps into WvW for "30 odd minutes" to get some dailies etc, I am talking about players who form the backbone of the server community and contribute more than 20 hours a week in WvW.

>

> The impact of this migration is very obvious. We went from a world coalition who contends for Tier 1 to one who will now drop down to Tier 4. This is a big blow to us and we now have to wait until some other group decides to move over to us should that even happen.

>

> I completely understand that server transfers are very important to the game business model, but by allowing transfers after a re-link ruins the whole intention of balancing matchups to the point where you might as well not bother with it.

>

> Transfers should be allowed during a set window BEFORE re-linking.

>

> Secondly, core guilds as you should well know have a big impact on the result of your world.

>

> Yes, we did have the poll where many players voted for the Desert Borderlands to be part of WvW.

>

> As a prominent member of the Far Shiverpeaks community I can tell you that our players simply do not enjoy having Desert Borderlands as our home border. The core guilds avoid this border like the plague to the point where it is a struggle to hold our ground on it.

>

> With the Desert Borderlands being the allocated border during tier promotion, we are sitting with a situation on Far Shiverpeaks in particular where the core guilds and many players limit their effort for us to not promote.

>

> In my view it would be more ideal to instead assign Desert Border/Red Border to worlds that DEMOTE from their tier. This will server as motivation for communities to always try to play to win instead of manipulating a matchup's outcome and avoid being on this border.

>

> If you are not aware of these issues from where it you can actively strive to address it, you will only be wasting your energy with all the work you are doing for the new restructure, since the fundamental issues will still remain which cause unbalanced matchups.

What does any of this have to do with the restructure and the issues it address?

Guilds always come and go, its no different now compared to the last 6 years. Servers rise and fall. Playing to avoid playing on DBL seem like an... odd... goal for the game to promote.

 

That FSP members prefer to sit in 80+ man EB queues AFK in spawn talking crap while the rest of us are fighting 10v50 outside the same spawn is indeed a community thing, but its not on Anets shoulders to try to "fix" that.

[Baroness.9506]

I would really love to know how this is going to even work. At the moment, this is what is happening from my view point.

 

I play on Blackgate, Fort Aspenwood, and Sanctum of Rall.

 

Blackgate guilds have been talking about making an alliance for quite some time, to the point a guild has been created to accommodate the numbers. A lot o Blackgate guilds have been denied because of the size it currently is. There is in fact more than one alliance on BG being created.

 

As opposed to the other servers I play on, who have no one to ally with, they are just hoping for the best by the looks of it.

 

Wouldnt a more suitable solution be keep the current system so those who have spent countless hours over the years creating a community for their selected server and having a look at the cap numbers on each map, as well as current "active" numbers for each server in WvW? There is no reason why Jade Quarry should be locked, as well as Yaks Bend, Fort Aspenwood and Sea of Sorrows, i mean....What The Actual F Anet?

 

The hype is real for this restructuring, but i predict it will do more harm than good and break alot of long lasting friendships as well as server pride.

[Djamonja.6453]

So your solution is to lower the map caps and open up JQ, YB, FA and SoS? I don't think it would help to have even bigger queues, and it wouldn't really solve anything because it would just keep getting harder for Anet to balance the links for 4 tiers.

[zoomborg.9462]

So basically WvW is gonna get a direction and that direction is Guilds. Instead of servers we're gonna have alliances which can change and adapt, move guilds in or out depending on circumstances,population cap etc etc. For organized team-play and less population imbalance this is a dream come true.This has been the main demand of the wvw playerbase, population balancing. Ofc its not gonna be perfect but getting a direction and working on it with a much more flexible model(alliances) than world linking is gonna smooth it out in the long run.

 

PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO ORGANIZE THEMSELVES AFTER THIS CHANGE AND THIS WILL BE CRUCIAL. If u are from oceanic or generally off hours region u should create a guild with people who play on off hours and try to get into a certain alliance (with other guilds u know/people u play with).Most alliances will try to cover their off-hours by inviting guilds like that. The current communities will also probably stay together in an alliance purely to be able to play together, unless their numbers are way too big and would give a clear population advantage(Anet saids they will cap the number of guilds in an alliance based on population). In the end guilds will prob ally with guilds they know and play with so the community factor will stay even if there is no longer a server name.

 

Adjusting world population based on play hours is the best they can do. It is far from perfect but unfortunately there is absolutely no way to correctly balance a mode driven by human behavior. Some people are casuals, other have jobs,family and they mb login 1h a day and not every day while others spend their whole day on wvw. Then u got zerglings,roamers,havoc squads, karma trains, GvG fighting, even duels.... It simply is impossible to balance in a perfect way. Still people have the choice to ally with people that share the same goal through guilds and Alliances.

 

I believe the restructure is very much needed and looks good atm even though a lot of the changes need to be refined, properly explained down to the very detail so when it happens we dont get a shitstorm and chaos. There must be 100% transparency in order to avoid the worst.

 

The part of the playerbase thats gonna suffer (including myself) are the lone players who might be either casual or hardcore but not willing to commit to a single guild or play very sporadically. WvW guilds are prolly gonna change a lot in a sense that most alliances will not accept guilds of semi-active players that sporadically log-in for 5 hours a week and "run around having fun". Instead they will try to get guilds with commited players be it zerging,havoking,roaming,PPTing or simply fighting. Since the mode is basically getting a general direction (which is great), some people will be left behind and they will have to choose to play with randoms, form some tight-knit small guilds with the people they regularly play, or pay for transfer once every 8 weeks to join another world. This is unfortunate but something's got to give in the end as with every change.

 

 

 

[zoomborg.9462]

> @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > @"Vegeta.2563" said:

> > > @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > > What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering?

> >

> > It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon.

>

> I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes).

>

> If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight.

 

Also gl with that. 99% of the MMO's have "cash grab" as their main priority and are modeled around the korean/chinese playerbase who love to grind or buy p2w items and services from the game store. Thats what MMO's have been reduced to at this moment.A lot of players talked about leaving GW2 to play other MMOs and most of them either come back to GW2 or drop the MMO genre completely.

[Eramonster.2718]

@"zoomborg.9462"

> The part of the playerbase thats gonna suffer (including myself) are the lone players who might be either casual or hardcore but not willing to commit to a single guild or play very sporadically.

Same boat here :smile: tho I'm not particularly worried as a solo roamer, the system will just randomly place us into a world. I do rally with tagged commanders sometimes, without paying attention to their guild tags. My point is, even if the new system gets implemented, I probably will continue my solo play style and rally with whoever tagged from time to time. Tho I will consider to get into alliance to play with few of my friends/guildies, but we will probably discuss on that together only if the new system is announced a sure go.

 

*Another issue I hope Anet will look into aside coverage is the reward(or some form of benefit/fame) for WvW. For a competative game, there will be a victor and loser. It's very important to distinguish the two. I understand the game is trying to be fair to all. But if the winner and loser is getting the same reward/benefits there's no point in trying or motivation to win. Hence PPT is ignored, why rank up to struggle when we can get the same/better rewards by not to. WvW will probably function better if the coverage is mended, but imo it's not fulfilling its true function as a competitive mode.*

[Nighthawk.2401]

A scenario I would imagine is probably fairly common within the WvW playerbase and that I worry may come up with myself: What if I'm an active player and a member of an active WvW guild/alliance, but I also have some old friends who only play GW2 very occasionally. They won't meet any activity requirements to hold a guild position in the active WvW guild I'm in. But if I get one of my several friends to come and roam a bit in WvW with me, I can do that now. But if they've been randomly set to a different server in the future that won't be possible any more. This could be a deterrent to "the occasional player who has active friends they like to play with"? I would imagine that kind of person isn't too uncommon, and is the kind of player that anet should be trying to target if they want a larger player base, not the kind of person they should feel comfortable turning away.

Now I'm not saying the proposed system is bad, I love the idea, and I'm hopeful it will improve the WvW experience overall. But I think this is specifically something that needs to be carefully handled. I personally would love to see there be no transfer fees at all in the new system. So that my friend could join my server if he wasn't randomly placed with my alliance.

 

I am simply worried that the on-and-off casual player who has friends he knows that he wants to come and play with sometimes will now be told "no. because you're not dedicated enough, you can't join your friends guild. And you've randomly been assigned to not be able to play with that friend anyway too. Now pay up gems to play with them."

This seems especially more obvious with occasional-returning players, but with new players too, if they aren't dedicated enough to earn a spot in their recruiting-friend's guild, they will not be guaranteed to be on the same world as that friend.

 

Most of the comments on similar scenarios about friends being split up were countered with "You have months of planning time to get together in a guild. or you two can make your own guild and mark it as your primary." but I don't think I saw anything good addressing the issues of a very active player convincing a less active friend to either return to the game or come and try out the game. Which I very strongly believe is a case that should feel good to the returning/new player. A simple returning or new player worried about not being able to play with their more active friends.

 

I really hope Anet addresses this. And while I suggest making transfers free in the new system, I'd be glad for another solution if anyone has a good one. My solution still leaves the issue of "what if the server I was randomly assigned to fills up quickly." but at least there should be a period at the start where my occasional/new friends can join me.

[Hellbound.5610]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> That FSP members prefer to sit in 80+ man EB queues AFK in spawn talking crap while the rest of us are fighting 10v50 outside the same spawn is indeed a community thing, but its not on Anets shoulders to try to "fix" that.

 

Is the purpose of the restructure not to create balanced matchups?

 

By allowing transfers after a re-link as we have it now OR a re-balance as is being proposed we will just be sitting with the same problem.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Hellbound.5610" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > That FSP members prefer to sit in 80+ man EB queues AFK in spawn talking crap while the rest of us are fighting 10v50 outside the same spawn is indeed a community thing, but its not on Anets shoulders to try to "fix" that.

>

> Is the purpose of the restructure not to create balanced matchups?

>

> By allowing transfers after a re-link as we have it now OR a re-balance as is being proposed we will just be sitting with the same problem.

 

Is this a rhetorical question? Transfers will only be allowed up to world limits. While it hasn't been stated, I imagine the 'full' level won't be different today, so the size of a BG or JQ (as neither have links and are full) won't be allowed.

 

So, with smaller chunks that are 'locked together' (alliances being the largest such possible 'chunk' under the new system and only being 20-25% of the size of a world pop limit) this should create greater opportunity for more even matchups.

 

Does it mean it will always be that way? No. But the chances will be better under the proposed change.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Hellbound.5610" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > That FSP members prefer to sit in 80+ man EB queues AFK in spawn talking crap while the rest of us are fighting 10v50 outside the same spawn is indeed a community thing, but its not on Anets shoulders to try to "fix" that.

>

> Is the purpose of the restructure not to create balanced matchups?

>

> By allowing transfers after a re-link as we have it now OR a re-balance as is being proposed we will just be sitting with the same problem.

This really has nothing to do with balance though. I have seen more people AFK in spawn than the entire enemy zerg - and we cant beat that enemy zerg because they are 3x more than us in the field. The restructure does nothing against this. The purpose is to create "balanced" worlds *by numbers* to encourage and get more actual balance. You cant force players to play balanced though. DBL is the same thing. You can put perfectly balanced 100v100v100 sides on DBL *by numbers* but if 100 people go "meh" and dont want to play on DBL and only queue EB...

[primatos.5413]

Pls don´t forget to remove the always double teaming punk servers like .. every fraggin french server for example .. or change the mode or add some negative feedback if they do so .. boring as hell these always fight fleeing backstabbin clowns .. aaahh and pls .. no ppk if the ganker clowns chase single opponents .. completly riddiculous the state wvw is in and Alliances won´t change a single point of this serious issues :(

 

[Hellbound.5610]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> Is this a rhetorical question? Transfers will only be allowed up to world limits. While it hasn't been stated, I imagine the 'full' level won't be different today, so the size of a BG or JQ (as neither have links and are full) won't be allowed.

>

> So, with smaller chunks that are 'locked together' (alliances being the largest such possible 'chunk' under the new system and only being 20-25% of the size of a world pop limit) this should create greater opportunity for more even matchups.

>

> Does it mean it will always be that way? No. But the chances will be better under the proposed change.

 

You are making the mistake by assuming players will want to transfer to the full world.

 

You are missing the point where a group of players that transfer to an open world after re-link/re-balance will directly effected the coverage of their initial world and impact the competitiveness of that world where it causes imbalance.

 

There is no balance in allowing transfers after a re-balance.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Hellbound.5610" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > Is this a rhetorical question? Transfers will only be allowed up to world limits. While it hasn't been stated, I imagine the 'full' level won't be different today, so the size of a BG or JQ (as neither have links and are full) won't be allowed.

> >

> > So, with smaller chunks that are 'locked together' (alliances being the largest such possible 'chunk' under the new system and only being 20-25% of the size of a world pop limit) this should create greater opportunity for more even matchups.

> >

> > Does it mean it will always be that way? No. But the chances will be better under the proposed change.

>

> You are making the mistake by assuming players will want to transfer to the full world.

>

> You are missing the point where a group of players that transfer to an open world after re-link/re-balance will directly effected the coverage of their initial world and impact the competitiveness of that world where it causes imbalance.

>

> There is no balance in allowing transfers after a re-balance.

 

Which will throw off matchups for the first week. After, one up one down will level the playing field.

 

And then after 8 weeks, shuffled again.

 

I don't like the system TBH. But this part is one of the only draws for me

[ShionKreth.1542]

> @"zoomborg.9462" said:

> > @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > > @"Vegeta.2563" said:

> > > > @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > > > What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering?

> > >

> > > It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon.

> >

> > I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes).

> >

> > If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight.

>

> Also gl with that. 99% of the MMO's have "cash grab" as their main priority and are modeled around the korean/chinese playerbase who love to grind or buy p2w items and services from the game store. Thats what MMO's have been reduced to at this moment.A lot of players talked about leaving GW2 to play other MMOs and most of them either come back to GW2 or drop the MMO genre completely.

 

Well I'm a veteran from the original 4 so you don't need to remind me of the state of the market... regardless this change is definitely a deal breaker, and makes me sad because gw2 seemed to be the one game trying to nurture community, cooperation and a shared world rather than just instanced content. Sure community is still pretty lacking in the modern mmo environment just due to fickle, disagreeable players... but I still don't think that's cause to just COMPLETELY abolish server communities in favor of unstable, unreliable guild alliances. I worry that people just can't envision how lousy it's going to be with this new system.

[shiri.4257]

> @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > @"zoomborg.9462" said:

> > > @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > > > @"Vegeta.2563" said:

> > > > > @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > > > > What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering?

> > > >

> > > > It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon.

> > >

> > > I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes).

> > >

> > > If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight.

> >

> > Also gl with that. 99% of the MMO's have "cash grab" as their main priority and are modeled around the korean/chinese playerbase who love to grind or buy p2w items and services from the game store. Thats what MMO's have been reduced to at this moment.A lot of players talked about leaving GW2 to play other MMOs and most of them either come back to GW2 or drop the MMO genre completely.

>

> Well I'm a veteran from the original 4 so you don't need to remind me of the state of the market... regardless this change is definitely a deal breaker, and makes me sad because gw2 seemed to be the one game trying to nurture community, cooperation and a shared world rather than just instanced content. Sure community is still pretty lacking in the modern mmo environment just due to fickle, disagreeable players... but I still don't think that's cause to just COMPLETELY abolish server communities in favor of unstable, unreliable guild alliances. I worry that people just can't envision how lousy it's going to be with this new system.

 

outside of blackgate. An alliance can probably acccomodate all the current communities underneath one respectively. Well players that actually play wvw rather than afk pip farm.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"shiri.4257" said:

> > @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > > @"zoomborg.9462" said:

> > > > @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > > > > @"Vegeta.2563" said:

> > > > > > @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > > > > > What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering?

> > > > >

> > > > > It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon.

> > > >

> > > > I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes).

> > > >

> > > > If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight.

> > >

> > > Also gl with that. 99% of the MMO's have "cash grab" as their main priority and are modeled around the korean/chinese playerbase who love to grind or buy p2w items and services from the game store. Thats what MMO's have been reduced to at this moment.A lot of players talked about leaving GW2 to play other MMOs and most of them either come back to GW2 or drop the MMO genre completely.

> >

> > Well I'm a veteran from the original 4 so you don't need to remind me of the state of the market... regardless this change is definitely a deal breaker, and makes me sad because gw2 seemed to be the one game trying to nurture community, cooperation and a shared world rather than just instanced content. Sure community is still pretty lacking in the modern mmo environment just due to fickle, disagreeable players... but I still don't think that's cause to just COMPLETELY abolish server communities in favor of unstable, unreliable guild alliances. I worry that people just can't envision how lousy it's going to be with this new system.

>

> outside of blackgate. An alliance can probably acccomodate all the current communities underneath one respectively. Well players that actually play wvw rather than afk pip farm.

 

At 20-25% of the new world cap? With that cap being set for full world status? (Ie JQ, FA, Mag, SoS etc)

[Caliburn.1845]

While dependent on how you judge "activity" I don't see any server on NA being able to fill 1000 alliance slots with active players. Including BG. Most of the biggest most visible guilds playing WvW have less than 50 actives on their roster. Amalgamated guilds like TSYM/SF/TTD and a few others might be nearer 100 actives, but there are only a handful of guilds like that.

 

If the alliance cap is 1000, no one should have a problem getting basically everyone on a server into it. If the cap is 500, then it became much more selective. And of course the wildcard is returning players/guilds that show up. And the second wildcard is how many worlds Anet creates. I could easily see them only doing 9 NA worlds instead of the current 12(with links).

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> And the second wildcard is how many worlds Anet creates. I could easily see them only doing 9 NA worlds instead of the current 12(with links).

 

Which is one of the major pros with the system. Instead of a complicated process of shutting down servers or maintaining old ones via links, we can have different matchup sizes with 8 weeks delay. Too little population? Make 9 worlds. Even less? Make 6 worlds. More people came into WvW? Make 9 worlds again. Did a limit of 3000 per world cause queues? Make that 2000 per world instead. Simple and effective. Just set a target and shuffle.

[zoomborg.9462]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > And the second wildcard is how many worlds Anet creates. I could easily see them only doing 9 NA worlds instead of the current 12(with links).

>

> Which is one of the major pros with the system. Instead of a complicated process of shutting down servers or maintaining old ones via links, we can have different matchup sizes with 8 weeks delay. Too little population? Make 9 worlds. Even less? Make 6 worlds. More people came into WvW? Make 9 worlds again. Did a limit of 3000 per world cause queues? Make that 2000 per world instead. Simple and effective. Just set a target and shuffle.

 

+1 to this. I cant predict the results of the restructure in the end but having an extremely flexible model on which to build the matches is miles better than what we have so far.

[shiri.4257]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"shiri.4257" said:

> > > @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > > > @"zoomborg.9462" said:

> > > > > @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > > > > > @"Vegeta.2563" said:

> > > > > > > @"ShionKreth.1542" said:

> > > > > > > What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes).

> > > > >

> > > > > If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight.

> > > >

> > > > Also gl with that. 99% of the MMO's have "cash grab" as their main priority and are modeled around the korean/chinese playerbase who love to grind or buy p2w items and services from the game store. Thats what MMO's have been reduced to at this moment.A lot of players talked about leaving GW2 to play other MMOs and most of them either come back to GW2 or drop the MMO genre completely.

> > >

> > > Well I'm a veteran from the original 4 so you don't need to remind me of the state of the market... regardless this change is definitely a deal breaker, and makes me sad because gw2 seemed to be the one game trying to nurture community, cooperation and a shared world rather than just instanced content. Sure community is still pretty lacking in the modern mmo environment just due to fickle, disagreeable players... but I still don't think that's cause to just COMPLETELY abolish server communities in favor of unstable, unreliable guild alliances. I worry that people just can't envision how lousy it's going to be with this new system.

> >

> > outside of blackgate. An alliance can probably acccomodate all the current communities underneath one respectively. Well players that actually play wvw rather than afk pip farm.

>

> At 20-25% of the new world cap? With that cap being set for full world status? (Ie JQ, FA, Mag, SoS etc)

 

Best not to speculate. You have 5 guild slots. Show me you can fill 2 of them to 1000 active players to prove me wrong. I'll even let you pick up random pugs you find in EBG to make it easier. Shoot, I won't even have you consider core guilds. Just find 1000 nerds that will follow you into the sweaty abyss of no life gaming.

[The North Wind.8317]

So I decided to get back into GW2 recently and I did not know this was even announced; but looking through the comments there are alot of questions that haven't been answered for their respective owners, so I am just going to guess at the answers being educated with the original post to help support my opinions.

I am not a Dev, nor will I claim to be one.

Questions:

1. what is the world cap? how does that differ from the cap currently on servers? How are the Old worlds effected?

2. Why is Anet breaking up communities of players, etc., etc.?

3. what does this mean for match-ups?

 

Well the last one is mostly answered in the last pageish of comments.

 

Currently by my understanding, the world cap is a leftover form before the update that launched the mega server, the thing that lets everyone play with everyone else regardless of the home server that they are apart of; A leftover that has been kept around because that is how the original system of WvW was supported by. That means that how the current population of the servers are not in relation to their WvW populations, ie FA my home server, with a "full" population currently, even with links we don't get that many queues on maps for WvW, outside of EBG and a coordinated offensive in a BL. The change that is proposed is that we do away with the old system, and base the world populations solely on their WvW population. which it would then be up to the Old Worlds WvW people to decide what to do, but that is based on a human to human interaction dealing with communities.

 

Speaking of communities there is some speculation as to if Anet is splitting up communities in the current servers; I do not believe they are. with the current alliance with the pop and guild caps still under development, gives the option for big guilds to stick together; this also allows players to meet new people and groups. This situation also allows for guilds and players to move around, I mean lets face it there are at least 2-3 guilds that you want no part in thanks to the politicking of the guilds, which is fine in the new system they wont need to leave server to find fame and glory they just need to wait a few weeks. I my self classify as a Havoc/roamer and have made the system analogues to the feudal system of the middle ages, the big alliances are the large city states, the guilds are the small cites and the individuals are mercenaries.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"The North Wind.8317" said:

> Currently by my understanding, the world cap is a leftover form before the update that launched the mega server, the thing that lets everyone play with everyone else regardless of the home server that they are apart of; A leftover that has been kept around because that is how the original system of WvW was supported by. That means that how the current population of the servers are not in relation to their WvW populations, ie FA my home server, with a "full" population currently, even with links we don't get that many queues on maps for WvW, outside of EBG and a coordinated offensive in a BL. The change that is proposed is that we do away with the old system, and base the world populations solely on their WvW population. which it would then be up to the Old Worlds WvW people to decide what to do, but that is based on a human to human interaction dealing with communities.

 

The cap has only been taking into account active WvW players for years now. It has nothing to do with megaservers. This is no change.

[henchmen.1856]

> @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

>

>

 

i thought one of the reasons for this restructuring is to "balance teams"? if you cant do that then what are you gonna to handle population imabalance/night capping?

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"henchmen.1856" said:

> > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

> >

> >

>

> i thought one of the reasons for this restructuring is to "balance teams"? if you cant do that then what are you gonna to handle population imabalance/night capping?

>

 

There is no effective way to prevent 'night capping'. We need to understand that will always be a thing in a 24/7 RvRvR.