World Restructuring

[Korgov.7645]

Worlds have a Glicko rating. It determines the world's placement on the leaderboard. When a world wins or loses against the expectations the rating goes up and down respectively.

 

How is the Glicko rating calculated when new worlds are created? Do players carry the rating with them to the new world?

 

Or will the Glicko be removed altogether? Then what lasting reward is there to winning a season for alliances/guilds/players? If there is none then all worlds will be like the current guest worlds with no incentive to win.

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"PlayerOne.6795" said:

> I have played same server since launch almost, it will never be the same. How is it worlds when you dont have a world name? Will you still have world loyalty when you dont even know where you are from? Will you come and help random player asking for help when you know they will probably just be your enemy sooner than later? Or will you just stick to helping the ones you know? We know the answers already, don't tell me it will be the same. And if this change goes through "World versus World" will NO LONGER be a fitting name, imo anyhow.

 

There will be world names, just not the names we currently have. The concept is no different than changing world links every 8 weeks, you get new team mates then, some guilds move around, new people to meet and play with, while still playing with old team mates in alliances or guilds. It's still entire worlds vs another world, it's still probably going to be the 1u1d system not the glicko one, and they'll probably start giving out rewards for actually winning since populations and coverage should be more even and they can start to treat the 8 weeks as a season.

 

The other part you are talking about is the the social aspect of it, you don't know every player on your server, sorry you just don't, if a random player asks for help and whether or not you give them help based on their name is up to you. Some of you need to get over your long term hatred, seriously, just because you think someone might be on an enemy server in 8 weeks you won't help them now while they're on your server? That's pretty ridiculous. Oh look Lebron is going to be a free agent and probably going to the lakers, guess his team mates won't bother giving him anymore passes in the meantime.

 

Server loyalty became less important years ago when the defense of home borderlands broke down, HoT upgrades and desert borderland making wvw just as much of a desert broke that, a lot of cooperation between players and guilds and commanders came down to that, people had pride in defending their side. Guilds and players also broke out of the illusion of points meaning something, of wins for a server meant something when all it came down to was coverage netting you wins, not skill, not when your efforts meant nothing because some people overnight racked up the score and you couldn't recover.

 

People are always more loyal to their guild and friends over their server these days. Server loyalty is a dead concept, server play styles however is still a thing like BG being the ultimate ppt server still heavily using scouts and defending as much as possible to win these days, YB still being one of the heavy seige using servers, Mag still being a heavy fight server, these styles will die with the new system. People still hate playing against certain servers because of their play styles, not because of people on them, hell I don't even hear server names as much in call outs, it's always the color, blue zerg attacking garri, because of the stupid nameplate changes we're all just colored dots to some people, so who cares if someone turns out to be your enemy in 8 weeks anyways.

 

[Ben K.6238]

> @"Sviel.7493" said:

> In order for that to work, it must be possible to stall. My point is that the number of people required to effectively stall is too close to the number of people you're trying to delay.

>

 

Is it? When fortified walls and siege are present, 20 can hold off 50 for a long time, even with counter-siege.

[ledernierrempart.6871]

this is good, but i woner when it will come out.

alo what most WvW players wants is new stuff to play with. if not a new map, at least new mechanics, new siege weapons, new npc AI?new traps to build?(like one that bump in a large aoe?) ... anything that can give us some new experience. right now the game mode feels like it the same as game launch aside from minor changes like the new tic changes (which was a good idea) and the relocation of a fort in eternal battleground map. (which was also a good change).

 

also you really need to advertise the obsiian sanctuary for people to come and play in the arena, maybe some 1v1 streamed event there?

also you nee to re-evaluate the prize you get by doing its jumping puzzle so more people will do it so we can again battle there like back in the days buses where fighting there, it was so much fun!.

also maybe you could put a ruin to capture there so it would be actually worth going there to fight for the server.

[Roxanne.6140]

> @"PlayerOne.6795" said:

> If this goes through anyhow what will the gamemode be called? Since world versus world is out of the question then. Just curious as to what i will not be participating in...

 

Once population is shaved, population will be easier to kontrowl

[Totenkopf.9805]

If i am not in guild (just pug ) will i be assigned to the world considering my play time (i mean my Timezone)?

[shiri.4257]

> @"Totenkopf.9805" said:

> If i am not in guild (just pug ) will i be assigned to the world considering my play time (i mean my Timezone)?

 

you'll be randomized.

[SWI.4127]

Just a thought: It would be cool if, instead of a title to commemorate your previous world, you would get a finisher which somehow represented your old server instead. A finisher is more relevant in WvW. Personally, I don't pay much attention to titles at all, but maybe that's just me. Obviously the hard part would be the design. It's not like worlds currently have icons or anything that you could base the design on. I'm sure the more creative types could come up with something though.

[XenesisII.1540]

I'm hoping for at least titles, something a little personal to remember the server you were on like Beastgate or Magswag, although titles don't show in wvw so it's kinda pointless.

 

Finishers would be cool too, perhaps one like the guild flag finisher showing the abbreviated name or icon of that server, like BG SoS MAG YB JQ etc.


 

Or unique Backpieces like the guild one or banners like the ones that came out with pof with abbreviated server names or icons on them.

 


 


 

 

 

[Myxam.2790]

I'm not certain if its a consideration, or how this will work, but I'll pose a very likely scenario that will occur.

 

I am the leader of a Roleplaying megaguild, and Alliances would ultimately resolve the necessity of my guild existing (Thankfully putting me out of the job and letting me enjoy my position in the RP guild I'm apart of). The guilds that represent under my tag would be able to band together under alliances and communicate in game with a universal chat (I can't imagine this system not implementing a new chat channel) as well as out of game through Discord. A handful of members in this collective engage in WvW on a personal basis.

 

If this system was implimented solely in mind of WvW, would the existence of my new Alliance sort the entire population into one of these realms every 8 weeks and 'fill' potential slots that wouldn't be used because of this handful of members playing WvW, while the rest of the alliance doesn't? Wouldn't it be more apt to allow Alliances to form for other reasons such as sPvP, Raiding, Fractals, PvE Trains, or Roleplaying? Or will there be some kind of measure in place to exclude these types of guilds from allying?

 

Could alliances opt out of WvW sorting? Could we see flags for Alliances in specific content that would allow, say two or three full commander squads of guild members be sorted into the same instance of VB,AB,TD, DS, DoI, or SS?

 

You've given me a lot of hope for this feature reducing the headaches and hoops I have to jump through, and I look forward to a response.

[XenesisII.1540]

Alliances are only used for the purpose of sorting groups of players to the wvw worlds at their creation every 8 weeks, megaservers are used for everything else. Those who choose a guild in your alliance as their wvw guild will be sorted into the same world as the rest of the alliance, there is no reason to have alliances in any other part of the game, you can all already join each other in the same zones at any time. If you're wanting alliances just for another chat channel might be better off asking for a chat channel across guilds instead. They haven't said if alliances will have a separate channel yet.

[Ianto.5483]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this new system. You claim that it will help balance WvW but when guilds can just form alliances to completely bypass the world placements, then you'll just end up making a system like Archeage's player nations: Where all the best players are in 1 group stomping everyone else.

 

I'm not even sure if there is a way to keep guildies together AND provide a balanced WvW experience for the majority of your playerbase. You're going to have to choose one or the other.

[XenesisII.1540]

A full alliance will not be a biggest part of the population. There will be caps on alliance populations so that you can't just stack every good guild into one alliance.

Alliances will also be randomly placed into the worlds just like solo guilds and players so they're not just stacking all the good full alliances into one world.

They will be monitoring different statistics/metrics of players to make up the balance of the world, mostly what times you play, your commander time etc.

 

Look at the world creation example image again. Most likely what will happen is they will take the alliances that are full (3 guilds in that image) and placed them first then move to placing alliances with 2 guilds, then they will fill out the rest of the spots with guilds with no alliances and then players with no guilds or alliances. They won't just fill up one world first and then move to fill the next one, that is the point of balancing out the populations.

 

Creating worlds this way gives them a LOT of pieces and options to create a balance population and coverage, unlike links which they do now have enough pieces (servers) to fully make that balanced.

 

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Ianto.5483" said:

> I'm not sure I understand the point of this new system. You claim that it will help balance WvW but when guilds can just form alliances to completely bypass the world placements, then you'll just end up making a system like Archeage's player nations: Where all the best players are in 1 group stomping everyone else.

>

> I'm not even sure if there is a way to keep guildies together AND provide a balanced WvW experience for the majority of your playerbase. You're going to have to choose one or the other.

 

There will be limitations on the numbers of guilds and the number of active players in an alliance and an alliance will bea smallish percentage of the total players of a world.

[Lord Of The Tree.5249]

Like the idea of being guild based rather than world base. That is a change long overdue. I believe the alliance part could have a big negative effect overall and turn into the same mess as we have now with world linking. With each person having 6 guilds to choose from it can make it hard for guild leaders to get the people needed for WvW. Might be good way to build up our guilds. One other big improvement is get rid of EOTM and the ruins. When they came into the game lost 3/4 of my guild who just quit the game. That is still one of my pet peeves about this game.

[HazyDaisy.4107]

I wonder what the predicted downtime between end and beginning of each world reset will be? Right now it's 5 or less mins and that's just sorting existing servers, break that down to indivdual players and, hmm, how long will that take? Then once it opens add possible immediate ques and you have a lot of unhappy players before this thing is even tested.

[Ianto.5483]

> @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > @"Ianto.5483" said:

> > I'm not sure I understand the point of this new system. You claim that it will help balance WvW but when guilds can just form alliances to completely bypass the world placements, then you'll just end up making a system like Archeage's player nations: Where all the best players are in 1 group stomping everyone else.

> >

> > I'm not even sure if there is a way to keep guildies together AND provide a balanced WvW experience for the majority of your playerbase. You're going to have to choose one or the other.

>

> There will be limitations on the numbers of guilds and the number of active players in an alliance and an alliance will bea smallish percentage of the total players of a world.

 

Except: " Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members"

and: "Because of this, there are plans to allow transfers between worlds during a season. This means that new worlds will have size restrictions on them, as they do currently." but a server cannot be x-ferd to unless the active pop drops below 90%. 91-100% is all you need to completely lock down a server as "invitation only".

 

This new system will not add structure to WvW but give players far too much control over it and certain players will take advantage of this.

[XenesisII.1540]

And then it resets in 8 weeks so they can try and do whatever to jig the system, they're just wasting gems for nothing.

[Kilo.2539]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > @"Sabre.8251" said:

> > I allready can foresee trouble with Alliances system. Of course the "real" WvW players, or better said the good WvW players will end up sitting in a few guilds, which will create an Alliance. Pretty sure this can be expected. Ending up with maybe 1-2 Alliances of good WvW players against the rest (Roamers, newbies, trolls and so on).

> > You may want to rethink the Alliances system, it will leave the matches to good WvW'ers vs bad/new WvW players.

>

> Counter point for food for thought: So if good players stack together in one alliance, and fill out 1000 motivated and skillful players. That shoudl be about 25% of the total "server". What if the other 75% of that server keeps getting filled with random fair-weather pugs that just wants to afk farm their gift of battle, refuse to use meta battle builds, learn to play, or use voice chats, or any other kind of organizations.

>

> Are those 1000 players in that one super alliance going to carry the 3000 other players alone ? Can 1000 people hold up against 2 other servers with a more even mix of motivation ?

>

> I think that alone could be interesting to watch.

 

I doubt all of YB pugs would end up on the same server.

[Warrior.5347]

I think being able to join multiple guilds across multiple servers is dumb in the first place, change my mind.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Warrior.5347" said:

> I think being able to join multiple guilds across multiple servers is dumb in the first place, change my mind.

 

i think that able to join multi guilds in the first place is casual

then again, what mind did you change?

[Warrior.5347]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Warrior.5347" said:

> > I think being able to join multiple guilds across multiple servers is dumb in the first place, change my mind.

>

> i think that able to join multi guilds in the first place is casual

> then again, what mind did you change?

 

I'm here to get my mind changed, not to change minds. It sounds rather unintuitive and spoiled from all the complaints here.

[Euryon.9248]

> @"Warrior.5347" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"Warrior.5347" said:

> > > I think being able to join multiple guilds across multiple servers is dumb in the first place, change my mind.

> >

> > i think that able to join multi guilds in the first place is casual

> > then again, what mind did you change?

>

> I'm here to get my mind changed, not to change minds. It sounds rather unintuitive and spoiled from all the complaints here.

 

Let's see, someone could be in a bank guild, a guild for personal friends, a wvw guild, a raid guild, and a general PVE guild. All legitimate guilds with different foci, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[joneirikb.7506]

> @"Warrior.5347" said:

> I think being able to join multiple guilds across multiple servers is dumb in the first place, change my mind.

 

If disregarding the "across multiple servers" part, then:

 

It really is up to each individual person how to deal and think about it. Some want to join 1 guild and stay in it, others likes to have different guilds for different things etc. A lot of people enjoys having a personal bank guild, or a personal friend guild, besides being part of a larger community guild etc.

 

With the "across multiple servers" part:

 

This changes things a little, thing is that you can still stick to what you prefer/enjoy for yourself. I have several guild mates that are part of multiple guilds over multiple servers, because they enjoy fighting and dueling each others. In that regard they really use the extra guilds more like "extended friend lists", without having to add multiple 20+ man guilds worth of players to friend list. In that regard it works pretty well.

 

I always thought the largest problem was that you could join a guild in pve (etc) and end up not being on the same world in WvW. But that is something they're actually planning to fix with this change.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Warrior.5347" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"Warrior.5347" said:

> > > I think being able to join multiple guilds across multiple servers is dumb in the first place, change my mind.

> >

> > i think that able to join multi guilds in the first place is casual

> > then again, what mind did you change?

>

> I'm here to get my mind changed, not to change minds. It sounds rather unintuitive and spoiled from all the complaints here.

 

> @"Warrior.5347" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"Warrior.5347" said:

> > > I think being able to join multiple guilds across multiple servers is dumb in the first place, change my mind.

> >

> > i think that able to join multi guilds in the first place is casual

> > then again, what mind did you change?

>

> I'm here to get my mind changed, not to change minds. It sounds rather unintuitive and spoiled from all the complaints here.

 

EOS peeps used to have people questioning about multi guild system and how it will affect social cohesiveness.

 

But your question is about multi guild in same servers. I don't see the point. Firstly, the game isn't about just WvW.