World Restructuring

[Tongku.5326]

So...

 

This might be a silly question but... When is this going to be implimented ? Or is it in the game already ? I kinda looked but wasn't able to digup solid info. I think I will come back to the game for a while for this.

 

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"atheria.2837" said:

> 3. Three entities fighting against one antoher almost always sets up one to be 'doubleteamed' by two. That's not a competitiuon, that's, well, I don't know what it is, but it's not World Versus World. If just one entity was against one entity then the 'best' would rise to the top. As it is, it's a game of 'point manipulation' such as

> the case of many servers 'standing down' so they won't go up in tier.

 

So what you are saying is that two servers are fighting and one of the servers give up because it doesnt want to go up in tier, that's more competition than a 3-way as the 'best' server wins?

 

I find your statement is ridiculous. The 3-way is literally there to stop a 2-way matchup from becoming too boring when one of the servers dominate.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Tongku.5326" said:

> So...

>

> This might be a silly question but... When is this going to be implimented ? Or is it in the game already ? I kinda looked but wasn't able to digup solid info. I think I will come back to the game for a while for this.

>

 

It hasn't been implemented yet and the WvW devs will only say they are working on it. Best guess is maybe 4-5 months, I don't expect it until 2019 though.

[Kuldaj.9518]

I think this idea seems a lot better than how it currently is. I am primarily a solo roamer, although I sometimes tag up and lead around 4 - 5 people on a borderland.

 

I see quite a bit of complaining from solo or small party players who don't seem to know how they are going to get to play with their friends. Well that's simple join the same guild and claim your guild as a WvW guild. Did I miss the part that a WvW guild can't do other things? Also in their little picture it even shows Guilds in the battle that aren't part of the alliance. So you get your friends to join a guild, and you all get put on the same battle or your guild joins an alliance and fights with the rest of the server.

 

To me, as someone who primarily goes in solo and maybe forms a group while in the battle this doesn't seem like it would affect me at all. I can still join the battle, still go in and still have fun. I think it was mentioned somewhere that Borderlands and stuff aren't going to be there. I honestly hope it just isn't one huge map, because that will pretty much make it impossible for solo players (like me) to be able to do anything without/against a zerg. It should have 3 maps. Two "borderlands" one for each Guild/Alliance and then middle battlefield.

 

Now this does seem to turn WvW in to more of a GvG mode. As it seems the battles will be centered around the larger Guilds or Alliances and they will be the ones going at each other. So honestly I don't know why they aren't just renaming it cause it honestly isn't WvW anymore. Its GvG (or AvA).

 

Either way I am looking forward to it. But a part of me wishes they would have just made the GvG mode separate from WvW and we could have both.

[atheria.2837]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"atheria.2837" said:

> > 3. Three entities fighting against one antoher almost always sets up one to be 'doubleteamed' by two. That's not a competitiuon, that's, well, I don't know what it is, but it's not World Versus World. If just one entity was against one entity then the 'best' would rise to the top. As it is, it's a game of 'point manipulation' such as

> > the case of many servers 'standing down' so they won't go up in tier.

>

> So what you are saying is that two servers are fighting and one of the servers give up because it doesnt want to go up in tier, that's more competition than a 3-way as the 'best' server wins?

>

> I find your statement is ridiculous. The 3-way is literally there to stop a 2-way matchup from becoming too boring when one of the servers dominate.

 

You find my statement ridiculous?

 

You mean like a server telling all its players to stand down?

 

Happens at least every other week on my server.

 

If just two servers were fighting one another and not three with massive collusion and point manipulation, we'd not be talking about "WvW Restructuring" at all.

[atheria.2837]

> @"Kuldaj.9518" said:

> I think this idea seems a lot better than how it currently is. I am primarily a solo roamer, although I sometimes tag up and lead around 4 - 5 people on a borderland.

>

> I see quite a bit of complaining from solo or small party players who don't seem to know how they are going to get to play with their friends. Well that's simple join the same guild and claim your guild as a WvW guild. Did I miss the part that a WvW guild can't do other things? Also in their little picture it even shows Guilds in the battle that aren't part of the alliance. So you get your friends to join a guild, and you all get put on the same battle or your guild joins an alliance and fights with the rest of the server.

>

> To me, as someone who primarily goes in solo and maybe forms a group while in the battle this doesn't seem like it would affect me at all. I can still join the battle, still go in and still have fun. I think it was mentioned somewhere that Borderlands and stuff aren't going to be there. I honestly hope it just isn't one huge map, because that will pretty much make it impossible for solo players (like me) to be able to do anything without/against a zerg. It should have 3 maps. Two "borderlands" one for each Guild/Alliance and then middle battlefield.

>

> Now this does seem to turn WvW in to more of a GvG mode. As it seems the battles will be centered around the larger Guilds or Alliances and they will be the ones going at each other. So honestly I don't know why they aren't just renaming it cause it honestly isn't WvW anymore. Its GvG (or AvA).

>

> Either way I am looking forward to it. But a part of me wishes they would have just made the GvG mode separate from WvW and we could have both.

 

Many guilds aren't WvW guilds and those that are, are not available to many (i.e. BG) so your statement is a bit off.

 

Solo and small guilds will be pushed to the side when the alliances are live.

 

Solo anything right now is a total joke.

[worgen.5920]

What is the the closest possible release time for this update? (this summer, fall or winter 19)

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"atheria.2837" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"atheria.2837" said:

> > > 3. Three entities fighting against one antoher almost always sets up one to be 'doubleteamed' by two. That's not a competitiuon, that's, well, I don't know what it is, but it's not World Versus World. If just one entity was against one entity then the 'best' would rise to the top. As it is, it's a game of 'point manipulation' such as

> > > the case of many servers 'standing down' so they won't go up in tier.

> >

> > So what you are saying is that two servers are fighting and one of the servers give up because it doesnt want to go up in tier, that's more competition than a 3-way as the 'best' server wins?

> >

> > I find your statement is ridiculous. The 3-way is literally there to stop a 2-way matchup from becoming too boring when one of the servers dominate.

>

> You find my statement ridiculous?

>

> You mean like a server telling all its players to stand down?

>

> Happens at least every other week on my server.

>

> If just two servers were fighting one another and not three with massive collusion and point manipulation, we'd not be talking about "WvW Restructuring" at all.

 

What about a 2-way fight automatically exclude any manipulation thats going on with a 3-way for any of the sides?

 

Thats like saying its better to encounter 2 cheaters in the game instead of 3 cheaters, because only 2 of those 3 cheaters work together, unlike the 2 just working together without a 3rd.

[atheria.2837]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"atheria.2837" said:

> > > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > > @"atheria.2837" said:

> > > > 3. Three entities fighting against one antoher almost always sets up one to be 'doubleteamed' by two. That's not a competitiuon, that's, well, I don't know what it is, but it's not World Versus World. If just one entity was against one entity then the 'best' would rise to the top. As it is, it's a game of 'point manipulation' such as

> > > > the case of many servers 'standing down' so they won't go up in tier.

> > >

> > > So what you are saying is that two servers are fighting and one of the servers give up because it doesnt want to go up in tier, that's more competition than a 3-way as the 'best' server wins?

> > >

> > > I find your statement is ridiculous. The 3-way is literally there to stop a 2-way matchup from becoming too boring when one of the servers dominate.

> >

> > You find my statement ridiculous?

> >

> > You mean like a server telling all its players to stand down?

> >

> > Happens at least every other week on my server.

> >

> > If just two servers were fighting one another and not three with massive collusion and point manipulation, we'd not be talking about "WvW Restructuring" at all.

>

> What about a 2-way fight automatically exclude any manipulation thats going on with a 3-way for any of the sides?

>

> Thats like saying its better to encounter 2 cheaters in the game instead of 3 cheaters, because only 2 of those 3 cheaters work together, unlike the 2 just working together without a 3rd.

 

You can't see how much harder it could be to "collude" if there were just two sides?

 

I don't get it.

 

I just don't.

 

I've been gaming for 28 years, and I've seen every scenario in 'war games' and every single time you add more than 'two sides' the

collusion and point manipulation starts and never ends.

[atheria.2837]

> @"Kuldaj.9518" said:

> I think this idea seems a lot better than how it currently is. I am primarily a solo roamer, although I sometimes tag up and lead around 4 - 5 people on a borderland.

>

> I see quite a bit of complaining from solo or small party players who don't seem to know how they are going to get to play with their friends. Well that's simple join the same guild and claim your guild as a WvW guild. Did I miss the part that a WvW guild can't do other things? Also in their little picture it even shows Guilds in the battle that aren't part of the alliance. So you get your friends to join a guild, and you all get put on the same battle or your guild joins an alliance and fights with the rest of the server.

>

> To me, as someone who primarily goes in solo and maybe forms a group while in the battle this doesn't seem like it would affect me at all. I can still join the battle, still go in and still have fun. I think it was mentioned somewhere that Borderlands and stuff aren't going to be there. I honestly hope it just isn't one huge map, because that will pretty much make it impossible for solo players (like me) to be able to do anything without/against a zerg. It should have 3 maps. Two "borderlands" one for each Guild/Alliance and then middle battlefield.

>

> Now this does seem to turn WvW in to more of a GvG mode. As it seems the battles will be centered around the larger Guilds or Alliances and they will be the ones going at each other. So honestly I don't know why they aren't just renaming it cause it honestly isn't WvW anymore. Its GvG (or AvA).

>

> Either way I am looking forward to it. But a part of me wishes they would have just made the GvG mode separate from WvW and we could have both.

 

Wait, what?

 

Borderlands are going away?

 

This isn't going to be WvW any longer.

 

We do love our maps, even the Desert map grew on me over time, I'd go there before almost any now.

 

This is extremely disturbing news.

 

*EdgeOfTheMistsV2* many were right, this isn't going to end well.

 

Thank goodness they promised to 'revert' if it doesn't work!

[XenesisII.1540]

Someone needs to provide a link because I never seen them mentioning removing any of the maps, nor could they reduce them because there needs to be 3 borderland maps to keep it fair for all 3 sides.

 

The world restructuring is rebalancing the population every 8 weeks, nothing else about wvw is changing.

 

[Caliburn.1845]

Yeah, maps aren't changing. Funny how hysterical the rumor mill gets.

[Mance.5640]

The real question is, will there be any WvW'ers left by the time Anet does anything at all? If their plan was to stall until their old wvwer's left the game, and just keep the same old system for "new wvw'ers" they are doing a fantastic job of it.

 

To keep your WvW player base in the dark at this juncture, after they've been loyal to your game for 6+ years, isn't a good look. After they stopped roaming, made havoc teams useless, and stuck us with this stale meta forever, the least they could do is talk to their players. I'm pretty sure the pvp gig in this game is up, anet has pulled the plug through their own inaction.

[Tiawal.2351]

An estimate would be useful, like less than 6 months? About a year? I don't know why we have even to ask this, it's like we are more interested in this game mode than the company behind. There is a point when the players just move on, and we are far beyond that.

[Victory.2879]

3.5 mths after the first announcement- any news of progress or even a 'pencilled in a q4 2019 release'?

[HazyDaisy.4107]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> Someone needs to provide a link because I never seen them mentioning removing any of the maps, nor could they reduce them because there needs to be 3 borderland maps to keep it fair for all 3 sides.

>

> The world restructuring is rebalancing the population every 8 weeks, nothing else about wvw is changing.

>

 

Ever play that game where you tell a person a story and pass it down the line from one person to the next? This is that game

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"atheria.2837" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"atheria.2837" said:

> > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > > > @"atheria.2837" said:

> > > > > 3. Three entities fighting against one antoher almost always sets up one to be 'doubleteamed' by two. That's not a competitiuon, that's, well, I don't know what it is, but it's not World Versus World. If just one entity was against one entity then the 'best' would rise to the top. As it is, it's a game of 'point manipulation' such as

> > > > > the case of many servers 'standing down' so they won't go up in tier.

> > > >

> > > > So what you are saying is that two servers are fighting and one of the servers give up because it doesnt want to go up in tier, that's more competition than a 3-way as the 'best' server wins?

> > > >

> > > > I find your statement is ridiculous. The 3-way is literally there to stop a 2-way matchup from becoming too boring when one of the servers dominate.

> > >

> > > You find my statement ridiculous?

> > >

> > > You mean like a server telling all its players to stand down?

> > >

> > > Happens at least every other week on my server.

> > >

> > > If just two servers were fighting one another and not three with massive collusion and point manipulation, we'd not be talking about "WvW Restructuring" at all.

> >

> > What about a 2-way fight automatically exclude any manipulation thats going on with a 3-way for any of the sides?

> >

> > Thats like saying its better to encounter 2 cheaters in the game instead of 3 cheaters, because only 2 of those 3 cheaters work together, unlike the 2 just working together without a 3rd.

>

> You can't see how much harder it could be to "collude" if there were just two sides?

>

> I don't get it.

>

> I just don't.

>

> I've been gaming for 28 years, and I've seen every scenario in 'war games' and every single time you add more than 'two sides' the

> collusion and point manipulation starts and never ends.

 

Yes as sPvP has shown, there is absolutely no wintrading, intentional afking, bribing or otherwise cheating the 2-way system going on.

 

Its all honorable fights between honorable players all day long.

[Coldtart.4785]

This change seems like it's being made to make WvW more 'competitive', which is a bit like trying to make a triangle into a three-sided square. WvW is played with three teams, with very large team sizes and 24/7 uptime. None of those design aspects are the design aspects of a competitive game. This isn't a matter of failing to live up to a competitive standard, either. The fundamentals of WvW are those of a much more sandbox styled game.

[nicknamenick.2437]

Soooo when?? Its taking waay too long..

I am bored with this game :(

[Aridon.8362]

Honestly it's taking way too much time thinking instead of doing. The ability to think of an approach along with the scope of how long it will take to implement shouldn't take this long to figure out. If you'd ask me I would say it's just the developers clearly not caring enough on the matter. As a result my guild is leaving the game and I don't blame them.

[XenesisII.1540]

They told you it would take some time, longer than any other projects they did, why you all in here complaining 3 months into it?

[BadMed.3846]

> @"Aridon.8362" said:

> Honestly it's taking way too much time thinking instead of doing. The ability to think of an approach along with the scope of how long it will take to implement shouldn't take this long to figure out. If you'd ask me I would say it's just the developers clearly not caring enough on the matter. As a result my guild is leaving the game and I don't blame them.

 

Be assured that our kids will enjoy WvW more. See you on your return as a family operated guild then.

 

 

[aspirine.5839]

> @"Aridon.8362" said:

> Honestly it's taking way too much time thinking instead of doing. The ability to think of an approach along with the scope of how long it will take to implement shouldn't take this long to figure out. If you'd ask me I would say it's just the developers clearly not caring enough on the matter. As a result my guild is leaving the game and I don't blame them.

 

Well good, not that you or your mates are leaving that it takes so long. From the sounds of it could probably ruin wvw altogether.

Large guild groups are already ruining it for me, 25+ groups taking camps and sentries is just no fun at all.

[joneirikb.7506]

I read through this entire thread a while ago, but have forgotten what has been mentioned in these 50 pages, so probably repeating stuff:

 

Are there any ways to deal with people making 2 different alliances, with 2 different guilds, having all the same members, and just swap theoretically 500 people every other matchup, trying to manipulate 1 alliance to decay to get grouped with a stronger in general world, then everyone rep that for the next season and overwhelm the enemy. While letting the other alliance "decay" with inactivity again ?

 

---

 

One point I'm starting to appreciate at this point, is that Alliances, unlike Servers, gives players the chance to accept or deny players. Being a resident of Kaineng, I've seen our server been bandwagoned a few times, our entire community/culture trampled under bandwagoners that only cares about using us to be the next big thing and then dump it, letting us deal with the leftovers. And knowing that there isn't a single thing we can do about it, because lets face it, no player can stop another player from joining a server. In this regard I'm looking forward to the Alliances, because at least we have something we can build a community around...

 

---

 

Another topic that has been mentioned by the Dev's, but not details or talked much about, probably because it isn't very important but still something I'm curious about: Server titles. Can we get any more details on those, please?

 

Some questions:

 

* Will titles be "Server Name"?

* Will they work like PVE titles, thus not be displayable in WvW?

* What will determine what server title we get, last server on?

* What about people that have jumped around all their time, last server, or server spent most time on, own title "Server Jumper" ?

 

To be honest, I'd probably feel a little insulted if I saw for example someone with the guild tag for WarMachine running around with the "Kaineng" server title. But then again, at this rate, you might as well just make Kaineng's server title read "BandWagon#1".

[SkyShroud.2865]

Ermm, I believe alliance is permanent thus there is no decay timer.

 

As for those stackers and bandwagoners alike trying to create mega alliances, well, we have to wait and see what limit will the anet set. Perhaps, the limit is low enough that stackers and bandwagoners alike can't take advantage of. Afterall, according to the image, there supposedly to be at least 2 or more alliances per server plus the random guilds and pugs. Thus, the limit shouldn't be that high.