Guild Wars 2

morrolan.9608:

Jacion.6302:

Unrelated to topic at hand but why is this the case? I can understand not displaying pvp/PvE titles in wvw, but what’s the point of the coveted wvw titles if you can’t display them in wvw, not to mention the demoralizing the enemy with Ultimate Dominator?

Demoralise? It makes me laugh because the player has in all probability obtained the title farming in EOTM.

Which is sad, same with karmatrain rank, I have spent a total of 5mins in EOTM.

Missed opportunity I suppose (titles that is)

Typical…. take our money…give us kitten options to cover up a mess up for a part of gw2 that you didnt think was worth it to begin with..and make us pick.
Everytime you give us options its cosmetic… Nothing has really changed…people still bandwagon, no amount of regrouping will make a difference…till you hold off on transfers. But then again.. that’s digging into your own pockets… why would you?

There are some of us who are server loyal…we are wvw loyal and we have somehow made this part of GW2 home…despite the lags, mad cosmetic changes that make rendering even more hellish, and crazy server teaming up and random chaos you keep throwing into the game under the guise of helping making it better… MY KITTEN!!.

Fact of the matter is either you start from scratch and make a NEW GAME THAT IS ONLY WVW ORIENTED, and leave this one alone till you get that sorted out…. or actually listen to the players and ask for input… play the game would be a good start… NA and EU game play and servers are very different in their attitudes and expectations from what i hear. Else call a spade a spade and leave as is, as is!

As someone who is in a server that was formerly T7-8 NA, none of the proposed solutions appeal. The problem for me, at least, is not server identity per se, it’s the volatility. One link, I’m in T4, next T2, next T1, then back to T4. What I miss most is the consistency of experience, not seeing my server name.

The only solutions I can see to my problem would be a return to 24 NA servers OR out and out merges. Either would also solve identity issues. What those solutions would likely not solve is population swings due to migration.

It seems to me that the linking is intended to rebalance populations periodically. How’s that going? If it’s working, then maybe the crap that accompanies it, both loss of identity and my consistency of experience issue, are less important. If it isn’t working, then what’s the point?

So, for me, none of the three choices are going to make my WvW experience better.

1. Which proposal is your favorite?

3, unfortunately it’s only because I see much bigger issues with 1 and 2 not because I really like 3.

2. What, if anything, would you change about any of the current proposals?

I would change option 1. Instead of their being random names from a pool, when links are formed give them a name derived from the linked servers names:
EG: Maguuma Terrace, Aspenwood Sanctum, Stormbluff Madness, Bay of Sorrows, Yak’s Anvil, Shiverpeak’s Furnace, Kaineng Brand Pass, Isle of Ferguson’s Henge, Devona’s Crystal Haven.

Granted it’s a little tricker with 3-4 servers linked, but it acknowledges everyone, without the loss of identity, both to the team and the enemy. Keep it for the length of the linking.

I don’t feel option 2 is salvageable. We need server names for scouting and a sense of community. It sounds very much like Edge of the Myst, i’m sure there is plenty of forum evidence on how WvWers feel about that.

Option 3 is just going to confuse us. When i’m running I need those updates on who took what to help keep track of the enemy and judge response time. Having to look up who was linked with who is going to make that more difficult (particularly in multi-link situations). It was also unclear in this proposal if all objectives taken by a team come up as the linked server or just ones they participate in? or are the dominate force?

3. Is there another proposal you think is better?
Server titles that the enemy can see. Players can toggle it on or off depending on whether they want it known or not. Some care, some don’t, make it a personal choice for the player.

none,
either merge servers or rotate out the names every week

I’ll go out on a limb.

Let’s reverse things & use the Guest World Server’s (Lower Ranked) names in a pairing instead…since people argue that Server Pride died a long time ago.

Nobody should mind right?

I’m guessing that won’t fly…because it still exists…for the Lucky Host Servers…imho

Identity has meaning & provides purpose where there is none…even though you can not measure it objectively.

I’d prefer a solution that allows players to get emotionally invested in their “Identity” & they’ll throw money at you for anything that improves their ability to show their love of it.

I would prefer to see server merges than linking

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The team has been looking at ways to improve the server identity within the World Linking System. We have come up with several potential solutions, and we’d like your feedback on them.

Solution 1: Alliance Names Proposal

Every time worlds are linked, an alliance name would be generated for the linked worlds.
• Names would be generated from a pool of names that we create.
• Once a name is being used it would not be used again until the pool ran out of names.
• NA and EU would not share the same names.
• An alliance name would be preserved until every name in the pool of names was used. For example, the linked worlds of Crystal Desert and Eredon Terrace would always share the same alliance name until all names in the pool were used.
• The alliance name would be used instead of the host world’s name in almost all areas of the UI. Specifically, it will be used as the map name, the name that shows up when something is captured, and the name on the mist war panel. On the mist war panel, the + would continue to list all the worlds in the alliance.

Solution 2: Guild Focused Proposal

Instead of having an alliance name, worlds would be referred to by their color.
• The borderlands would now be called Red Desert Borderlands Green Alpine Borderlands, or Blue Alpine Borderlands.
• The color designation would replace the “host” world’s name in almost all areas except within announcements.
• When objectives were captured, the name of the guild that contributed most when capturing the objective would be displayed. For example, “Objective Captured! [Guild Name] has captured [objective name].”

Solution 3: Some Guest Names Proposal

In areas where there is more player involvement, such as capturing objectives, guest world names may appear.
• When objectives are captured it would now display the guest world’s name: “Objective Captured! [Guest World Name] has captured [objective name].”
• The map name would remain the host world’s name.
• We would not display guest world names to enemies because we believe that would make fighting enemies more confusing since it would be harder to tell which world you were fighting.

Questions:
1. Which proposal is your favorite?
2. What, if anything, would you change about any of the current proposals?
3. Is there another proposal you think is better?

I’m puzzled by the disconnect between your first sentence and then the proposals. You say you’re wanting to promote server identity but options 1 and 2 actually remove your identity by replacing it with either a default colour or default name. In the example of number 2 where you say a guild focus approach we already have that sort of, if my guild did most of the work to capture an objective then my guild gets to claim it.

Out of all the suggestions 3 is the best but it’s the best of a poor bunch.

Why not generate 3-4 character short hands of each server and replace the name plates with that.

SFR = seafarer’s rest
WSR = Whiteside Ridge
GuH = Gunnar’s Hold (yes I know many would use GH as the abbreviation)
RoF = Ring of Fire
Vab = Vabbi
Des or Deso = desolation

So we have

SFR + WSR captured fire overlook.
SFR + WSR invader

Even if we get 3 servers linked you would have shorter name plates

GuH + Deso + RoF captured fire overlook.
GuH + Deso + RoF invader

You could also name them with a / instead of + to save space.

SFR/WSR captured fire overlook
SFR/WSR invader

GuH/Deso/RoF captured fire overlook
GuH/Deso/RoF invader

So I guess it would be [tag1]/[tag2]/[tag3]/[tag4] has captured [objective name]!

This would help preserve all server identities and you would know who you face every single tim without leaving anyone out or destroying identities completely.

I agree with the 3 character name tags. All of Anets options remove server identity.
WvW recruitment is very difficult with new transferred players not even knowing their servers guilds, and vice versa we cant see new players. Considering server is only required for WvW why would we not see it? being a gypsy server is difficult , but we survived now the naming stuff comes up and server isn’t an option? seriously no. I also think if server identity is not going to saved, you need to give a vote on server mergers.

Miko.4158:

All of Anets options remove server identity.

^This.
Absolutely terrible options, just give us our server abbreviations in the name plate.

SailorSpira.9371:

2. What, if anything, would you change about any of the current proposals?

I would change option 1. Instead of their being random names from a pool, when links are formed give them a name derived from the linked servers names:
EG: Maguuma Terrace, Aspenwood Sanctum, Stormbluff Madness, Bay of Sorrows, Yak’s Anvil, Shiverpeak’s Furnace, Kaineng Brand Pass, Isle of Ferguson’s Henge, Devona’s Crystal Haven.

Granted it’s a little tricker with 3-4 servers linked, but it acknowledges everyone, without the loss of identity, both to the team and the enemy. Keep it for the length of the linking.

This. Option 1 would be my preferred option, but only if the alliance names contain parts of our server names.

I’d also be fine with abbreviations like apharma mentioned above. You could explain the abbreviations on the score/borderland selection tab by showing the full names when one hovers on the names, similar to what we have now.

If neither of those options are possible, my vote goes to solution 3. That way guest servers would at least get credit for their work sometimes.

Solution 2 is unacceptable to me. It doesn’t foster allegiance to your team when instead of having a name you get assigned a colour that could possibly change weekly.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

@ McKenna, It’s clear you’ve been reading these forums, and tried to really take on board the ideas discussed. I can’t speak for everyone else, but I appreciate your efforts to make wvw fun again

Seconded.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Just use the suggestion that has been proposed numerous times since you linked the servers.

Color and server abbreviation. For example this week in T2 you would have Red Gold Soldier AR, or Red Gold Soldier YB.

They are both clearly marked as the red team, if people are still confused by that there is no helping them.

Best proposal I’ve seen. Many want to keep their server identity, and the anet proposals seem counter-productive.

However, it does seem like this situation of world-linking cannot go on long term. I would suggest some form of server merge be put up to a poll for the smallest 3 or 4 servers, since the issue of loss of identity is mainly a problem there. Give all bottom servers the free choice to transfer to a brand new refugee server, or another non-full server they’ve selected.

This topic goes hand in hand with the “New Word” topic. We have had about 3-4 server links since the inception of the idea. My observations are that with every new linkage, I see less and less players, and rarely do I ever see an organized guild with more than 10 members in one of the linked servers. The linked servers will not grow because 1) guilds cannot recruit and expand (specially if they lose the linked server); 2) competition from bigger guilds in linked servers; and 3) linked server population is scarce. By now server any server identity from the small servers is likely to be dead or going in that direction. Lower linked servers are just used to transfer to preferred match ups for a temporary period, but any spike in population is always temporary. What we need is WvW Guild Tier System concentrated around the health of guilds, and not population in general. I have no idea what that might look like, but I can definitely say that more worlds or any of these stuff proposed in this topic do not solve the underlying issue which is that the game mode needs an overhaul. For suggestions see my prior topic. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Guild-System/first#post6293887

If ANet is keeping a sort of tally or something as they go through this thread, I would like to mention I changed my response since I misread the OP. I’ll be changing my vote from option 3 to none/alternative proposal as outlined prior.

English is not my main.

For those who say about server pride:
What’s the problem if they remove server identity ?! None of you (from host server) didn’t support those servers whom lost their identity. You only think about your server, that you get new fresh meat for your own battles. Which is kitten understandable, but not fair for those players, whom love the same thing that you love: WvW.

Your server identity is about receiving hate from all those server, to be called stacked server or “why you don’t die already” server or siege lover server and you love that, that hate. you love that pride that you have for being “better” than others. from having a label. Even inside of your server, you aren’t a server 100% united.

Instead of your narrowed mind with your server identity, you should think at all those possibilities to make WvW better, even if that means wipe everything that you made. If WvW will be great again, but at consequence to have a wiped server pride, I’m 100% in for that! Those slave server lost their identity because many of you qq-ing on forum that you don’t have people and even now you aren’t happy with that, example: with anvil rock server.

PS: i’m not in a slave server. all I care, as everyone else, is about WvW. I don’t care the consequences or your salt after this post. you need to realize that WvW is what we love. WvW population should be united, not a freaking server pride that could fall at any time.

I don’t understand why this needs to be such a process, lets use Anvil Rock as an example.
What is so extremely Difficult about putting (AR) at the end or around their name somewhere?

You have all those stupid symbols all over our names for one thing or another and you can’t just add an Abbreviation for a server?

Sometimes the best answer is the simplest answer, stop over thinking every little detail Anet.

Nuzt.7894:

I don’t understand why this needs to be such a process, lets use Anvil Rock as an example.
What is so extremely Difficult about putting (AR) at the end or around their name somewhere?

You have all those stupid symbols all over our names for one thing or another and you can’t just add an Abbreviation for a server?

Sometimes the best answer is the simplest answer, stop over thinking every little detail Anet.

I honestly think the reason they are opposed to that is because they are still trying to push WvW to be as casual as eotm. Every one of their suggestions is to further strip server identity instead of restoring it to the linked servers.

Just delete all the current servers and create 12 new ones each for EU and NA, that way everyone is in the same boat, we all lose server identity but gain a new one, that would be fair, and then we can have decently populated servers without all this linking mess,

Greem/Red/Blue would be simplest, but not with the ‘guild x has captured’. The game is pushing guilds a bit too much. What if a pair of non-guild roamers cap a camp?

An alliance name would be useful but people have to remember which worlds are allied.

Another option would be to put ‘Your allies have captured <location>’ if your side caps something. Put the world name if an enemy captures a location. Then if you don’t see allies you know it’s not your side.

Yolaus Kriff.3465:

However, it does seem like this situation of world-linking cannot go on long term. I would suggest some form of server merge be put up to a poll for the smallest 3 or 4 servers, since the issue of loss of identity is mainly a problem there. Give all bottom servers the free choice to transfer to a brand new refugee server, or another non-full server they’ve selected.

Instead of merging these dead bottom servers…how about we let players from them vote if they prefer to be removed from the pool of Servers used for World Linking?

In fact…let’s expand these options.

Server specific Poll where only players from that server can cast a vote to decide their future fate to Continue Linking, to Merge, or Return to Pre-Link.

Then, give all players & new accounts for that Server if they decide to be Removed from the Pool…1 Free Transfer that never expires.

This is the best idea for a solution given the flawed game mode that we’re currently dealt with…imho

It would be simpler to implement a better game mode…so we wouldn’t have to make all these complex procedures & create complex mechanics to try and fix & balance things.

Nuzt.7894:

I don’t understand why this needs to be such a process, lets use Anvil Rock as an example.
What is so extremely Difficult about putting (AR) at the end or around their name somewhere?

You have all those stupid symbols all over our names for one thing or another and you can’t just add an Abbreviation for a server?

Sometimes the best answer is the simplest answer, stop over thinking every little detail Anet.

This.

So you could have Player Name [Server Abbrv.] then below that Guild Name [Guild Abbrv.].

For capture it’d either still have to be the host world’s name I guess. It’s almost better to go with alliance names here since links change all the time. So yeah…like EoTM names I guess cries

Server identity arises in part from a group of players working together to build something. Communities pull together in times of need – like Eredon Terrace who were starting the long climb out of NA T8 pre-linking.

At the moment, the host servers gain score and are ranked on the GW2 leader boards. Their position is discussed in the forums and they move up or down in the tiers.

The linked servers are involved but not acknowledged, in all of this. Although we play a role that can tip the balance at times, we gain nothing. If we fight well and the host moves up we are likely to be linked with a lower host as a reward.
Just what are we supposed to be fighting for again? Oh, I forgot, it’s that warm fuzzy feeling of having helped someone else. And the two blues and a green…

Your proposals are a start – and it’s good that you are looking into this however belatedly. It would be even better if your proposals also restored some purpose for the linked servers to build with.

Seriously reviewed these proposals & here’s my thoughts.

Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood any of the proposals presented.

Solution 1 – DHCP for WvW Alliance names

1. Linked Servers are combined together & assigned a dynamic Alliance Name to be used on the player’s WvW GUI Interface.

Solution 2 – DHCP for WvW Color names

1. Linked Servers are combined together & assigned a dynamic Color Name (rank in tier determines color – see host’s color) to be used on the player’s WvW GUI Interface.

Solution 3 – Broadcast Guest names to Home team

1. Guest names are broadcast to the Home team so they’re credited for capping an objective.

Solutions 1 & 2 – will water down any strong emotional investment for both the Home & Guest servers. It detaches their identity & places it on a temporary one that is automated to change. Servers not in control of their identity quickly don’t care about it.

Solution 3 – is a little patronizing to the Guest server, but at least it’s better than nothing.

Additional related questions that surfaced while reviewing these proposals:

1. What happens to scoring (ppt & glicko)?
2. What happens to WvW Rank?
3. Would Servers be allowed to keep seprarate scoring & ranking?
4. How do you remain transparent in creating “fair & balanced” Match-Ups?
5. What does “fair & balanced” mean?

For a Better Long Term Solution to WvW – Try a Google Search for – wvg world vs globes

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

(…)
Questions:
1. Which proposal is your favorite?
2. What, if anything, would you change about any of the current proposals?
3. Is there another proposal you think is better?

Actually this deppends on what kind of changes u guys do to WvW, unless nothing changes and this will just change the display name, nothing else….

Server identity is a bit weird since Anet introduced megaserver it cutted alot the chat comms to alot of players, then u guys added the link systems wich made things a bit more strange.

Q:1. Which proposal is your favorite?
A:1 None.

Q:2. What, if anything, would you change about any of the current proposals?
A:1 Everything.

Q:3. Is there another proposal you think is better?
A:1 Better for me? Yes. a new game mode….A no server nor faction gamemodel.

End the servers, link, glicko ppt, since they are broken and Anet cant get them to work properly, population will never be fixed how wvw is structured so effort needs to de focused to change other things.

Guilds and alliances fight over controll structures and resources for mats , gear, rewards, minor boons and new technologie avaliable to be researched on the guild hall.

a) End all servers.

b) End PPT, or change it to somethign that guild can spent to perform actions.

c) Guilds can perform 3 guild alliance and declare war to 3 other guilds.

c1) a structure of guild reward quest system for havok groups and non guild players that visit the structure owned by the guild.

c2) Bonus/reward on guild that hold stuff for X time, each tower/keep would provide diferent rewards and materials chest to guild performance while they hold the structure.

d) Change layout of some maps, BL desert would have more desert and no underground nor cannions, no more valey keep concept, more plane map.

e) Make some more smaller maps that can be tactical to boost strucutures, undergorund map only, island map, air map, in future for guilds/groups fight for materials and some other stuff.

f) revaluate structures layout, siege, higher walls, less places to build siege, maybe pre determined contruct points. like watchtowers, towers that would boost rangers range or apply a preparation for the arrows, theres infinite options to think about it?

g) add the possibility of adding EOTM to the current open maps where guilds fight for what they want resources/score for ladder

h)Guild that hold Tower B could send a yak to send supply for Keep or tower controlled by other alliance/guild.
h1) possibility to send supply from map to map, where adversaries need to find out wich where supply is comming from at the price of ppt or action points?

1. Which proposal is your favorite?

• Solution #1 is the best but ONLY if changed as detailed below.

2. What, if anything, would you change about any of the current proposals?

• The name should be an amalgamation of the two server names. Everybody knows who the servers are because they are in the name of the “alliance”, thus neither server loses identity.
• The alliance name always and only has word-parts which are already in the server names. e.g. “Ring of Vabbi”, “Gunnar’s Mouth”.
• Minor detail: If a part of the name is not unique to a server, it should not be the ONLY part of the name used in the alliance name. i.e. not just “square” when Piken Square or Vizuna Square are matched up, you would use the unique part of the name i.e. “Piken” or “Vizuna”.
• Minor detail: If you want to put many servers in one Link, it DOES mean the names will get long. Maybe some truncation would be permissible in this instance, but each server should be clearly represented.
  I’m looking forward to seeing Gunnar’s VabDara Rock vs ArborRidge Under Fire.

3. Is there another proposal you think is better?

• No.

My proposal:

- Guilds join a faction (one of the world names)
- Representing the Guild will align yourself with the guild faction

I do not WvW, because there are so few people I know on the same world.
I don’t spend time looking for a WvW guild, because I like my current guilds.
I would like to play with friends, instead of pugs.
A guild team in WvW would therefor be my personal preference.

To prevent potential abuse, you might want to limit WvW faction to a single swap per day (so you go with the first world faction you enter with for that day).
This should then still work for WvW guilds, allow more players to participate along with their friends.

I did enjoy a mesmer portal train and went along with a zerg run.
But it’s pretty boring in there without friends.

While my personal preferences would have had to have been instituted 4 years ago, from the choices given by the OP;

I prefer the Alliance choice 1.

24 individual server names or alliance names, either suits me. I have no divine right for any linked pairings to be named after me, that is ridiculous.

I like a mix of 2 and 3.

- Borderlands don’t really need to be called ‘x server borderlands’. They can have more flavorful names; they don’t even need to be named after their color. This is especially the case when you eventually release a third borderlands map. If you called Alpine Borderlands something like ‘Mistbound Alpines’, it would still make sense. This is particularly noteworthy in the context of Desert borderlands; if you say Fire Keep is under attack, you know where it is automatically regardless of which server actually owns the BL.
- Displaying announcement tags could run through something like this:
Guild majority && 3+ players
else
Server majority
else
Host realm name

Solution 2 seems to be the best option you’ve provided because it simplifies the UI during play while still giving players credit for their achievements. Of course, it’s not perfect; but, it is serviceable. There’s little I’d change to make Solution 2 work, as server names are useless at this point.

The only place in the game where account bound world/server selection remains relevant is in WvW. The linking system has evaporated most of that relevance by breaking the potential for a single server winning any match and making server restricted voice communications incapable of addressing an entire team. Given these details, the obvious way forward is to drop all pretense and remove the façade of account server relevance. I’ve thought this was the answer since the linking system was introduced.

My solution would be to split WvW play into 2 tiers: Qualifier and Competitor. As a hierarchy has already been established with colors (blue first, green second, red last; I believe) each tier would also classify players by these colors, in combination with given WvW rank. All players would begin WvW play in Qualifier maps, representing only themselves as individuals (no servers, guilds or orders), which they can opt into playing in at any time after they have completed qualification.

Play in Qualifiers would provide the developers with real data on which to base an evaluation of individual play. Qualifier matches would run 3-5 minutes per period, for 5-15 periods. At the end of each match players would be automatically respawned into new sets of maps with more equally ranked players. The best Qualifier players would unlock the ability to opt into Competitor play, representing their guilds or orders (priory/whispers/vigil). This allows guilds to promote their WvW activities while also making personal story choices somewhat relevant for those who chose to not represent a guild. Competitor matches would run for 15 minutes each period, 8 periods per skirmish, 84 skirmishes per week.

Effectively, Qualifier can be thought of as unranked PvP, while Competitor would be ranked PvP. The Edge of the Mists would be used as the WvW lobby where players can play while queued up for Qualifier or Competitor play, if necessary.

Both Qualifier and Competitor would play identically, except for their timing. Guilds and individual players are recognized for their activities during play, for example: “Objective Captured! [Guild Name or Order Name] has captured [objective name].” In both play modes players are placed on Blue, Green, or Red teams based on their individual, quantified potential. The best players being Blue, the worst being Red. As in PvP, the number of map instances spawned will expand and contract according to the number of players available to play at any given moment. Parties entering WvW will be placed on maps according to the mean of their members’ quantified potential or glicko scores. Squads will not be able to enter play and can only be formed after the commander has entered a current match, with members limited to team members currently in play.

Although Qualifier players have no control over what teams or maps they play on, Competitor players can opt into a handicapping system that allows them to play as if they were any lower rank than their own. This allows guild members to play together on a relatively level playing field. Suggested handicaps include, but are not limited to, reduced movement speed, reduced attack/casting speed, increased recharge/cooldown, reduced health, reduced armor/defense, disabled elite skill.

Leaderboards would be redesigned to promote top individuals in Qualifier play and top guilds/orders in Competitor play. As guilds like to promote their WvW activities currently, including them in leaderboards is much more relevant to those players than any server name would be.

The idea here is to create a system that validates all the various claims about who plays best, while also fostering an agile competition that continually challenges players.

To facilitate all of this, player experience, rank points and reward track progress would be directly tied to the number of allied players near them when they complete events or other WvW objectives. Those in larger groups would accrue less reward per achievement, as the effort to complete any objective becomes easier with greater numbers. This would balance rewards for players who roam solo or in parties with players who only follow squads or zergs.

Ideally, Qualifier matches would be played on smaller versions of the typical maps to increase action, reduce travel times and optimize learning opportunities for new players. They should play a lot like PvP hot-join matches, endlessly chaining one match into the other while shuffling playings between teams and map instances as their ranks evolve.

I could blather on longer; but, this is enough of a novel.

Good luck with whatever you come up with.

1 and 2 will probably caused damage to host server, so ill go with 3rd option.

I think guest servers would always strive to get their home server back, so i think world linking should change. Maybe going back to 8 tiers would be better, and instead allow t1 players to participate on t8 link, and for t8 players to participate on their t1 link.

Maybe this would solve map queues, and allow players to roam on less blobby map/server

Perhaps having a separate WvW rank for guilds would be nice too.

Having a separate rank makes sense for players and it is easy to imagine that some guilds that have relatively low guild ranks might have high WvW ranks if such were tracked separately, with specific guild rewards and achievements tied to progress.

This is especially true when Server Names are not sensible anchors for rallying WvW players and others into playing the game mode more.

I like option 2 the best, but also agree that having a WvW rank for guilds is a good idea also. For all the guilds that have put so much time into WvW we should have a rank that displays with our guild name when we capture something to show our pride of playing WvW through the years.

(1) Would depend a lot for what names are in the list. Whoever came up with Vabbolation deserves a medal But finding great portmanteaux for each server combination is pretty hard. I would be more inclined to see an abbreviation like AG/RoF (as mentioned above). The order could even indicate the original server, but that might be hard to implement.

Option (2) sounds like the low effort solution (i.e. easy to do, the team can focus on other stuff) but it might bring a lot of confusion: it takes some WvW experience to find out which color your server is. I also agree that it removes the identity even more – how would one advertise the server in PvE for example?

Option (3) might be the compromise to go: I don’t mind to be shown as another server to enemies, but if the second server is added in some situations like claiming or camp flipping, it might be nice. I guess how well this can be done depends strongly on the GW2 engine.

tl;dr
I’d prefer the shorthand double notation proposed by someone else in the thread. If not then (3) would be next on the list, (1) if the names are good. (2) sounds counter-prodocutive.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The team has been looking at ways to improve the server identity within the World Linking System. We have come up with several potential solutions, and we’d like your feedback on them.

Sounded good the first pass. Not so good after reading and thinking on it. On the flip side, server identity kinda went out the door when you started linking servers in WvW.

Solution 1: Alliance Names Proposal
<edited for length>

So.. totally REMOVE the server identity is the first solution? Err.. no? I been with my server since launch, picked out before pre-launch. And, using your example, if CD and ET were linked with just themselves, (call it the Ed BL pool) and then had HoD added to the matchup, you would have to start a new pool (the Frank pool)? Then, ET drops out and you have to hit another new pool (the Garmin pool)? Sounds silly complex, much moreso for casual players to keep track of.

BTW, this is the idea that sounded the most cool to begin with and now has the most issues.

Solution 2: Guild Focused Proposal
Instead of having an alliance name, worlds would be referred to by their color.
• The borderlands would now be called Red Desert Borderlands Green Alpine Borderlands, or Blue Alpine Borderlands.
• The color designation would replace the “host” world’s name in almost all areas except within announcements.
• When objectives were captured, the name of the guild that contributed most when capturing the objective would be displayed. For example, “Objective Captured! [Guild Name] has captured [objective name].”

SOME players already call BLs by color a lot in TS. That said.. where does it fit into your goal of “improving server identity”? It would, however, remove any issues with those smaller worlds that are constantly linked feeling like they are inferior to the so called “main” world. The third part.. sounds not only needlessly complex, but, frankly, I dont care which guild contributed to the taking of a camp on the other side of a map. Sounds like tons of extra needless calculations. Esp if it is me, on my mez, flipping camps solo.

Solution 3: Some Guest Names Proposal
In areas where there is more player involvement, such as capturing objectives, guest world names may appear.
• When objectives are captured it would now display the guest world’s name: “Objective Captured! [Guest World Name] has captured [objective name].”
<edited for length>
• We would not display guest world names to enemies because we believe that would make fighting enemies more confusing since it would be harder to tell which world you were fighting.

Again, sounds like needless calculations. I mean, if a BP, a DB and a Kaineng all participate in a camp flip, which do you choose, what criteria? And, what about a 40 player zerg taking a keep and all those factors? And, who cares over all, as long as it flipped Red, our color of the week? Also, frankly, if the player is red to me, I dont really care which server he is from. Either he is trying to kill me or not.

Questions:
1. Which proposal is your favorite?
2. What, if anything, would you change about any of the current proposals?
3. Is there another proposal you think is better?

I pick option 4. None of the above.

Your proposals all pander around a system that dilutes server identity by combining players from different servers into pools, yet desires to promote server identity. That, my dear Mr Watson, is a logic problem.

How about..
1. Take Item #2s “call BLs by color, not a main server”. YES, it neuters the server identity. But, that concept is already spayed by combining multiple servers per team.
2. Take Item #3s “not display any opponents server names”. Just call each team by its color. Guilds can be multiple servers, so .. who cares which server he is from. After all, a guy from Gods from DB can fight a guy from Gods from HoD right now.
3. Do, if you must, give players a chance to see which server an ally is from. Even tho, frankly, if you, as a DB, are allied with K and BP for a week, wont care what server a good or bad player is from, after that alliance is done. If they are an ally, you are happy. An enemy and you are dead.

Somehow.. some way… server identity is really lost right now. Not really sure how to make this ethereal thing of pride in community work, unless you guys pick a different path. I saw another proposal about smaller servers and transfers proposed. That would only work if you blew up the current server system all together and started over. I can see that blowing up what communities there are already out there.

Just a thought, with the PVE multiserver enviroment, server IDs only matter in WvW.

I do appreciate them trying to help WvW, by giving us options. But I do not think any of these options will fix the balancing issues that WvW faces today. Maybe I am wrong , and somehow magically it will fix the balancing issues? But tbh I just do not see it.

I like solution 2. In talking about this with my guild, I really liked what one of my guild leaders had to say. In short, ‘server’ or ‘world’ identity is already pretty much gone. What we really have now is guild identity. And after all, the game is called Guild Wars.

Mylerian.9176:

I do appreciate them trying to help WvW, by giving us options. But I do not think any of these options will fix the balancing issues that WvW faces today. Maybe I am wrong , and somehow magically it will fix the balancing issues? But tbh I just do not see it.

That’s because this is not about the balancing issues. That’s a different thread.

Darlgon.9273:

Again, sounds like needless calculations.

If something was too much work to code, as some people have wondered, or involved too many or too difficult algorithms, they would not be suggesting it. This stuff is all data the game keeps track of anyway for things like guild missions, etc.

migellito.7301:

And after all, the game is called Guild Wars.

Guild Wars name refers to a series wars in the lore. Not to the guilds we have in the game now.

Solutions 1 and 2 decrease server identity. And Solution 3 does absolutely nothing of consequence.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The team has been looking at ways to improve the server identity within the World Linking System. We have come up with several potential solutions, and we’d like your feedback on them.

Solution 1: Alliance Names Proposal

Every time worlds are linked, an alliance name would be generated for the linked worlds.
• Names would be generated from a pool of names that we create.
• Once a name is being used it would not be used again until the pool ran out of names.
• NA and EU would not share the same names.
• An alliance name would be preserved until every name in the pool of names was used. For example, the linked worlds of Crystal Desert and Eredon Terrace would always share the same alliance name until all names in the pool were used.
• The alliance name would be used instead of the host world’s name in almost all areas of the UI. Specifically, it will be used as the map name, the name that shows up when something is captured, and the name on the mist war panel. On the mist war panel, the + would continue to list all the worlds in the alliance.

Solution 2: Guild Focused Proposal

Instead of having an alliance name, worlds would be referred to by their color.
• The borderlands would now be called Red Desert Borderlands Green Alpine Borderlands, or Blue Alpine Borderlands.
• The color designation would replace the “host” world’s name in almost all areas except within announcements.
• When objectives were captured, the name of the guild that contributed most when capturing the objective would be displayed. For example, “Objective Captured! [Guild Name] has captured [objective name].”

Solution 3: Some Guest Names Proposal

In areas where there is more player involvement, such as capturing objectives, guest world names may appear.
• When objectives are captured it would now display the guest world’s name: “Objective Captured! [Guest World Name] has captured [objective name].”
• The map name would remain the host world’s name.
• We would not display guest world names to enemies because we believe that would make fighting enemies more confusing since it would be harder to tell which world you were fighting.

Questions:
1. Which proposal is your favorite?
2. What, if anything, would you change about any of the current proposals?
3. Is there another proposal you think is better?

1. 1 and 2, I believe WvW should focus on Guilds more than random pugs following a tag. At this state of the game, there is very any insensitive for a guild to be WvW focus and have a purpose, guilds these days are disbanding one by one. When there is basically 1 or 2 guilds left, that be the end of WvW and pugs dont keep wvw alive or a pugmander
2. Solely focus on guilds more
3. No

migellito.7301:

Mylerian.9176:

I do appreciate them trying to help WvW, by giving us options. But I do not think any of these options will fix the balancing issues that WvW faces today. Maybe I am wrong , and somehow magically it will fix the balancing issues? But tbh I just do not see it.

That’s because this is not about the balancing issues. That’s a different thread.

Woops my bad. Had them both open and mixed up my comments lol

What about a blend of Solution 1 & 2 except instead of allowing guilds to choose their server they are placed on a server group based on their guilds skill rank.

The Breakdown:
Create a new ranking for WvW Guilds where the more kills they accumulate and the more territory they take the more points they earn. Make it based on Players representing that guild and allow players to choose their primary WvW guild which has a 7 day cooldown.

On the guild side add a new WvW tab to the Guild UI that shows each players contribution toward the overall guild score. Show the number of wvw rank, captures, kills, and points earned by each along with the guild total.

Guilds can then be ranked based on score and distributed among the servers based on performance so that player skill and a guild’s ability determine where they end up. This would negate the need for server transfers and allow arenanet to automatically build a better algorithm that matches players skill over player volume.

Much like you do already for sPvP. This would allow similarly skilled guilds to compete against opponents that would be on equal footing rather than against titans that outskill them. As they learn and get better at the game they would progress to the more competitive battlefields.

So:

A new guild with a 0 guild score would start on the bottom playing other guilds with a low guild score. As they earn more points they would move up the ladder giving them more engaging fights.

The best of the best would be at the top fighting it out for first place while the players learning the game would be on bottom learning the mechanics in a friendly environment.

Seems to me that both Option 1 and Option 2 can be blended to make another option that would benefit everyone and do away with the constant rise and fall of server communities. Let competitive guilds compete and have their moment of fame. I for one would like to know who the best guild in the game is and it would be really neat to see some ArenaNet hosted livestreams broadcasting some of those best of the best fights. That would make WvW exciting.

To Clarify:

Tier 1 = Servers 1-3 = Guilds Ranked #1-30 Guilds (depending on population)
Tier 2 = Servers 4-6 = Guilds Ranked #31 – 70
Tier 3 = Servers 7-9 = Guilds Ranked #71-120

Keep in mind ArenaNet would have better data available and my numbers are just a rough idea and would in no way be relative to the actual pairings.

I honestly don’t like any of the three proposed changes. I can’t find it now but there was a post that suggested what I think would be near perfect. It was simply:

COLOR Invader – Server Name [Guild Abbreviation]

So for example: RED Invader Stormbluff Isle [OT] or GREEN Invader Northern Shiverpeaks [TVP]

If that’s too long because of the server name just use the server abbreviation, there is a standard abbreviation that basically everyone knows. So:

RED Invader SBI [OT]
GREEN Invader NSP [TVP]

That can’t be more difficult to do code-wise than any of your suggestions can it? Don’t over think this. All people want is for their server name to be acknowledged in the game. And this simple solution does it.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The team has been looking at ways to improve the server identity within the World Linking System. We have come up with several potential solutions, and we’d like your feedback on them.

Thank you for reading our concerns and working on and posting about it, appreciate it very much!

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Solution 1: Alliance Names Proposal

This feels like putting a plastic bag over the problem, if we call them Badlands, Overgrowth and Frostreach or something. It would equalize that the Host server would feel as lost as the Guest server. (ooh! Team Mystic, Team Instinct, Team Valor!)

I just don’t think it tackles what I think is lacking the most, a way to find other players from the same server, and find people to play with and form a community with.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Solution 2: Guild Focused Proposal

If we’re first going to put hats (or plastic bags) over the link-names, I think the Red/Blue/Green is as good as any other option. Simplicity, and using existing precedents etc. I’d recommend adding way to clearly tell a person what color he is, visible on the screen/UI somehow, since a lot of people forget etc.

But it does run into same problems as “Solution 1”, in that it is still a plastic bag, and doesn’t solve what I feel needs to be solved.

I do not like the guild claiming part, I do not see it solve much, and there will be plenty of people messing around with multi-server guilds, or personal bank guilds etc just to try to mess with people.

Think I’d like to see something more like “Objective Captured by Red! [Kain]” for both sides. The “Red” clearly tells the information needed by everyone, the tag behind specifies which server is active. Use majority as you do for guild claiming etc. 3 Kain and 2 BP and 1 DB = Kain majority. Or list all “Objective Captured by Red! [Kain][BP][DB]” for same example. If 10 DB only just show [DB].

Lets us show others who we are, that we are active, shows others on our link that we can do stuff too! and helps us find others on our own server a bit easier.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Solution 3: Some Guest Names Proposal

Like some of this. Having the captures for guest servers helps a bit, no more: We capture this for our overlords. All over it is a decent compromise, but I feel it doesn’t try to tackle much.

Would still prefer my above example of “Objective Captured by Red! [Serv]”, it gets the information we need, and adds the server tag at end without getting in the way.

If you write out “enemy names” in a similar manner: “Red Invader [SIN][Kain]” I don’t think it would be any more confusing. Get the information needed out to the enemy/player with as few words as possible, make it easy for him to read it fast and get the information he wants.

If you’re working on the de-cluttering of the name plates anyway, consider just: [color][guild][server]. If you’re making color icons for the first one it would look something like: “(G)[SIN][Kain]” and you can even leave the server tag an optional in options.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Questions:
1. Which proposal is your favorite?
2. What, if anything, would you change about any of the current proposals?
3. Is there another proposal you think is better?

(1) I like some parts of all of them, but if I had to pick an order then 3>2, and not 1.

(2) Where to begin … Naah not that bad.

Largely I feel that these proposals are “hats” (or plastic bags), put it over the link to mask the problem. And I think the 3rd example helps best with this, probably with a mix of 2.

What this doesn’t fix is to help server-mates get together, group up, find others, play with etc. Because if you want to find a community you will want to find one that you can play with every time the links change. This is why I’m so adamant about having a server tag or something, so we at least have a way to look for each others. (That, and a /server chat channel! plz!)

Many people miss different things for this aspect, some miss having their own borderland, as a way for server-mates to group together and defend Garrison, meet up and recognize names in the spawn etc. Others identify through the names of the maps, to get everyone to rally to defend “Kaineng Keep” etc. Right now, we’re sort of locked to Guilds as the only way to do that (recognize guilds from same server, ask guilds what servers they are from to join etc. It kinda works, but not for everyone.)

(Continued in next post…)

(3) So if I where to make a Copy/Paste out of the suggestions above, and add some of my own, while still trying to keep it within some “limits”:

• Use #2: Red/Blue/Green for teams/maps.
• Use #3: Guest world capture.
• Team name: “Color [Server1][Server2][Server3]” ex: “Red [DB][BP][Kain]”
• Enemy name: “Color Invader [Guild][Server]” ex: “Red Invader [SIN][Kain]”
• Player name: Same as normal just add [server] tag at end. ex: “Elrik Noj [SIN][Kain]”

PS: This assumes you’re also working on the name plate de-clutter that you guys talked about before.

This is far from perfect, but it should give us something to start/work with. The main drawback is that there will be some “elitism” over different servers, but honestly less so that we already see with guild tags. It is a PvP mode, some of this can’t be avoided when you gather multiple competitive people.

Some random ideas, and some wish-list items, in no order:

• Add a /server chat channel, may disable it for default since only WvW’ers are going to care much. But it would help with restoring call-outs to people currently not in WvW, recruiting for server guilds, and in general finding players/help, and thus form community. (And new and interesting avenues for trolls to explore, nothing new)
• If you limit links to max 3, you could name one of the home BL keeps after each server (ex: Dragonbrand Garrison, Borlis Hills, Kaineng Bay), this “could” give each server some more incentive to defend/protect/scout home BL for those that miss that. It “could” also give each server a matter of pride to hold their keep. And again “could” encourage server hugs and high-fives if another server comes to help save a keep etc. No guarantees, just an idea, also randomize it.

(stupid word limit! I’ll get you next time Inspector Gadget!)

Korgov.7645:

migellito.7301:

And after all, the game is called Guild Wars.

Guild Wars name refers to a series wars in the lore. Not to the guilds we have in the game now.

Yeah, I get that But it does, thereby, seem appropriate to me.

I really like solution 3! Additionally you should rework the UI so the linked worlds will be represented more clearly in the WvW menu. When do you ever hover over a server name to show the linking partners?
Balancing the populations between servers would be the next step. The smallest servers just feel worthless when their linked to ones that are 10 times their size. They should at least have the numbers for a zerg that stands a chance during prime time.

I’m looking forward to the nameplate clutter fix!

The existing solution is superior.
But I do like #2 in that it puts more of the “Guild” back into GW2.

>>>Best solution is to blow it up and setup WvW to truely be “Guild Wars” where guilds choose their preferred partners in crime each week. And as a consolation allow players to retain a title being your preferred server name. And if people are really that hard up on it they can just create a JQ guild and invite everyone :P

Korgov.7645:

migellito.7301:

And after all, the game is called Guild Wars.

Guild Wars name refers to a series wars in the lore. Not to the guilds we have in the game now.

Seriously, the first game had GvG, we don’t give a kitten about the lore in WvW.
WvW is “war on an epic scale” and guilds fighting on it makes it guild wars.

Option 2 with a complete server merge. Do it, enough waiting.