Guild Wars 2

When ESO was launched, arena.net quickly adopted the mega-server concept for PVE.
Now they are taking the 3 alliance campaigns from ESO Cyrodiil and implementing them into WvW.
These are great ideas actually.
This means that everyone gets to have some action in WvW. The downside will be that there’s no more “server” identity.
Maybe in the future they also implement the 30days campaigns, the 14 days , etc, not just the 7 days one.

There’s a reason ESO RvR failed.

There’s a reason ESO RvR failed.

Even things that “fail” have good ideas. If you borrow those, then you are on a good path.

This is precisely what some of us have been talking about…

The “server identity” wvw design has obviously failed and we can see that in many ways. Wvw cannot thrive or grow with its current segregated format. Pve megaserver was needed. Spvp “megaserver” was needed. Eotm megaserver was needed. Wvw megaserver IS needed.

The alliance thing is quite probably fake, devon’s statement on the subject implies that at least:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/3uznbc/major_wvw_overhaul_colin_j_ft_e/cxj91cj?context=3

Jayne.9251:

There’s a reason ESO RvR failed.

And it has nothing to do with the megaserver design…

What failed was the new maps. I know multiple people who don’t go into the new borderlands just cause of the map design.

It’s not the servers that failed but they could use a tweak to balance to population out.

I’m back in ESO just for the PVP, I can’t stand GW2 WvW now It makes me sick that Anet have destroyed WvW for me.

Catalin.5341:

There’s a reason ESO RvR failed.

Even things that “fail” have good ideas. If you borrow those, then you are on a good path.

So wait.

Take a system that was universally shunned by players who tried it, and who later came back to GW2 because its system was better?

The solution is to try something we already know players did not like? To the point that ESO had to offer the game as F2P to stay afloat and stem the players bailing on the game?

I can’t stand ESO pvp, it’s ridiculously unbalanced.
The cyrodiil map is great though, if only the whole game had maps like that.

Unfortunately the only other alternative (i know of) is Planetside 2, which has a lot of problems of it’s own and is an entirely different genre.

It’s really tragic how Anet messed up WvW, imo it was the only decent RvR game in existence at this time, but they didn’t want it.

Jayne.9251:

Catalin.5341:

There’s a reason ESO RvR failed.

Even things that “fail” have good ideas. If you borrow those, then you are on a good path.

So wait.

Take a system that was universally shunned by players who tried it, and who later came back to GW2 because its system was better?

The solution is to try something we already know players did not like? To the point that ESO had to offer the game as F2P to stay afloat and stem the players bailing on the game?

Oddly enough i have never heard anyone say they left ESO because of the way the RVR teams were set up. The post directly under your says he left because of the imbalance. I left because they managed to make a system with far more lag then GW2. Maybe somewhere there are people who left because of the alliance system they had, and ive just never seem them.

If these alliances are a future reality then I foresee at least 5 campaigns for each language: ENG, SP, FR; maybe 2 for ENG and FR and 1 for SP.
Probably each server will coordinate like SFR will choose one of the 2 ENG server and also an alliance like RED.
I’m still curious how the teamspeak communication will work. If both SFR and FSP decide to go for 1st EN server and team RED how will we communicate?!

Arius.7031:

The alliance thing is quite probably fake, devon’s statement on the subject implies that at least:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/3uznbc/major_wvw_overhaul_colin_j_ft_e/cxj91cj?context=3

Grain of truth: https://i.imgur.com/lk0scpx.png

Show us where in the game these strings are used; particularly, “Only Guild Leaders and Officers can send alliance chat.”

Wryscher.1432:

Jayne.9251:

Catalin.5341:

There’s a reason ESO RvR failed.

Even things that “fail” have good ideas. If you borrow those, then you are on a good path.

So wait.

Take a system that was universally shunned by players who tried it, and who later came back to GW2 because its system was better?

The solution is to try something we already know players did not like? To the point that ESO had to offer the game as F2P to stay afloat and stem the players bailing on the game?

Oddly enough i have never heard anyone say they left ESO because of the way the RVR teams were set up. The post directly under your says he left because of the imbalance. I left because they managed to make a system with far more lag then GW2. Maybe somewhere there are people who left because of the alliance system they had, and ive just never seem them.

ESO RvR operates in a similar fashion to GW2’s existing pvp queues.

Once something’s full, it’s full, and a new map/campaign is created. Meaning there was no reliable way to get into the same map as others — and most certainly if it’s guild controlled, those single/random/pugs will be left without the team they worked with the past three years.

It’s absolutely a boon for guilds. It means that they can pick and choose who they want to fight. They can also game the system to keep others out.

Conversely, if your guild mates don’t all log in at the same time, they’re locked out of that particular match for the week/month once it’s full (with pugs/other guilds).

It’s the least inclusive mode out there. I don’t think people are realizing this.

The maps themselves were massive and you spent the bulk of your time running to get to a fight, than actually fighting. People hated it.

So yes, people bailed on ESO RvR and came back here. If you don’t believe me, go create an ESO account and zone into any RvR map there. The game went F2P earlier this year because people stopped paying the monthly subs. The RVR maps are completely empty —- and that’s what? A year and a bit after launch?

At least GW2’s existing system managed to keep people for three plus years.

Sounds like the last straw to me, but you “have fun”

Once something’s full, it’s full, and a new map/campaign is created. Meaning there was no reliable way to get into the same map as others — and most certainly if it’s guild controlled, those single/random/pugs will be left without the team they worked with the past three years.

So if ESO’s campaign/alliance system doesn’t work, what’s a good solution to merge WvW servers then?

Catalin.5341:

Once something’s full, it’s full, and a new map/campaign is created. Meaning there was no reliable way to get into the same map as others — and most certainly if it’s guild controlled, those single/random/pugs will be left without the team they worked with the past three years.

So if ESO’s campaign/alliance system doesn’t work, what’s a good solution to merge WvW servers then?

I was personally happy with the server caps and letting the population readjust. Players had started to do that, but too many weren’t willing to wait a couple months to see its benefits.

Most of the current issues with WvW on GW2 are mechanical and easily fixed by Anet. Some simple changes would help get people back onto the maps, but unfortunately it’s not been responded to.

There was a massive loyal WvW following for GW2, mostly because nobody else out there had anything like it. And because of that and longevity Anet captured the loyalty of that part of the market. That’s incredibly hard to do, particularly with an MMO. Only legacy games like EQ1, EQ2, and WoW had managed that prior. People may have left to try out other games, but they always came back to GW2.

Now, I’m not so sure.

Jayne.9251:

Catalin.5341:

Once something’s full, it’s full, and a new map/campaign is created. Meaning there was no reliable way to get into the same map as others — and most certainly if it’s guild controlled, those single/random/pugs will be left without the team they worked with the past three years.

So if ESO’s campaign/alliance system doesn’t work, what’s a good solution to merge WvW servers then?

I was personally happy with the server caps and letting the population readjust. Players had started to do that, but too many weren’t willing to wait a couple months to see its benefits.

Most of the current issues with WvW on GW2 are mechanical and easily fixed by Anet. Some simple changes would help get people back onto the maps, but unfortunately it’s not been responded to.

There was a massive loyal WvW following for GW2, mostly because nobody else out there had anything like it. And because of that and longevity Anet captured the loyalty of that part of the market. That’s incredibly hard to do, particularly with an MMO. Only legacy games like EQ1, EQ1, and WoW had managed that prior. People may have left to try out other games, but they always came back to GW2.

Now, I’m not so sure.

Ultimately the main problems HERE are segregated servers causing population disparities. These disparities do not produce a healthy wvw community as a whole.

Next set of problems are incentives to win and lack of meaningful rewards.

Next problem is that you can’t run meaningful and competitive tournaments if you have populations disparities because of segregated servers, zero incentives to win and lack of meaningful rewards.

Next problem is the devs obviously want guilds to be important, provide more reasons to be a part of a guild and to pull individuals and communities together through guilds.

…

…

There are MANY reasons why the rest of this game is mega/cross server, and it’s coming to a wvw zone near us.

Additionally, would it be possible to see some evidence that rvr there failed due to megaserver alliances as you state?

What simple mechanical changes would fill up every wvw instance across all servers?

Pure wvw and server loyalties are obviously not working here, so how do you make the masses loyal enough to participate in wvw consistently?

Most players want to walk away with something to show for effort, so what reward incentives and structures would you put in place to reward guilds, individual players and sides?

Jayne.9251:

Wryscher.1432:

Jayne.9251:

Catalin.5341:

There’s a reason ESO RvR failed.

Even things that “fail” have good ideas. If you borrow those, then you are on a good path.

So wait.

Take a system that was universally shunned by players who tried it, and who later came back to GW2 because its system was better?

The solution is to try something we already know players did not like? To the point that ESO had to offer the game as F2P to stay afloat and stem the players bailing on the game?

Oddly enough i have never heard anyone say they left ESO because of the way the RVR teams were set up. The post directly under your says he left because of the imbalance. I left because they managed to make a system with far more lag then GW2. Maybe somewhere there are people who left because of the alliance system they had, and ive just never seem them.

ESO RvR operates in a similar fashion to GW2’s existing pvp queues.

Once something’s full, it’s full, and a new map/campaign is created. Meaning there was no reliable way to get into the same map as others — and most certainly if it’s guild controlled, those single/random/pugs will be left without the team they worked with the past three years.

It’s absolutely a boon for guilds. It means that they can pick and choose who they want to fight. They can also game the system to keep others out.

Conversely, if your guild mates don’t all log in at the same time, they’re locked out of that particular match for the week/month once it’s full (with pugs/other guilds).

It’s the least inclusive mode out there. I don’t think people are realizing this.

The maps themselves were massive and you spent the bulk of your time running to get to a fight, than actually fighting. People hated it.

So yes, people bailed on ESO RvR and came back here. If you don’t believe me, go create an ESO account and zone into any RvR map there. The game went F2P earlier this year because people stopped paying the monthly subs. The RVR maps are completely empty —- and that’s what? A year and a bit after launch?

At least GW2’s existing system managed to keep people for three plus years.

If that if the way it works now, then it has changed.

Before there was no overflow. It was more like our server system only called campaigns, and based on alliance. And you could choose them. They could respond to population increase and decrease by simple opening a new campaign or closing them as they finished. They had campaigns of different legnths some 7 days some 30.

You could select a home campaign and a guest campaign. You only got rewards for home but having a guest meant you didnt have to wait in queue if your home was full.

But from what your describe it sounds like they changed that. I would argue ESOs rvr failed long before these changes.

Arius.7031:

The alliance thing is quite probably fake, devon’s statement on the subject implies that at least:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/3uznbc/major_wvw_overhaul_colin_j_ft_e/cxj91cj?context=3

Because someone that sucked as WvW dev lead and hasnt worked on ANY WvW features since March, who subsequently left the company is a reliable source for validation. Oh my…

It’s not even close to be as much of a fail as ESO.

People joining campaigns & alliances instead of being stuck on one server will give everyone the experience of a T1 server. This means lots of action, roaming and blobbing, whatever you like.
I find this to a be a good thing.

Catalin.5341:

People joining campaigns & alliances instead of being stuck on one server will give everyone the experience of a T1 server. This means lots of action, roaming and blobbing, whatever you like.
I find this to a be a good thing.

Your not stuck on the server as you have the choice to transfer and get those massive fights that you seem to want to force on everyone. Lots of action such as roaming in t1? I think not.. Been there a few weeks now and the one thing I miss is solo roaming. Its hard enough getting back to the commander when I die in some big fights. There are always gank groups around camping places that make running around by yourself not very fun to do..

You’ll see when it comes if it comes..

Jayne.9251:

People may have left to try out other games, but they always came back to GW2.

Not really, people may try other games and not like them, but from what I’ve seen, most do not come back to GW2/WvW, they simply go play a different genre of game until Camelot Unchained, Crowfall, etc are released.

zinkz.7045:

Jayne.9251:

People may have left to try out other games, but they always came back to GW2.

Not really, people may try other games and not like them, but from what I’ve seen, most do not come back to GW2/WvW, they simply go play a different genre of game until Camelot Unchained, Crowfall, etc are released.

Since I’ve played gw2 I’ve bought gtav, mgsv, witcher 3 + the dlc for it, d3 + expansion. I’ve tried wildstar when it went free and countless free steam games..

You know how many hours I play on any of those games now? ZERO

I keep coming back for wvw and wvw only.

ESO RvR failed for a variety of reasons most of which (all to my knowledge) have nothing to do with the Alliance system. Lag, crazy stupid grind wall for leveling (makes GW2 elite grinds look ridiculously easy), bugs (lots of bugs), huge balance issues between classes, seriously OP skills and a dozen other minor irritants. The system itself was fine.

That said the big elephant in this room is that this is just a rumor. It MIGHT have some credibility behind it but it is still just a rumor. Lets not loose our collective crap over a rumor. Lets certainly not ascribe it to a failed system that failed for reasons that had nothing to do with that design.

briggah.7910:

zinkz.7045:

Jayne.9251:

People may have left to try out other games, but they always came back to GW2.

Not really, people may try other games and not like them, but from what I’ve seen, most do not come back to GW2/WvW, they simply go play a different genre of game until Camelot Unchained, Crowfall, etc are released.

Since I’ve played gw2 I’ve bought gtav, mgsv, witcher 3 + the dlc for it, d3 + expansion. I’ve tried wildstar when it went free and countless free steam games..

You know how many hours I play on any of those games now? ZERO

I keep coming back for wvw and wvw only.

I’m still playing Guild Wars 2. Until the other 2 games I’m backing are ready. Once the main one goes to Beta, I doubt I’ll ever log in to GW2 again except to give out the beta codes I’ve promised to other players.

Wryscher.1432:

Oddly enough i have never heard anyone say they left ESO because of the way the RVR teams were set up. The post directly under your says he left because of the imbalance. I left because they managed to make a system with far more lag then GW2. Maybe somewhere there are people who left because of the alliance system they had, and ive just never seem them.

I played ESO and had no problem with the alliance system. I left because you had to grind PVE for about 300 hours to reach max rank (level) so as to not be one-shotted by those who already had. Balance issues and broken mechanics were rampant with ESO. Does anyone remember how a single vampire in bat swarm could kill a zerg? An alliance system might actually work with gw2 if implemented properly.

The alliances and overall setup in ESO worked decently, the main reasons it was an abysmal failure was:
- No decent command structure.
- No EU servers meant horrible lag 24/7 for EU players and ZM downright refused to give any information on when we where to get an EU server, despite promising it.
- NPC design that required 10+ players to be ready and waiting as you joined Cyrodiil, or you couldnt even take a lousy camp.
- Long, long, looooooong travel distances and a broken mobile spawn system.
- Broken classes, like the vampire that went on for weeks without being fixed.
- An utterly uninteresting combat system.

The vampires and EU deal broke it for me. I couldnt stomach it.

GW2 Revenant OP in WvW, lol… How cute. Now imagine if a single Revenant could facetank into a 70 man zerg and kill them all.

That was ESO.

briggah.7910:

Lots of action such as roaming in t1? I think not.. Been there a few weeks now and the one thing I miss is solo roaming. Its hard enough getting back to the commander when I die in some big fights. There are always gank groups around camping places that make running around by yourself not very fun to do..

You’ll see when it comes if it comes..

Thing is, the “solo roaming” role really never existed for particular reasons and the constant gank groups have been here since day 1.

Dunno about you, but I jumped into WvW the first thing I did after leaving the starting zone initially at launch. All maps were queued on all servers. It was a massive cluster of people running around “solo” because nobody had commander tags or guilds made or heavy organization. Over the next few months everything turned to small guild and gank groups of 5 to 10 running objectives or just generally plundering.

As the mode and organizations within it became established, less and less players had the capacity to run alone. Near launch, the maps were all still on a 24/7 queue or close to it, so the maps were absolutely packed with gank groups and beginnings of the formation of the beginnings of larger main guild groups for taking big objectives.

You think T1 kills you a lot, near launch, the spawn point was one of the most difficult places to be in because you were camped. Needed a thief or two to SR you and your friends out undetected otherwise a group of ten would jump you.

Now disperse havoc and hate squads all around the map instead of the 70-man megablob. That’s what you dealt with as a solo roamer.

Solo roaming became more common because blobbing and people outright quitting let it be possible through lower dispersion of gank groups around the map.

From the get-go, the format has been heavily-influenced by small havoc and hate groups. It’s never been a better time to roam solo, even in T1.

In the rest of the tiers, though, the maps are so dead you rarely find individuals, and even rarer you find small groups.

Would much rather have a few people to fight than find another lone straggler as a lone straggler after searching for 20 mins in a dead area. You’re finding one or the other in WvW; groups are strategically of more value, even when only of 2-3 players (this can be optimal depending on situation, my guild breaks our own havoc of about seven into sub-havoc of 3-4 and 2-3-2 on occasion).

I don’t want to be a downer, but that’s just how WvW is. You’re never going to find WvW in a healthy state with lots of solo roaming unless you’re playing with unskilled/unaware players. That’s just contradictory to the mechanics and design of WvW and the trends that dictate its success.

Swagger.1459:

how do you make the masses loyal enough to participate in wvw consistently?

You don’t. Where WvW lacks or loses player loyalty, it is a problem of boredom.

There is no “make the masses” do anything in gaming. You encourage it, with fun that is addictive and inspires desire. That is how WvW became a thing to be argued in favor of by its fans.

When it is forced as in “make” someone do something, you have conditions like relentless grinding, time-gating for its own sake, and collective cognitive dissonance between company and customers where neither side can agree with the other’s mental image of the thing despite being able to see the other’s perspective clearly. All things that the silly GW2 Oath propagandized against. They are old mistakes all over again.

Those mistakes are the root of the GW2 complaint meta.

Virtute.8251:

Swagger.1459:

how do you make the masses loyal enough to participate in wvw consistently?

You don’t. Where WvW lacks or loses player loyalty, it is a problem of boredom.

There is no “make the masses” do anything in gaming. You encourage it, with fun that is addictive and inspires desire. That is how WvW became a thing to be argued in favor of by its fans.

When it is forced as in “make” someone do something, you have conditions like relentless grinding, time-gating for its own sake, and collective cognitive dissonance between company and customers where neither side can agree with the other’s mental image of the thing despite being able to see the other’s perspective clearly. All things that the silly GW2 Oath propagandized against. They are old mistakes all over again.

Those mistakes are the root of the GW2 complaint meta.

Precisely. That said, just upping the rewards enough or allowing WvW-only food buffs to be purchasable for BoH would probably help promote the game mode a lot. Right now a lot of people burn out from lack of funds (and are forced to PvE/grind and then burn out or just leave altogether) and other various roadblocks that inhibit the “fun for the hell of it.”

This is kind of why the server entity ideology is a bit flawed; you end up being supported by a small community of leaders which is volatile, and success of the server and WvW as a format pretty much hinges on that willingness to keep playing the game. If they burn out, they take a lot of other people as collateral, and the cycle continues. This has happened many times with guilds or even individual players leaving their servers/the game. The constant demand or sense of obligation is abrasive and ultimately hinders the format more than helps.

Yea, server and community pride is good, but the coupling it brings on its player leaders needing to continue to lead is unhealthy and unsustainable.

DeceiverX.8361:

just upping the rewards enough or allowing WvW-only food buffs to be purchasable for BoH would probably help promote the game mode a lot.

Rewards in WvW have always failed because they are event-based with the same code that accomplishes the heart, point of interest, and undynamic dynamic events in PvE. They all fail for the same reason.

Rewards should be calculated as a metric of activity. The loot-drop mechanic is what sucks in MMOG. However, ANet is married to it. Hence the account wallet, bank tab and inventory bag slot expansions, etc.

As with many things, they’ve built their downfall into the system as a required component of the business model, and made a killer profit along the way. Their partners are milking China even harder.

Jayne.9251:

There’s a reason ESO RvR failed.

It failed because:
1- Map is too big (it’s about 15-20 times the size of the Desert BL Guild Wars 2 WvW map)
2- unforgiving combat and very high level cap, making the fully geared max levelled players 1-shot everyone and tank everyone (I mean everyone, 1v25)
3- Content impossible to solo, gates and walls have too much health
4- unreliable dodge and unnatural jump mechanic/animation
5- crashes

It had success at:
1- Server system, keeping the maps full of players and offering campaigns of different length.
2- Siege variety
3- sound effects
4- visual effects/optimization
5- 1 player becoming emperor
6- Capture Scroll (like the orb mechanic of Guild Wars 2 but not broken)

Ground target trebs and catas were horrible.

@Xilllix
So if arena.net takes the server system from ESO it’s a good thing. We will have a more compact population without the server separation.
Losing the server identity might be bad at first, but I think it will be replaced by Guild identity. There’s no more server SFR vs DESO, it will be the guilds IRON vs VoTF or something like that. Or even a group of guilds vs another group.

Catalin.5341:

@Xilllix
So if arena.net takes the server system from ESO it’s a good thing. We will have a more compact population without the server separation.
Losing the server identity might be bad at first, but I think it will be replaced by Guild identity. There’s no more server SFR vs DESO, it will be the guilds IRON vs VoTF or something like that. Or even a group of guilds vs another group.

I don’t think they have a choice at this point when they have 22 empty Desert Borderland maps while 24 instances are running on their servers. They need to figure out a better system and ESO’s campaign system is the one thing they did right.

Virtute.8251:

Swagger.1459:

how do you make the masses loyal enough to participate in wvw consistently?

You don’t. Where WvW lacks or loses player loyalty, it is a problem of boredom.

There is no “make the masses” do anything in gaming. You encourage it, with fun that is addictive and inspires desire. That is how WvW became a thing to be argued in favor of by its fans.

When it is forced as in “make” someone do something, you have conditions like relentless grinding, time-gating for its own sake, and collective cognitive dissonance between company and customers where neither side can agree with the other’s mental image of the thing despite being able to see the other’s perspective clearly. All things that the silly GW2 Oath propagandized against. They are old mistakes all over again.

Those mistakes are the root of the GW2 complaint meta.

You are too focused on that one word. If you were to use it within the context of the rest of the post you’d realize I understand.

Additionally, it was a question for someone else to answer since they were talking about loyalty, but you answered it pretty well.

There is also another thing we all need to understand. These game developers and companies are not bitter and hated enemies… They communicate, network, idea share, meet, give lectures… They do learn from each other personally, professionally, by seeing game mechanics in place, by mistakes made, by sharing a certain amount information and stats… So it’s safe to assume the devs here have spoken to developers with megaserver alliances in place and gathered enough info to fit things in as best as possible within the framework of the game.

Regardless, on this particular topic, I do see the devs handling things well once most of the “pieces” are in place.

Virtute.8251:

Swagger.1459:

how do you make the masses loyal enough to participate in wvw consistently?

You don’t. Where WvW lacks or loses player loyalty, it is a problem of boredom.

+1

Players want a new thing, not a repackaging of 2012 WvW. Fights are fun. Sieges are boring. That’s a big driver of guild transfers.

Swagger.1459:

Virtute.8251:

Swagger.1459:

how do you make the masses loyal enough to participate in wvw consistently?

You don’t. Where WvW lacks or loses player loyalty, it is a problem of boredom.

There is no “make the masses” do anything in gaming. You encourage it, with fun that is addictive and inspires desire. That is how WvW became a thing to be argued in favor of by its fans.

When it is forced as in “make” someone do something, you have conditions like relentless grinding, time-gating for its own sake, and collective cognitive dissonance between company and customers where neither side can agree with the other’s mental image of the thing despite being able to see the other’s perspective clearly. All things that the silly GW2 Oath propagandized against. They are old mistakes all over again.

Those mistakes are the root of the GW2 complaint meta.

You are too focused on that one word. If you were to use it within the context of the rest of the post you’d realize I understand.

Sorry, I did know that we agreed more than not. I picked that word to harp on because it was very illustrative of what actually happens in a lot (perhaps most) AAA game development. It’s in the designs, the marketing, and the company-to-customer communications.

Swagger.1459:

Additionally, it was a question for someone else to answer since they were talking about loyalty, but you answered it pretty well.

Thanks. ^^;

Jayne.9251:

There’s a reason ESO RvR failed.

ESO didn’t fail due to its alliance system. It failed due to poor balance and a lot technological problems.

An alliance system with campaigns is clearly the most flexible and best way to handle RvR, every RvR game that is coming out has a similar system not something like GW2s servers. Anet has shown an inability to evaluate the consequences of their decisions especially long term, a good SWOT analysis during the design phase would have foreseen the issues WvW has faced for the last couple of years.

morrolan.9608:

An alliance system with campaigns is clearly the most flexible and best way to handle RvR, every RvR game that is coming out has a similar system

False. CU will be endless RvR matches, realms as teams, with multiple servers that each contain a single RvR match. Their flexibility is found in the complete absence of any PvE instance. Everything they ever do in that system will be RvR.

Swagger.1459:

Jayne.9251:

Catalin.5341:

Once something’s full, it’s full, and a new map/campaign is created. Meaning there was no reliable way to get into the same map as others — and most certainly if it’s guild controlled, those single/random/pugs will be left without the team they worked with the past three years.

So if ESO’s campaign/alliance system doesn’t work, what’s a good solution to merge WvW servers then?

I was personally happy with the server caps and letting the population readjust. Players had started to do that, but too many weren’t willing to wait a couple months to see its benefits.

Most of the current issues with WvW on GW2 are mechanical and easily fixed by Anet. Some simple changes would help get people back onto the maps, but unfortunately it’s not been responded to.

There was a massive loyal WvW following for GW2, mostly because nobody else out there had anything like it. And because of that and longevity Anet captured the loyalty of that part of the market. That’s incredibly hard to do, particularly with an MMO. Only legacy games like EQ1, EQ1, and WoW had managed that prior. People may have left to try out other games, but they always came back to GW2.

Now, I’m not so sure.

Ultimately the main problems HERE are segregated servers causing population disparities. These disparities do not produce a healthy wvw community as a whole.

Next set of problems are incentives to win and lack of meaningful rewards.

Next problem is that you can’t run meaningful and competitive tournaments if you have populations disparities because of segregated servers, zero incentives to win and lack of meaningful rewards.

Next problem is the devs obviously want guilds to be important, provide more reasons to be a part of a guild and to pull individuals and communities together through guilds.

…

…

There are MANY reasons why the rest of this game is mega/cross server, and it’s coming to a wvw zone near us.

Additionally, would it be possible to see some evidence that rvr there failed due to megaserver alliances as you state?

What simple mechanical changes would fill up every wvw instance across all servers?

Pure wvw and server loyalties are obviously not working here, so how do you make the masses loyal enough to participate in wvw consistently?

Most players want to walk away with something to show for effort, so what reward incentives and structures would you put in place to reward guilds, individual players and sides?

We get it. You think “alliances” are the best thing that could possibly happen to GW2 WvW. I happen to disagree, and think it could possibly what finally kills real WvW in the game.

I think alliances will make backbiting, and mercenary-type players very happy, but players that have represented their servers through ups and downs, casuals, and small guild(<30) players very unhappy. Perhaps if we were still in the era of 100+ member WvW guilds it wouldn’t be the blow that I think it will be, but we aren’t. Most WvW guilds are smaller than 60 anymore, and that number is falling. Who chooses the alliance leader? Who gets “assigned” to an alliance? What happens to players not in one of the larger WvW guilds? How do we know the alliances will have any kind of balance? What happens to an alliance member that can’t raid due to illness of themselves or family? What powers will the alliance leader/officers be given?

Perhaps the alliances option is easier, but I don’t think it will be better.

Virtute.8251:

morrolan.9608:

An alliance system with campaigns is clearly the most flexible and best way to handle RvR, every RvR game that is coming out has a similar system

False. CU will be endless RvR matches, realms as teams, with multiple servers that each contain a single RvR match. Their flexibility is found in the complete absence of any PvE instance. Everything they ever do in that system will be RvR.

What? They have a 3 faction system which is what I meant. And by server yes that is effectively what I meant with regard to campaigns.

Kaiser.9873:

I think alliances will make backbiting, and mercenary-type players very happy, but players that have represented their servers through ups and downs, casuals, and small guild(<30) players very unhappy. Perhaps if we were still in the era of 100+ member WvW guilds it wouldn’t be the blow that I think it will be, but we aren’t. Most WvW guilds are smaller than 60 anymore, and that number is falling. Who chooses the alliance leader? Who gets “assigned” to an alliance? What happens to players not in one of the larger WvW guilds? How do we know the alliances will have any kind of balance? What happens to an alliance member that can’t raid due to illness of themselves or family? What powers will the alliance leader/officers be given?

Perhaps the alliances option is easier, but I don’t think it will be better.

Here’s the thing though, WvW as it is is dying.

Kaiser.9873:

We get it. You think “alliances” are the best thing that could possibly happen to GW2 WvW. I happen to disagree, and think it could possibly what finally kills real WvW in the game.

I think alliances will make backbiting, and mercenary-type players very happy, but players that have represented their servers through ups and downs, casuals, and small guild(<30) players very unhappy. Perhaps if we were still in the era of 100+ member WvW guilds it wouldn’t be the blow that I think it will be, but we aren’t. Most WvW guilds are smaller than 60 anymore, and that number is falling. Who chooses the alliance leader? Who gets “assigned” to an alliance? What happens to players not in one of the larger WvW guilds? How do we know the alliances will have any kind of balance? What happens to an alliance member that can’t raid due to illness of themselves or family? What powers will the alliance leader/officers be given?

Perhaps the alliances option is easier, but I don’t think it will be better.

+1000

Wryscher.1432:

They could respond to population increase and decrease by simple opening a new campaign or closing them as they finished. They had campaigns of different legnths some 7 days some 30.

What happens when the maps filled up? They opened a new campaign right? People couldn’t get into the existing campaigns they had to join one of the open or new ones.

It meant that each campaign was fresh/new and you could not rely on being in the same map with the same people you’ve come to trust as a team for the past three years.

I don’t think people who are all for this are really thinking this through and what it implies.

I guess when the forum erupts after the change it’ll sink in.

Jayne.9251:

Wryscher.1432:

They could respond to population increase and decrease by simple opening a new campaign or closing them as they finished. They had campaigns of different legnths some 7 days some 30.

What happens when the maps filled up? They opened a new campaign right? People couldn’t get into the existing campaigns they had to join one of the open or new ones.

There are campaign queues. When a campaign reached a certain point it did close though and you could enter another campaign as part of your faction so you were still fighting for your faction. Plus they have a guesting system so if your home campaign is queued you could guest to another campaign.

I imagine there will be a lot drama when the server system will be replaced by the alliance ESO like system. Like I said earlier I do think it’s a good change, but the main problem is the already forged communities, TS servers, websites, etc.

The only way to see this working is if they fix all the bugs, improve the WvW game mode in a better direction and everyone is so happy that the alliance system will be the only thing that people will complain. This will deter players from leaving and at some point they will adapt to the alliance system.

My greatest fear is that it will be a messy launch, like guild players not being able to join, disconnects, lags, on top of all the current bugs that will probably still not be fixed. And to top it all of, probably the Academy tower from the new map will still have its mortar up on the barricades, unusable. I wonder how long do we have to wait for that.