Guild Wars 2

DeWolfe.2174:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I don’t think I’m allowed to share full details of the leak on this forum

Am I the only one that’s having a problem with this? Someone should have been fired for giving you inside information. WTF?

I don’t think it’s particularly bad in this case, it’s not like he made a profit from the information or manoeuvred himself into a good position that no-one knew of in advance.

Now if he’d have known the details of the WvW legendary back piece with it needing 250 of each T1-4 mats and bought them before hand while they were cheap that would be a different case entirely.

I would love to know the full details of these other systems along with estimates of time (can be as simple as it will take 12 months at least) to complete before having the polls tbh. I like making informed choices not being presented with half the options with the others only being presented if I reject all the initial options.

DeWolfe.2174:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I don’t think I’m allowed to share full details of the leak on this forum

Am I the only one that’s having a problem with this? Someone should have been fired for giving you inside information. WTF?

Are you trolling me right now. How does details of the leak equate to insider information.

This really deserves its own thread with a proper headline, instead of buried in another thread midway. The issues proposed by McKenna are shown below:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Hey everyone,

I wanted to address the idea of moving world linking to monthly instead of every 2 months, since it is being brought up more and more frequently.

The team isn’t opposed to this idea; we actually think it would be beneficial to move to monthly because it would allow us to iterate faster on how we are calculating which worlds should be linked. However, the main reason for not doing this right now is the matchmaking algorithm, Glicko. Each time we shuffle worlds via world linking it takes about 4 weeks’ worth of matches before Glicko begins to reliably match make those new worlds into balanced matches. If we did world linking monthly, Glicko would not be able to create balanced matchups.

Our next priority poll is going to be asking if players would rather have us work on adding rewards to skirmishes (and possibly other feedback items being collected from this thread) or replace Glicko matchmaking with a 1-up 1-down system (wherein the winner moves up a tier and the loser moves down a tier.) The 1-up 1-down system should work better with monthly linkings than Glicko, so we are most likely going to hold off on 1 month linkings until that system is in.

Another possibility we could pursue is 1 month linkings, but use the Glicko offset system to guarantee the matches. Alternatively, we could manually change Glicko ratings to what we believe they should be for each world. Either option would force worlds to start out closer to being in the correct tier and thus give better matches faster. These options are contentious, so even if everyone on the forums seemed to like this idea it would be something we would poll on.

Taking matters I to your own hands lol.

I think both systems have advantages and disadvantages.

1u1d: Allows better progression up and down to where you should be for the most part so will sort out population transfers much quicker. However you’re still going to get 2 weeks potentially where servers are migrating to where they should be and those can be complete blow out matches depending on linkings and how extreme they make them. For example if they put SFR, GH and Gank together next linking it would take 3 weeks before they get to T2 which for monthly linkings is way too long.

Glicko offset: Glicko in general takes an age to adjust server match ups when a substantial population migration takes place and has always been bad in this regard. However if rankings were offset by population at linkings you could end up with SFR in the aforementioned example being offset straight to T2 and everyone automatically offset against servers of similar average populations.

Would have made the current GH complaints/situation better as they wouldn’t be fighting bigger servers and instead be in a match up with some of the other single servers.

In my opinion Glicko offset would be better for 1 monthly links as the servers need to be starting approximately where they should be for such short linkings. However if we kept 2 monthly linkings I think 1u1d would suffice and arrange match ups a little better in the long run as well adjusting for mid linking population changes quicker.

Belenwyn.8674:

If 100 people want to play Football you create 9 teams with 11 players and not one team with 100 players (11 on the field and 89 on the substitute’s bench). If the number of players change the number of teams has to follow.

Yes well except 40 of those 100 players only have the time to play every other match, 3 teams give up for the week and most other teams with 6-7/11 active people refuse to leave their team to balance same size teams because they dont fit all in the team they are supposed to join. Your comparison doesnt work.

zhonnika.1784:

Well, if Anet isn’t going to give us battlegroups/alliances, what do you feel is the best solution to fix this giant mess? It really does feel hopelessly messy, and I’m not convinced we’ll ever be at a point where glicko OR anet can keep up with the constant changes. So, if 1u1d isn’t the solution, and we can’t rely on something they scrapped or shelved for now… what do? I mean, do we even think that more frequent linking will benefit anyone?

Maybe if they aren’t going to give us something like alliances…. we need to do it ourselves (as best we can)? Would take some doing, but it’s not totally impossible.

Yes. I personally think alliance is the way to go. As someone whose played and led MMOs for 15+ yrs and studied in game design. I also played GW1 and every single expansion and games like Warhammer online. I’ve been apart of 2 community driven alliances in GW2 and I’ve seen the rise and fall of Titan and Ascension. And of course my alliance now.

When we have a system so dynamic as WvW, we need a structure that’s just as dynamic and flexible that allows us to build healthy communities. We need a dynamic system that allows for competitiveness and balance. When all is said and done, only then can we start to talk about things like Tournaments and the proper rewards for them.

Now time to go all in… I hope I don’t get banned for my next post here. I want to point out my next post is just a leak. This information did not come from Arena Net. This information is not confirmed. If this violates any terms & agreements please remove my next post.

Not going to say where this came from. Don’t even ask. All I’ll say is it came from someone else.

We want to create a WvW season with weekly matches during 8 to 10 weeks and a final tournament at the end of the season that will last 4 weeks.
There will be a team formation period when groups of guilds will join together as battlegroups. Battlegroups will have a max size of around 1000 players.
The system opens the door for some type of matchmaking (guild activity levels, when they are most active) in order to better distribute people and define metrics about what kind of things guilds like to do. The ultimate goal of the system is to generate great matches.
Population, we will have to move people around with the changes but the goal is to keep communities together as much as possible.
The battlegroup system allows players to create groups of guilds that will work together.
You will be able to switch battlegroups at any time but it won’t affect which world you are on until the next season for scoring purposes.
You can pick which of your guilds you want to join on WvW during the team formation phase.
When teams are formed you will be on that team for the season for scoring purposes, even if you change guild or battle group. This is to avoid spying between battlegroups amongst other issues.
Guilds will take player slots out of the battlegroup total capacity. Every guild will take a minimum of 50 slots out of the battlegroup capacity, to a max of 500.
Battlegroups are effectively a “party system” for guilds.
We will have a system to populate worlds automatically with battlegroups, guild and non-guilded players.
Current worlds won’t matter for battlegroups.
We will be adding a guild recognition system called “the guild medal system” for now.
You will do things with your guild and compete with other guilds to get the medal for that week. The activities (most kills, most defensed objectives) are a way to recognize individual guilds for their contribution on a matchup.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Not going to say where this came from. Don’t even ask. All I’ll say is it came from someone else.

We want to create a WvW season with weekly matches during 8 to 10 weeks and a final tournament at the end of the season that will last 4 weeks.
There will be a team formation period when groups of guilds will join together as battlegroups. Battlegroups will have a max size of around 1000 players.
The system opens the door for some type of matchmaking (guild activity levels, when they are most active) in order to better distribute people and define metrics about what kind of things guilds like to do. The ultimate goal of the system is to generate great matches.
Population, we will have to move people around with the changes but the goal is to keep communities together as much as possible.
The battlegroup system allows players to create groups of guilds that will work together.
You will be able to switch battlegroups at any time but it won’t affect which world you are on until the next season for scoring purposes.
You can pick which of your guilds you want to join on WvW during the team formation phase.
When teams are formed you will be on that team for the season for scoring purposes, even if you change guild or battle group. This is to avoid spying between battlegroups amongst other issues.
Guilds will take player slots out of the battlegroup total capacity. Every guild will take a minimum of 50 slots out of the battlegroup capacity, to a max of 500.
Battlegroups are effectively a “party system” for guilds.
We will have a system to populate worlds automatically with battlegroups, guild and non-guilded players.
Current worlds won’t matter for battlegroups.
We will be adding a guild recognition system called “the guild medal system” for now.
You will do things with your guild and compete with other guilds to get the medal for that week. The activities (most kills, most defensed objectives) are a way to recognize individual guilds for their contribution on a matchup.

This sounds like someone’s wish list.

It completely ignores the bulk of players: small guilds, solo players, etc .. and focuses instead on the big guilds.

If this is done, it will dismiss a core group of WvW. A vital part of WvW.

Any evaluation that excludes rather than includes is just bad business.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Not going to say where this came from. Don’t even ask. All I’ll say is it came from someone else.

We want to create a WvW season with weekly matches during 8 to 10 weeks and a final tournament at the end of the season that will last 4 weeks.
There will be a team formation period when groups of guilds will join together as battlegroups. Battlegroups will have a max size of around 1000 players.
The system opens the door for some type of matchmaking (guild activity levels, when they are most active) in order to better distribute people and define metrics about what kind of things guilds like to do. The ultimate goal of the system is to generate great matches.
Population, we will have to move people around with the changes but the goal is to keep communities together as much as possible.
The battlegroup system allows players to create groups of guilds that will work together.
You will be able to switch battlegroups at any time but it won’t affect which world you are on until the next season for scoring purposes.
You can pick which of your guilds you want to join on WvW during the team formation phase.
When teams are formed you will be on that team for the season for scoring purposes, even if you change guild or battle group. This is to avoid spying between battlegroups amongst other issues.
Guilds will take player slots out of the battlegroup total capacity. Every guild will take a minimum of 50 slots out of the battlegroup capacity, to a max of 500.
Battlegroups are effectively a “party system” for guilds.
We will have a system to populate worlds automatically with battlegroups, guild and non-guilded players.
Current worlds won’t matter for battlegroups.
We will be adding a guild recognition system called “the guild medal system” for now.
You will do things with your guild and compete with other guilds to get the medal for that week. The activities (most kills, most defensed objectives) are a way to recognize individual guilds for their contribution on a matchup.

This sounds like someone’s wish list.

It completely ignores the bulk of players: small guilds, solo players, etc .. and focuses instead on the big guilds.

If this is done, it will dismiss a core group of WvW. A vital part of WvW.

Any evaluation that excludes rather than includes is just bad business.

Whats stopping smaller guilds and solo players from joining in on this? From someone who has built two alliances, we also recruit solo players who follow us and small guilds. Both types and all types of play styles is need in any WVW community whether it be alliance based or server based.

I think just put the oldest system in place. It was not broken until Anet tried to fix something that was not broke. Just saying. I love WvW and I love Gw2 as a game. But the more Anet tries to fix it the worse it gets.

It is almost as if they have no Veteran players at Anet that understand the greatness that once was WvW. Maybe it is just me? But I was always taught that if something is not broke, there is no reason to try and fix it.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Not going to say where this came from. Don’t even ask. All I’ll say is it came from someone else.

We want to create a WvW season with weekly matches during 8 to 10 weeks and a final tournament at the end of the season that will last 4 weeks.
There will be a team formation period when groups of guilds will join together as battlegroups. Battlegroups will have a max size of around 1000 players.
The system opens the door for some type of matchmaking (guild activity levels, when they are most active) in order to better distribute people and define metrics about what kind of things guilds like to do. The ultimate goal of the system is to generate great matches.
Population, we will have to move people around with the changes but the goal is to keep communities together as much as possible.
The battlegroup system allows players to create groups of guilds that will work together.
You will be able to switch battlegroups at any time but it won’t affect which world you are on until the next season for scoring purposes.
You can pick which of your guilds you want to join on WvW during the team formation phase.
When teams are formed you will be on that team for the season for scoring purposes, even if you change guild or battle group. This is to avoid spying between battlegroups amongst other issues.
Guilds will take player slots out of the battlegroup total capacity. Every guild will take a minimum of 50 slots out of the battlegroup capacity, to a max of 500.
Battlegroups are effectively a “party system” for guilds.
We will have a system to populate worlds automatically with battlegroups, guild and non-guilded players.
Current worlds won’t matter for battlegroups.
We will be adding a guild recognition system called “the guild medal system” for now.
You will do things with your guild and compete with other guilds to get the medal for that week. The activities (most kills, most defensed objectives) are a way to recognize individual guilds for their contribution on a matchup.

This sounds like someone’s wish list.

It completely ignores the bulk of players: small guilds, solo players, etc .. and focuses instead on the big guilds.

If this is done, it will dismiss a core group of WvW. A vital part of WvW.

Any evaluation that excludes rather than includes is just bad business.

Whats stopping smaller guilds and solo players from joining in on this? From someone who has built two alliances, we also recruit solo players who follow us and small guilds. Both types and all types of play styles is need in any WVW community whether it be alliance based or server based.

It’s doing the “small guilds and solo players” will be the putty to fill in the gaps between the big guild models. It doesn’t work.

Most server’s defensive teams are small guilds. They rely on each other because they’ve worked together for years. If you give random battlegroup assignments to these groups, you lose that cohesion, and then you lose the gameplay we’ve enjoyed for four years in WvW. You have to have BOTH groups (fighters/defense) in order for WvW to work.

Name one big defensive guild. Just one.

You can’t, because they’re all made up of smaller guilds and solo players.

Forcing people to join a big guild or not play is not a good business model.

Also, calling something alliance or server or whatever will not resolve issues plaguing WvW. You have to resolve the bandwagonning issue FIRST. Any other change or implementation of alliance/servers/what have you, is just putting lipstick on the pig, and will result in the exact same situation as we have now. Only it will wind up alienating the loyalists in the process and lose even more playerbase.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Not going to say where this came from. Don’t even ask. All I’ll say is it came from someone else.

We want to create a WvW season with weekly matches during 8 to 10 weeks and a final tournament at the end of the season that will last 4 weeks.
There will be a team formation period when groups of guilds will join together as battlegroups. Battlegroups will have a max size of around 1000 players.
The system opens the door for some type of matchmaking (guild activity levels, when they are most active) in order to better distribute people and define metrics about what kind of things guilds like to do. The ultimate goal of the system is to generate great matches.
Population, we will have to move people around with the changes but the goal is to keep communities together as much as possible.
The battlegroup system allows players to create groups of guilds that will work together.
You will be able to switch battlegroups at any time but it won’t affect which world you are on until the next season for scoring purposes.
You can pick which of your guilds you want to join on WvW during the team formation phase.
When teams are formed you will be on that team for the season for scoring purposes, even if you change guild or battle group. This is to avoid spying between battlegroups amongst other issues.
Guilds will take player slots out of the battlegroup total capacity. Every guild will take a minimum of 50 slots out of the battlegroup capacity, to a max of 500.
Battlegroups are effectively a “party system” for guilds.
We will have a system to populate worlds automatically with battlegroups, guild and non-guilded players.
Current worlds won’t matter for battlegroups.
We will be adding a guild recognition system called “the guild medal system” for now.
You will do things with your guild and compete with other guilds to get the medal for that week. The activities (most kills, most defensed objectives) are a way to recognize individual guilds for their contribution on a matchup.

This sounds like someone’s wish list.

It completely ignores the bulk of players: small guilds, solo players, etc .. and focuses instead on the big guilds.

If this is done, it will dismiss a core group of WvW. A vital part of WvW.

Any evaluation that excludes rather than includes is just bad business.

Whats stopping smaller guilds and solo players from joining in on this? From someone who has built two alliances, we also recruit solo players who follow us and small guilds. Both types and all types of play styles is need in any WVW community whether it be alliance based or server based.

It’s doing the “small guilds and solo players” will be the putty to fill in the gaps between the big guild models. It doesn’t work.

Most server’s defensive teams are small guilds. They rely on each other because they’ve worked together for years. If you give random battlegroup assignments to these groups, you lose that cohesion, and then you lose the gameplay we’ve enjoyed for four years in WvW. You have to have BOTH groups (fighters/defense) in order for WvW to work.

Name one big defensive guild. Just one.

You can’t, because they’re all made up of smaller guilds and solo players.

Forcing people to join a big guild or not play is not a good business model.

Those same people who have worked together for years would in fact be a battlegroup. No matter how they split their numbers. You aren’t forcing anyone to join any guild. individuals join the battle group just the same as guilds. If you choose not to join a battlegroup you will be match made. It stops the bandwagon completely right after it’s match made. That means we dont have this problem we have now. We would be locked for a 14 week period and then instead of every 2 months we get screwed over and forced to move to a random server we really don’t want. We get the option or playing where we want in the time between and during the formation of the next season. I am talking on an individual level. Which makes this system way more flexible than anything we’ve experienced so far.

I don’t know what you classify as a defensive guild neither. I would call TW a defensive guild because they are known to sit on SMC and hold it down to just farm bags in the center. My guild use to be known for home map defense on my previous server. A battlegroup is not a guild.

Jayne.9251:

Also, calling something alliance or server or whatever will not resolve issues plaguing WvW. You have to resolve the bandwagonning issue FIRST. Any other change or implementation of alliance/servers/what have you, is just putting lipstick on the pig, and will result in the exact same situation as we have now. Only it will wind up alienating the loyalists in the process and lose even more playerbase.

You cant bandwagon in this system. Because it first lets players choose based off a cap of 1000. Then they match make everyone. Then they lock the worlds for 14 weeks. Then they take break and start again.

Right now what we have is a bandwagon every 2 months. With this battlegroups what youd have is balanced match making every 14 weeks.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Those same people who have worked together for years would in fact be a battlegroup. No matter how they split their numbers. You aren’t forcing anyone to join any guild. individuals join the battle group just the same as guilds. If you choose not to join a battlegroup you will be match made. It stops the bandwagon completely right after it’s match made. That means we dont have this problem we have now. We would be locked for a 14 week period and then instead of every 2 months we get screwed over and forced to move to a random server we really don’t want. We get the option or playing where we want in the time between and during the formation of the next season. I am talking on an individual level. Which makes this system way more flexible than anything we’ve experienced so far.

I don’t know what you classify as a defensive guild neither. I would call TW a defensive guild because they are known to sit on SMC and hold it down to just farm bags in the center. My guild use to be known for home map defense on my previous server. A battlegroup is not a guild.

No the model outlined above caters to big guilds and seemingly ignores the contributions of smaller guilds.

It will alienate the population, because it gives too much power to the playerbase in determining/gaming the system. We already have too much of this.

And how exactly would it stop bandwagonning? Your explanation isn’t clear. And why couldn’t the same rules be applied to existing servers (and subsequently keep everyone happy)?

And if you can play where you want, what’s to stop people from trolling matches to ensure a win for the “home” alliance?

If you choose not to join a battlegroup you will be match made.

So the putty to fill in the cracks if you don’t join a big group?

I think there’s a disconnect here because you’ve played in a big guild and don’t understand that not everyone wants to play that way.

A game shouldn’t cater to one set of people. It should be available to all if it wants to ensure any longevity.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Those same people who have worked together for years would in fact be a battlegroup. No matter how they split their numbers. You aren’t forcing anyone to join any guild. individuals join the battle group just the same as guilds. If you choose not to join a battlegroup you will be match made. It stops the bandwagon completely right after it’s match made. That means we dont have this problem we have now. We would be locked for a 14 week period and then instead of every 2 months we get screwed over and forced to move to a random server we really don’t want. We get the option or playing where we want in the time between and during the formation of the next season. I am talking on an individual level. Which makes this system way more flexible than anything we’ve experienced so far.

I don’t know what you classify as a defensive guild neither. I would call TW a defensive guild because they are known to sit on SMC and hold it down to just farm bags in the center. My guild use to be known for home map defense on my previous server. A battlegroup is not a guild.

No the model outlined above caters to big guilds and seemingly ignores the contributions of smaller guilds.

It will alienate the population, because it gives too much power to the playerbase in determining/gaming the system. We already have too much of this.

And how exactly would it stop bandwagonning? Your explanation isn’t clear. And why couldn’t the same rules be applied to existing servers (and subsequently keep everyone happy)?

And if you can play where you want, what’s to stop people from trolling matches to ensure a win for the “home” alliance?

If you choose not to join a battlegroup you will be match made.

So the putty to fill in the cracks if you don’t join a big group?

I think there’s a disconnect here because you’ve played in a big guild and don’t understand that not everyone wants to play that way.

A game shouldn’t cater to one set of people. It should be available to all if it wants to ensure any longevity.

It wont alienate the population. The power is already in the playerbase determining/gaming the system except there are no definitions to govern. My post above explains how it would stop the bandwagon.

You can’t play where you want during the duration of a season. You can change battlegroups, which is just a party system for guilds. I assume similar to a menu like GW1. It doesn’t place you on that battlegroups world.

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice. Then keep those caps in place, with vacancies only occurring through attrition.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Grim West.3194:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Grim West.3194:

Glicko hell for one thing (YB having to be adjusted etc).

And it’s already boring because of the overstack problem.

Population is the main issue that has to be fixed. If it isn’t dealt with then nothing else will matter. Scoring is a minor issue compared to the population problem. Anet sticking their head in the sand for 4 years has made it almost unfixable.

Yaks bend Glicko hell, wasnt much of a glicko hell as the community made it out to be. However, the results of that are strictly due to the Live Beta and relink every 2 months. On top of not resting the volatility.

so Glicko hell I suppose is when a very populated server gets stuck by glicko rating in a lower tier in which they crush all opposition and shouldn’t be in that tier. In-fact, if Arena Net used 1 up 1 down. There would always be someone who crushes all opposition in these tiers and as Chaba pointed out above me the attrition rate would skyrocket worst than the Glicko system. Thus the Glicko system is better than 1 up 1 down even in it’s current broken state.

I don’t think you really believe that. YB would still be in the wrong tier if they hadn’t been adjusted. Talk about a boring mismatch.

And the reason there are mismatches is because of the population balance issue. If that isn’t fixed then there will always be mismatches in every tier. Or you can lock the tiers and be bored of the same faces forever.

The only fix for mismatches and scoring issues is population balance. Without it then WvW will continue to die.

I believe that Arena Net should have reset the volatility instead of fixing YB. So you agree the main issue is population imbalance. Then you’d agree locking server transfers to once a year would be a terrible idea since we are already imbalanced.

Sorry for the late reply. RL etc.

I do not agree. Population issues will sort themselves given the right incentives while locking the most populated servers.

The ability to be able to transfer servers at whim is the reason we have the population imbalance problem in the first place. It’s almost as bad now as when server transfers were free. If you recall, whole servers would be decimated in just a couple days because of mass transfers. That still happens occasionally and that is not healthy for the game, never has been.

Why you don’t acknowledge that problem makes me suspect your motives. Your push always seems to be for changes that benefit your alliance and not the game.

Another major problem with WvW is the lack of incentives for small group / guild play. Everything is based on blob warfare. Your alliance may like that, but most RvR players do not. Or maybe your alliance doesn’t like it but it is built for WvW as it is now. Either way the lack of viable small group play is seriously damaging to WvW’s ability to retain players.

I only bring that up because it ties in to WvW’s balance problems and mass server transfers. If small group / guild play were viable, players wouldn’t feel so pressured to transfer when the blob alliances do.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I don’t think Anet wrote this either, so it would be hard to explain for them.

It repeats the same agenda that’s been pushed around here for a year now through various forms of social engineering.

And it would not let us keep our communities. It would destroy them.

But the big guilds would be ok.

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I don’t think Anet wrote this either, so it would be hard to explain for them.

It repeats the same agenda that’s been pushed around here for a year now through various forms of social engineering.

And it would not let us keep our communities. It would destroy them.

But the big guilds would be ok.

I promise you they did.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I don’t think Anet wrote this either, so it would be hard to explain for them.

It repeats the same agenda that’s been pushed around here for a year now through various forms of social engineering.

And it would not let us keep our communities. It would destroy them.

But the big guilds would be ok.

I promise you they did.

Ok so now we go back to DeWolfe’s comment that you have insider info that gives you an unfair advantage. And you called him a troll for saying that.

If this is indeed generated from Anet, let’s hope it’s in the first draft stage. It’s a terrible idea and only caters to a small portion of their overall audience.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I don’t think Anet wrote this either, so it would be hard to explain for them.

It repeats the same agenda that’s been pushed around here for a year now through various forms of social engineering.

And it would not let us keep our communities. It would destroy them.

But the big guilds would be ok.

I promise you they did.

Ok so now we go back to DeWolfe’s comment that you have insider info that gives you an unfair advantage. And you called him a troll for saying that.

If this is indeed generated from Anet, let’s hope it’s in the first draft stage. It’s a terrible idea and only caters to a small portion of their overall audience.

We don’t know what it is. Its not confirmed. Nor is it happening. I posted it for discussion. No use to speculate on what it could be but instead talk about what it details. I dont think it’s perfect, but i truely believe it needs to be talked about. Regardless if you think so or not.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I don’t think Anet wrote this either, so it would be hard to explain for them.

It repeats the same agenda that’s been pushed around here for a year now through various forms of social engineering.

And it would not let us keep our communities. It would destroy them.

But the big guilds would be ok.

I promise you they did.

Ok so now we go back to DeWolfe’s comment that you have insider info that gives you an unfair advantage. And you called him a troll for saying that.

If this is indeed generated from Anet, let’s hope it’s in the first draft stage. It’s a terrible idea and only caters to a small portion of their overall audience.

We don’t know what it is. Its not confirmed. Nor is it happening. I posted it for discussion. No use to speculate on what it could be but instead talk about what is details. I dont think it’s perfect, but i truely believe it needs to be talked about. Regardless if you think so or not.

Then don’t make promises about its veracity.

You can’t flip flop like that without someone noticing.

Malediktus.3740:

Server merges instead of linkings are the solution.
Server communities can never establish if people get rotated in and out every 1 or 2 months.

This. And disable server transfer for 6 months.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I don’t think Anet wrote this either, so it would be hard to explain for them.

It repeats the same agenda that’s been pushed around here for a year now through various forms of social engineering.

And it would not let us keep our communities. It would destroy them.

But the big guilds would be ok.

I promise you they did.

Ok so now we go back to DeWolfe’s comment that you have insider info that gives you an unfair advantage. And you called him a troll for saying that.

If this is indeed generated from Anet, let’s hope it’s in the first draft stage. It’s a terrible idea and only caters to a small portion of their overall audience.

A leak is not Insider information. Obviously this information was handed down passed along and got to me. I know this is indeed written by Arena Net is because I got this information way before any WvW beta or alpha and it detailed every single change since with this information as well.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Seniority would be very easy to figure out. Many players are loyal to their servers, if they were penalized for being loyal while players in big guilds that transfer regularly are rewarded then you can kiss WvW goodbye.

Grim West.3194:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Seniority would be very easy to figure out. Many players are loyal to their servers, if they were penalized for being loyal while players in big guilds that transfer regularly are rewarded then you can kiss WvW goodbye.

Do you notice how Arena Net has a section for guild recruitment. They expect guilds to recruit from off their server aswell. Thats how some guilds recruit. What about convincing your friend to play this game. Then them getting evicted. Thats way more damaging and server destroying than anything I’ve heard.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Grim West.3194:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Seniority would be very easy to figure out. Many players are loyal to their servers, if they were penalized for being loyal while players in big guilds that transfer regularly are rewarded then you can kiss WvW goodbye.

Do you notice how Arena Net has a section for guild recruitment. They expect guilds to recruit from off their server aswell. Thats how some guilds recruit. What about convincing your friend to play this game. Then them getting evicted. Thats way more damaging and server destroying than anything I’ve heard.

The system you posted might work. I’m not against it. Would have to see more details and feedback from the players. Could be interesting.

I will say though, that it looks like it plays into Guild War’s recent trend (since HoT) of favoring large nameless blob guilds over small guilds. I personally hate that trend and don’t play as much GW2 because of it.

But otherwise I have an open mind on the subject. Obviously, the current system isn’t working very well.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.

And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.

Again, you’re not thinking this through.

Grim West.3194:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Grim West.3194:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Seniority would be very easy to figure out. Many players are loyal to their servers, if they were penalized for being loyal while players in big guilds that transfer regularly are rewarded then you can kiss WvW goodbye.

Do you notice how Arena Net has a section for guild recruitment. They expect guilds to recruit from off their server aswell. Thats how some guilds recruit. What about convincing your friend to play this game. Then them getting evicted. Thats way more damaging and server destroying than anything I’ve heard.

The system you posted might work. I’m not against it. Would have to see more details and feedback from the players. Could be interesting.

I will say though, that it looks like it plays into Guild War’s recent trend (since HoT) of favoring large nameless blob guilds over small guilds. I personally hate that trend and don’t play as much GW2 because of it.

But otherwise I have an open mind on the subject. Obviously, the current system isn’t working very well.

Same man even though people refuse to believe it. I believe healthy communities need a variety of play styles small and large. To be far aswell, my guild is under 50 players and we only field 15 to 20. We aren’t a big guild although we do pug command for our server. I think the system I detailed is a very good one although not perfect.

I think that system detailed has a lot of clouds surrounding it. Like I’m curious to know more about this purposed match-making system. I’m also curious to know about down time inbetween the 14 week seasons and how transferring would work during the down time.

All of that is not very clear from what I just shared. But it seemed to me they were going in the right direction.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.

And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.

Again, you’re not thinking this through.

just because someone is in a guild doesn’t make them apart of that battlegroup. The number is not important. 1000 players is not important. What is important is they’re willing to give a number cap.

I am thinking this though, I’ve actually been thinking about this for a very long time. As I’ve known about it for a while.

And how many guilds rally 50 members every night?

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.

And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.

Again, you’re not thinking this through.

just because someone is in a guild doesn’t make them apart of that battlegroup. The number is not important. 1000 players is not important. What is important is they’re willing to give a number cap.

I am thinking this though, I’ve actually been thinking about this for a very long time. As I’ve known about it for a while.

If there are caps or finite numbers to this proposal then they do indeed matter. And now you’re saying it doesn’t matter if you’re in a guild you may not be part of that battle group. Yet in the same breath you’re saying guilds will be used to determine matchmaking.

Make up your mind.

The main problem with putting X players in a battlegroup/team/server/alliance is that the distribution of those X players should be the same as the distribution of the Y and Z players that are on the other teams in the match.

This does nothing to change the fact when I log in to NA prime I can go to a map and face somewhat even numbered sides, but when I log on at noon on Saturday, which is EU prime, I’m outmanned.

All I want is to log in and play WvW and have relatively equal sides.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.

And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.

Again, you’re not thinking this through.

just because someone is in a guild doesn’t make them apart of that battlegroup. The number is not important. 1000 players is not important. What is important is they’re willing to give a number cap.

I am thinking this though, I’ve actually been thinking about this for a very long time. As I’ve known about it for a while.

If there are caps or finite numbers to this proposal then they do indeed matter. And now you’re saying it doesn’t matter if you’re in a guild you may not be part of that battle group. Yet in the same breath you’re saying guilds will be used to kitten matchmaking.

Make up your mind.

I’m saying that the number would obviously change and probably wasn’t final. I would assume the number would be left up to debate while they fine tune the same. But the fact that there is a defined cap, instead of what we have now which is a system that can be easily exploited because the cap is determined by equations.

Guilds, individuals, and battlegroups will be match made.

Swamurabi.7890:

The main problem with putting X players in a battlegroup/team/server/alliance is that the distribution of those X players should be the same as the distribution of the Y and Z players that are on the other teams in the match.

This does nothing to change the fact when I log in to NA prime I can go to a map and face somewhat even numbered sides, but when I log on at noon on Saturday, which is EU prime, I’m outmanned.

All I want is to log in and play WvW and have relatively equal sides.

Correct. This system isn’t a system that handles timezone differences more than the system we already have. It just allows you to pick where you want to play in a more balanced way.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.

And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.

Again, you’re not thinking this through.

just because someone is in a guild doesn’t make them apart of that battlegroup. The number is not important. 1000 players is not important. What is important is they’re willing to give a number cap.

I am thinking this though, I’ve actually been thinking about this for a very long time. As I’ve known about it for a while.

If there are caps or finite numbers to this proposal then they do indeed matter. And now you’re saying it doesn’t matter if you’re in a guild you may not be part of that battle group. Yet in the same breath you’re saying guilds will be used to kitten matchmaking.

Make up your mind.

I’m saying that the number would obviously change and probably wasn’t final. I would assume the number would be left up to debate while they fine tune the same. But the fact that there is a defined cap, instead of what we have now which is a system that can be easily exploited because the cap is determined by equations.

Guilds, individuals, and battlegroups will be match made.

And be random if you aren’t in a big guild.

And be subject to losing your spot as the big guild recruits.

And be gamed to outmanoeuvre another battle group.

If they are going to do caps, do it with existing servers based on account seniority and avoid ticking off a lot of people.

What you propose offers no benefit to anyone other than guild groups.

It eliminates a significant portion of the wvw population.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.

And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.

Again, you’re not thinking this through.

just because someone is in a guild doesn’t make them apart of that battlegroup. The number is not important. 1000 players is not important. What is important is they’re willing to give a number cap.

I am thinking this though, I’ve actually been thinking about this for a very long time. As I’ve known about it for a while.

If there are caps or finite numbers to this proposal then they do indeed matter. And now you’re saying it doesn’t matter if you’re in a guild you may not be part of that battle group. Yet in the same breath you’re saying guilds will be used to kitten matchmaking.

Make up your mind.

I’m saying that the number would obviously change and probably wasn’t final. I would assume the number would be left up to debate while they fine tune the same. But the fact that there is a defined cap, instead of what we have now which is a system that can be easily exploited because the cap is determined by equations.

Guilds, individuals, and battlegroups will be match made.

And be random if you aren’t in a big guild.

And be subject to losing your spot as the big guild recruits.

And be gamed to outmanoeuvre another battle group.

If they are going to do caps, do it with existing servers based on account seniority and avoid ticking off a lot of people.

What you propose offers no benefit to anyone other than guild groups.

It eliminates a significant portion of the wvw population.

How does imposing seniority not tick people off? People move for various reasons. What if drama happens, what if they change timezones in real life and have to find a server that better suited them. What if they recently got their friends interested in GW2 so they are new to the game. What if someone just came back to the game and found there friends somewhere else.

Imposing seniority would tick me off. considering how much change Arena Net forced upon us all recently.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.

And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.

Again, you’re not thinking this through.

just because someone is in a guild doesn’t make them apart of that battlegroup. The number is not important. 1000 players is not important. What is important is they’re willing to give a number cap.

I am thinking this though, I’ve actually been thinking about this for a very long time. As I’ve known about it for a while.

If there are caps or finite numbers to this proposal then they do indeed matter. And now you’re saying it doesn’t matter if you’re in a guild you may not be part of that battle group. Yet in the same breath you’re saying guilds will be used to kitten matchmaking.

Make up your mind.

I’m saying that the number would obviously change and probably wasn’t final. I would assume the number would be left up to debate while they fine tune the same. But the fact that there is a defined cap, instead of what we have now which is a system that can be easily exploited because the cap is determined by equations.

Guilds, individuals, and battlegroups will be match made.

And be random if you aren’t in a big guild.

And be subject to losing your spot as the big guild recruits.

And be gamed to outmanoeuvre another battle group.

If they are going to do caps, do it with existing servers based on account seniority and avoid ticking off a lot of people.

What you propose offers no benefit to anyone other than guild groups.

It eliminates a significant portion of the wvw population.

Not defending the proposed system. But it would be possible to put in controls that favor small guilds – if ANET were inclined to do so (I’m not convinced they care).

A percentage of the alliance could be reserved for guilds under a certain number of active players (not sure how to define that yet).

And large guilds could be limited in the number of players they field in the alliance.

Obviously that wouldn’t make large guilds happy, but so what?

And of course the system could be gamed, but if ANET actually cared about the health of small group play they would find a way.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

How does imposing seniority not tick people off? People move for various reasons. What if drama happens, what if they change timezones in real life and have to find a server that better suited them. What if they recently got their friends interested in GW2 so they are new to the game. What if someone just came back to the game and found there friends somewhere else.

Imposing seniority would tick me off. considering how much change Arena Net forced upon us all recently.

Your system would tick me off because it forces me to either join a big guild/group or not play.

Let’s review:

1. Matchmaking is done by determining guild rosters/populations within a battle group.

2. Population for that battle group is capped (your example is 1,000 players). This is your counter to bandwagonning.

I’m not sure why you can’t see how disastrous this would be.

Let’s look at population cap.

If 1,000 players are designated to one battle group, if a guild recruits, then it pushes out someone. A cap is a finite determination.

If the 1,000 players are locked to who participated in say the first week of the 14 week matchup, then any returning or new players are SOL and have to stay out of that 14 week matchup.

In fact, your system is more restrictive to player movement than the existing server structure.

If the 1,000 players are dynamic, why is it any better than the existing server system?

Let’s look at matchmaking:

If guild rosters/populations are used to determine battle groups, it assumes that roster will never change.

Guild groups could effectively push out another guild it doesn’t like or has had a fight with by increasing its roster and taking up map space.

It also means stale, stagnant matches where similar groups will be paired with each other week after week because they “best fit” per the metrics.

You keep stating elements of your new system, but when posed with issues where you contradict yourself, you don’t offer resolution.

On top of that, it completely dismisses the value of smaller guilds and caters to an elite group.

It’s a bad business model.

what you’re labeling as a big group is just the same as playing for a server. Matching making is done by numerous ways that is not only left up to guilds. But individual players and smaller guilds too. If there are two small guilds that like to play together. Then they create a battle group. Lets say that battle group now holds 30/1000 players. After the period to create battlegroups is done, it will match make the player base and keep everyone together. Battlegroups big or small, and individual players.

Then it would lock the servers for 14 weeks during the season which stops any bandwagon. Thus, if you wanted to keep your loyal server core together then, all you’d have to do is make a battlegroup and no matter how you are matched you will be together.

I really don’t know how else to explain that.

There’s a lot to read but I’ll just say I agree with Jayne, it’s not often s/he and I disagree on these things.

Thanks for posting what was revealed to you MaLeVoLenT

The Battlegroup plan could be interesting, but it’s in an awkward spot vs. existing WvW.

It’s different enough that it should be a separate or new mode. Most notably it’s a huge change for roamers/casual players/occasional participants to have to enroll into a battlegroup before playing.

It’s similar enough for the hardcore and big guild players that it would compete for attention and time with current WvW.

I suppose I don’t have a lot of faith in ANet’s ability to deliver on a concept like that given the attention and resources they’ve been willing to focus on WvW so far.

Hey Jayne, I’m going to make another thread soon. So that what I pasted here is as the topic and the focal point of discussion. Thanks for the discussion so far and I hope we can continue it.

We’ve seen through season 2 and season 3, both of which turned into one up one down after a few weeks, that player participation went DOWN after the tournament was done.

Having 1U1D as a permanent feature will only make the player base smaller.