Guild Wars 2

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.

Glicko definitely needs to be more reactive or gotten rid of. Personally I am OK with either.

The link merge time, I am a bit weary. On one side 2 months is enough time to get to know people and play with them, 1 month may be too short. On the other side there are those servers that no one wants to be linked with because they just plainly and simply suck as a server and that is the bottom line of it. In the latter cases people on just can’t wait for the link to be over so that they get paired with someone else.

For the same reason noted above, permament server merges are a horrible, just horrible idea, unless the only servers that get perma-merged are ones where the population votes on it and both gain the upper majority to proceed. And yes, there will be servers left without any links because they suck either altogether, or people are too vulgar/hostile, or their overall playstyle is sub par to what most players expect, etc.

The 1 up 1 down, I would definitely give a try and see how it goes, but reserve final judgement for after a month or so. Give it a few weeks for some one ups and downs to actually take place to get some results.

The thing that all these changes will help to various degrees (some more some very little), but not solve, is population imbalances both during each respective links prime time and off-hours.

To do that, the score system, no matter what it is and what form it takes, needs to be at least somewhat based on the population differences per given skirmish. This needs to affect both PPT and PPK on about equal basis. This would also alleviate the effects of bandwagonning to an extent (from little to large effects depending on the value of the adjustments)

One of the primary purposses of server linking was to help alleviate those differences and I just don’t see it happening without such scoring adjustments no matter what timeslots etc. the matches are cut into.

The thing that the links succeeded at, is providing actual action in what was a nearly completely dead and empty game mode. Yes there are exceptions to this, but its a much better overall situation then it was many times over. So I would love for the links to stay, don’t want to go back to empty maps

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Question still remains, how are people gonna deter others from bandwagon to maintain a healthy game mode

Professional sports leagues use a draft system.

I’ve bold the key word.

What’s the point we’re supposed to take-away from your emboldening? WvW is not a pro league, but how does that matter? It is widely recognized that WvW players have differing levels of skill. Not all professional sports players are of the same skill level either. Professional leagues use several mechanisms to prevent teams with deep pockets from stacking the team. WvW has no such mechanisms when perhaps it should as a deterrant to maintain a healthy game mode.

Clearly, your idea of professional is in term of level of skills. However, my idea of professional is in literally professional. Professional is not a term to define your skill level but is way more than that. WvW players do not play WvW to reach professional stage (there’s nothing professional about wvw anyway). Just like dota, do everyone play professional? Nope. Trying to implement something that is only acceptable in professional context is…..

PS: I did play live tournaments before, not just typical online league which people are doing nowadays.

If it helps you, then remove the word “professional”. Recreational kids sports leagues where I live ignore coach and friend requests so that the league can form teams where skill is spread across all teams and the season ends up being fun and competitive rather than one team stomping everyone else.

Players cry here on this forum for fun and competitive WvW matches, but they also bandwagon. Can’t have the cake and eat it too.

Still, the point stand, you can’t force a professional level concept into a casual game like this filled with casual players.

So, again, how are you gonna deal with bandwagon?

What do you mean again? I wasn’t trying to force a professional level concept into a casual game. That’s your reading of what I wrote while you outright ignored my recreational league example as clarification.

Sports leagues utilize several different mechanisms to prevent team stacking. All I’m suggesting is that real world paradigms exist as potential solutions to be modeled in-game.

Sigh, seriously…. Changing the word doesn’t magically make the concept any more acceptable. It is like super rich pours expensive wine into a diamond cup, but you want to pour expensive wine into a paper cup. It doesn’t make the expensive wine any less expensive.

Or even a better comparison, pouring hot water into a ceramics cup is ok but you want to pour hot water into a plastic water bottle (that you drink cola from), it just gonna deform the plastic water bottle.

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Question still remains, how are people gonna deter others from bandwagon to maintain a healthy game mode

Professional sports leagues use a draft system.

I’ve bold the key word.

What’s the point we’re supposed to take-away from your emboldening? WvW is not a pro league, but how does that matter? It is widely recognized that WvW players have differing levels of skill. Not all professional sports players are of the same skill level either. Professional leagues use several mechanisms to prevent teams with deep pockets from stacking the team. WvW has no such mechanisms when perhaps it should as a deterrant to maintain a healthy game mode.

Clearly, your idea of professional is in term of level of skills. However, my idea of professional is in literally professional. Professional is not a term to define your skill level but is way more than that. WvW players do not play WvW to reach professional stage (there’s nothing professional about wvw anyway). Just like dota, do everyone play professional? Nope. Trying to implement something that is only acceptable in professional context is…..

PS: I did play live tournaments before, not just typical online league which people are doing nowadays.

If it helps you, then remove the word “professional”. Recreational kids sports leagues where I live ignore coach and friend requests so that the league can form teams where skill is spread across all teams and the season ends up being fun and competitive rather than one team stomping everyone else.

Players cry here on this forum for fun and competitive WvW matches, but they also bandwagon. Can’t have the cake and eat it too.

Still, the point stand, you can’t force a professional level concept into a casual game like this filled with casual players.

So, again, how are you gonna deal with bandwagon?

What do you mean again? I wasn’t trying to force a professional level concept into a casual game. That’s your reading of what I wrote while you outright ignored my recreational league example as clarification.

Sports leagues utilize several different mechanisms to prevent team stacking. All I’m suggesting is that real world paradigms exist as potential solutions to be modeled in-game.

Sigh, seriously…. Changing the word doesn’t magically make the concept any more acceptable. It is like super rich pours expensive wine into a diamond cup, but you want to pour expensive wine into a paper cup. It doesn’t make the expensive wine any less expensive.

Or even a better comparison, pouring hot water into a ceramics cup is ok but you want to pour hot water into a plastic water bottle (that you drink cola from), it just gonna deform the plastic water bottle.

Are all you interested in is arguing semantics of a single word on a tangent or discussing solutions to team imbalances such as my suggestion about real world paradigms from sports leagues? I’m going to assume you have no opinion on modeling solutions.

Btw factions would work on NA, but would also work on the EU servers?
Dont actually EU side have more servers to stack?

And about the new sistem Anet wants to adopt, 1k players where that 1k is devided across 4 maps right?
Wich means, arround 250 per BL+EB wich leads to arround 80ish players per server… what is the diference that we have now??

Some good soul, can help me to understand how the battlegroup works?

Aeolus.3615:

Btw factions would work on NA, but would also work on the EU servers?
Dont actually EU side have more servers to stack?

And about the new sistem Anet wants to adopt, 1k players where that 1k is devided across 4 maps right?
Wich means, arround 250 per BL+EB wich leads to arround 80ish players per server… what is the diference that we have now??

Some good soul, can help me to understand how the battlegroup works?

From what I understand, it means that one “Battlegroup” can max be 1000 people. We don’t know if a single Battlegroup would be a single team or part of a single team (say red). But if this is the entire team in an entire match-up, it would mean that you have a total of 1000 players, depending on their activity, to cover your entire 24/7 of a match-up, from a single side.

So if those 1000 players all go full tilt entire weekend, through all times of day. How much do you think they will have time to play during the week ? etc. It isn’t entirely clear from the brief base idea, exactly what they mean or how they planned to solve this.

Edit: Also it isn’t a new system, and ANet is not going to adopt it. While we can’t confirm it either way, it is what might have been one solution they considered before we got Linking instead. But a plausible one that matches comments and rumors etc from people in the know.

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Question still remains, how are people gonna deter others from bandwagon to maintain a healthy game mode

Professional sports leagues use a draft system.

I’ve bold the key word.

What’s the point we’re supposed to take-away from your emboldening? WvW is not a pro league, but how does that matter? It is widely recognized that WvW players have differing levels of skill. Not all professional sports players are of the same skill level either. Professional leagues use several mechanisms to prevent teams with deep pockets from stacking the team. WvW has no such mechanisms when perhaps it should as a deterrant to maintain a healthy game mode.

Clearly, your idea of professional is in term of level of skills. However, my idea of professional is in literally professional. Professional is not a term to define your skill level but is way more than that. WvW players do not play WvW to reach professional stage (there’s nothing professional about wvw anyway). Just like dota, do everyone play professional? Nope. Trying to implement something that is only acceptable in professional context is…..

PS: I did play live tournaments before, not just typical online league which people are doing nowadays.

If it helps you, then remove the word “professional”. Recreational kids sports leagues where I live ignore coach and friend requests so that the league can form teams where skill is spread across all teams and the season ends up being fun and competitive rather than one team stomping everyone else.

Players cry here on this forum for fun and competitive WvW matches, but they also bandwagon. Can’t have the cake and eat it too.

Still, the point stand, you can’t force a professional level concept into a casual game like this filled with casual players.

So, again, how are you gonna deal with bandwagon?

What do you mean again? I wasn’t trying to force a professional level concept into a casual game. That’s your reading of what I wrote while you outright ignored my recreational league example as clarification.

Sports leagues utilize several different mechanisms to prevent team stacking. All I’m suggesting is that real world paradigms exist as potential solutions to be modeled in-game.

Sigh, seriously…. Changing the word doesn’t magically make the concept any more acceptable. It is like super rich pours expensive wine into a diamond cup, but you want to pour expensive wine into a paper cup. It doesn’t make the expensive wine any less expensive.

Or even a better comparison, pouring hot water into a ceramics cup is ok but you want to pour hot water into a plastic water bottle (that you drink cola from), it just gonna deform the plastic water bottle.

Are all you interested in is arguing semantics of a single word on a tangent or discussing solutions to team imbalances such as my suggestion about real world paradigms from sports leagues? I’m going to assume you have no opinion on modeling solutions.

I am literally saying what works for one thing doesn’t mean it will work for another.

Please merge threads. This World Link discussion could use all the feedback…both good & bad to hopefully guide the future of WvW…imho

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

Question still remains, how are people gonna deter others from bandwagon to maintain a healthy game mode

Professional sports leagues use a draft system.

I’ve bold the key word.

What’s the point we’re supposed to take-away from your emboldening? WvW is not a pro league, but how does that matter? It is widely recognized that WvW players have differing levels of skill. Not all professional sports players are of the same skill level either. Professional leagues use several mechanisms to prevent teams with deep pockets from stacking the team. WvW has no such mechanisms when perhaps it should as a deterrant to maintain a healthy game mode.

Clearly, your idea of professional is in term of level of skills. However, my idea of professional is in literally professional. Professional is not a term to define your skill level but is way more than that. WvW players do not play WvW to reach professional stage (there’s nothing professional about wvw anyway). Just like dota, do everyone play professional? Nope. Trying to implement something that is only acceptable in professional context is…..

PS: I did play live tournaments before, not just typical online league which people are doing nowadays.

If it helps you, then remove the word “professional”. Recreational kids sports leagues where I live ignore coach and friend requests so that the league can form teams where skill is spread across all teams and the season ends up being fun and competitive rather than one team stomping everyone else.

Players cry here on this forum for fun and competitive WvW matches, but they also bandwagon. Can’t have the cake and eat it too.

Still, the point stand, you can’t force a professional level concept into a casual game like this filled with casual players.

So, again, how are you gonna deal with bandwagon?

What do you mean again? I wasn’t trying to force a professional level concept into a casual game. That’s your reading of what I wrote while you outright ignored my recreational league example as clarification.

Sports leagues utilize several different mechanisms to prevent team stacking. All I’m suggesting is that real world paradigms exist as potential solutions to be modeled in-game.

Sigh, seriously…. Changing the word doesn’t magically make the concept any more acceptable. It is like super rich pours expensive wine into a diamond cup, but you want to pour expensive wine into a paper cup. It doesn’t make the expensive wine any less expensive.

Or even a better comparison, pouring hot water into a ceramics cup is ok but you want to pour hot water into a plastic water bottle (that you drink cola from), it just gonna deform the plastic water bottle.

Are all you interested in is arguing semantics of a single word on a tangent or discussing solutions to team imbalances such as my suggestion about real world paradigms from sports leagues? I’m going to assume you have no opinion on modeling solutions.

I am literally saying what works for one thing doesn’t mean it will work for another.

Why would some of them not work? It is very easy to make a broad generalized statement without discussing the merits or demerits of specifics.

Like I wrote here players cry for fun and competitive matches yet bandwagon for various reasons. What this means is that at some point we cannot have our cake of the current game mode and eat it too. The foundations of the game mode have to change towards something that creates better matches. We have to stop poo-pooing on ideas we deem “won’t work” because they deviate too far from the current cake.

Specific real world examples that could be modeled in-game such as a type of draft or splitting “friends” at team formation and changing teams every “season” would have the effect of making fundamental changes to the game mode, to be sure. Yet we as players already are familiar with and trust in similar mechanisms in sPvP because of the hope that those matches are competitive.

Battlegroups already sound like a form of draft with time-delineated teams. We already have a band-aid version of league-controlled team formation every 2-month “season” in the form of server links. I’d be interested in seeing more automated team formation with perhaps divisions based on participation levels or timezone based league divisions that players sign up for based upon their own schedules (for example an OCX/SEA league).

Expanding on the 1000 player battlegroup. An even distribution breaks down to 250 players per timezone. Split into five 50 player guild groups that translates into 4 guild lead 50 player squads and 1 50 player pug squad.

How many commanders are on during OCX and SEA timezones and how many players can be fit into 50 player squads. The limiting variable, commanders or players, will tell you how many competitive battlegroups can be formed.

Even if you lumped in all the other players in NA to fill the gaps that the 5th and 6th servers have, I don’t think you’d get more than 4 full battlegroups.

regarding world linking its main and really only benefit is increasing the number of people on the teams.
it does have the negative factor of instability particularly for the non host servers that are just getting punted around from server to server. although i dont have an idea on how it would be done i would like to see a more long term solution to fix the population issues

Or Gaile has politely asked us three times to keep all linking discussion in one thread so the devs don’t have to wade into five or six threads and potentially miss your valuable feedback.

I wouldn’t read too much into that otherwise. She just wants it in one thread. She’s not trying to suppress you.

Or Gaile could have merged them instead of just deleting, or even if pips dont want to post here

that is not politely asking imo, its called forcing by deleting comments and threads

imagine you want a lag free wvw and away from zerging, you go lower tier
what she did was to force up in T1 for a better wvw opinion?

and for me this thread is a matchup and T1 thread from reading comments on page 1, didnt bother reading the next pages after that

…to provide a meaningful and relevant input………….. on a T1 matchup thread?

I was amazed to find that Viz has moved from 10 to 3 since the linking.
I have no idea what the intention is/was, because now it really is that the tiers are locked and that can’t be fun, we know that.

Swamurabi.7890:

Expanding on the 1000 player battlegroup. An even distribution breaks down to 250 players per timezone. Split into five 50 player guild groups that translates into 4 guild lead 50 player squads and 1 50 player pug squad.

How many commanders are on during OCX and SEA timezones and how many players can be fit into 50 player squads. The limiting variable, commanders or players, will tell you how many competitive battlegroups can be formed.

Even if you lumped in all the other players in NA to fill the gaps that the 5th and 6th servers have, I don’t think you’d get more than 4 full battlegroups.

A few things. Typical WvW match-up balance doesn’t have all three servers with balanced time zone coverage. This is normally the dream for server communities. Instead, balance in a match-up normally happens more like a puzzle. There aren’t enough OCX and SEA to have an even spread, but you can make up for the lack there of. This is the same for WvW as it stands right now, and is the same thing ArenaNet and the community wants to balance out. That’s why we have victory points in play.

It also, doesn’t matter how many battlegroups are formed because all battlegroups will be match made together to create the worlds that are probably bigger than 1000 players.

You still haven’t outlined how it won’t be gamed.

Like a big guild group decides to push out another guild because they got in a fight by hyper recruiting and making sure all their players stay on map and fill those spots in your selected 1,000 player example cap.

And how does the battle group decide priority of placement? Is it random and first-come, first-served, like existing servers (and if that’s the case why change it)? Or will it give preference to the biggest guild in the battle group and get them “priority seating” on map?

Also, why can’t some of the principles you’ve stated as a benefit to the battle group simply be applied to the existing server set up and keep everyone happy?

As well, what happens to people who don’t want the big map blobs? We’ve heard a lot from them lately, and it seems they’re being ignored with a plan like this.

Again, the battlegroups, while ideal for GvG groups, and guilds in particular, does nothing for everyone else.

And I’d love to see the percentages of players in those guild groups vs smaller guilds/solo that actively play this game.

Don’t cater to a select few.

Include everyone.

Build community.

That’s what keeps a game going.

Haha it’s monday and germans have almost 100k lead.

Jayne.9251:

You still haven’t outlined how it won’t be gamed.

Like a big guild group decides to push out another guild because they got in a fight by hyper recruiting and making sure all their players stay on map and fill those spots in your selected 1,000 player example cap.

And how does the battle group decide priority of placement? Is it random and first-come, first-served, like existing servers (and if that’s the case why change it)? Or will it give preference to the biggest guild in the battle group and get them “priority seating” on map?

Also, why can’t some of the principles you’ve stated as a benefit to the battle group simply be applied to the existing server set up and keep everyone happy?

As well, what happens to people who don’t want the big map blobs? We’ve heard a lot from them lately, and it seems they’re being ignored with a plan like this.

Again, the battlegroups, while ideal for GvG groups, and guilds in particular, does nothing for everyone else.

And I’d love to see the percentages of players in those guild groups vs smaller guilds/solo that actively play this game.

Don’t cater to a select few.

Include everyone.

Build community.

That’s what keeps a game going.

The 1000 person cap isn’t a map cap or world cap. It’s a cap on the battlegroup that similar to a guild cap. This is what you’re not understanding. 1 single guild can’t make up a battlegroup because a guild takes up slots up to 500, which means to fully fill an alliance with the biggest of guilds would require 2 guilds of 500 player each. If you have a battlegroup like this, it would probably still be playing with other guilds and players on a world. This battlegroup would be at a disadvantage simply do to management. In fact, their micromanagement would have to cover multiple timezones and is not feasible by any means.

Coming from someone who has played the higher tiers, I can’t name a guild that can fit this mold.

When you create a battlegroup you don’t have to breach even half the size off 1000 players because it will match you up with like minded players to create a balanced world. This is already similar to how its done with server links, but instead it’s looking deeper to analyze the community.

You can not gain the system because it locks all words during the 10 to 14 week season that would happen more frequently. Thus, you can’t move to sway battles in your light and you can’t decide the battle before it starts because you don’t know the match to be made.

You can make a battlegroup with all smaller havoc casual guilds and it would be match made just the same.

I think Battlegroups include everyone fairly.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

You still haven’t outlined how it won’t be gamed.

Like a big guild group decides to push out another guild because they got in a fight by hyper recruiting and making sure all their players stay on map and fill those spots in your selected 1,000 player example cap.

And how does the battle group decide priority of placement? Is it random and first-come, first-served, like existing servers (and if that’s the case why change it)? Or will it give preference to the biggest guild in the battle group and get them “priority seating” on map?

Also, why can’t some of the principles you’ve stated as a benefit to the battle group simply be applied to the existing server set up and keep everyone happy?

As well, what happens to people who don’t want the big map blobs? We’ve heard a lot from them lately, and it seems they’re being ignored with a plan like this.

Again, the battlegroups, while ideal for GvG groups, and guilds in particular, does nothing for everyone else.

And I’d love to see the percentages of players in those guild groups vs smaller guilds/solo that actively play this game.

Don’t cater to a select few.

Include everyone.

Build community.

That’s what keeps a game going.

The 1000 person cap isn’t a map cap or world cap. It’s a cap on the battlegroup that similar to a guild cap. This is what you’re not understanding. 1 single guild can’t make up a battlegroup because a guild takes up slots up to 500, which means to fully fill an alliance with the biggest of guilds would require 2 guilds of 500 player each. If you have a battlegroup like this, it would probably still be playing with other guilds and players on a world. This battlegroup would be at a disadvantage simply do to management. In fact, their micromanagement would have to cover multiple timezones and is not feasible by any means.

Coming from someone who has played the higher tiers, I can’t name a guild that can fit this mold.

When you create a battlegroup you don’t have to breach even half the size off 1000 players because it will match you up with like minded players to create a balanced world. This is already similar to how its done with server links, but instead it’s looking deeper to analyze the community.

You can not gain the system because it locks all words during the 10 to 14 week season that would happen more frequently. Thus, you can’t move to sway battles in your light and you can’t decide the battle before it starts because you don’t know the match to be made.

You can make a battlegroup with all smaller havoc casual guilds and it would be match made just the same.

I think Battlegroups include everyone fairly.

How does a battle group include me, a player without a dedicated wvw guild, but enjoys dropping in from time to time?

It seems like I can be pushed out of a battle group if a guild recruits.

What you’re describing also sounds a similar to alliances in gw1.

However it sounds a lot like a “world” ( in the current meaning of the word world) would be made up of battle groups, who you’re teamed with decided by anet. A lot like world linking currently.

So a battle group sounds like a server – before its linked.

So as a player without a wvw guild.. I could end up anywhere – with battle groups made of guilds who have barely any interest in wvw, so I end up with dead maps?
Do I have to join a guild to be in a battle group at all?

Artemis Thuras.8795:

How does a battle group include me, a player without a dedicated wvw guild, but enjoys dropping in from time to time?

You can join a battlegroup as a singular person. There would still be a server as well. Thus if the season hasn’t started you could transfer to where you want to play just the same. Someone can kick you out a battlegroup just like they can kick you out a guild. That doesn’t mean they can kick you off a server. The leak says there is a time period for formation inbetween seasons. This is the time to move as a individual or guild. I wouldn’t be able to talk in depth about the match making system because the leak doesn’t have the entire system detailed.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

What you’re describing also sounds a similar to alliances in gw1.

However it sounds a lot like a “world” ( in the current meaning of the word world) would be made up of battle groups, who you’re teamed with decided by anet. A lot like world linking currently.

So a battle group sounds like a server – before its linked.

So as a player without a wvw guild.. I could end up anywhere – with battle groups made of guilds who have barely any interest in wvw, so I end up with dead maps?
Do I have to join a guild to be in a battle group at all?

as a player without a guild, you can still join a battlegroup. As a player without a guild or battlegroup you can still join a server during the formation period.

Battlegroups would be much like Alliances in GW1 except, Arena Net would be using the various layers of the community to depict match making for balanced match ups. Right now Arena Net uses an equation based solely off server population for server links, locks and balance. Doing it this way leads to issues, and improper balance. Taking it down to a battlegroup level allows for more flexibly in match making and balance in general.

It’s really hard to guess what it would be like especially with so little information. I am also curious on the procedure to match make because that makes or breaks Battlegroups. The original idea was to not split communities which it seems it wouldn’t.

“• We will have a system to populate worlds automatically with battlegroups, guild and non-guilded players.”

“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.”

“• 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.”

So by analyzing guilds and their battlegroups Arena Net would then be able to better place them and the community alike. Right now, they can’t do that with server links. Thus, each time they rematch us, they cause huge waves of transfers. Battlegroups would keep these communities together when a shuffle happens.

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped you’d see that’s not the case. I made my point clear and I can’t tell anymore if you’re just trying to argue for no reasons. I brought it up because I believe as though it’s a better design then Server Links no matter if it took 6 months to make.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped you’d see that’s not the case. I made my point clear and I can’t tell anymore if you’re just trying to argue for no reasons. I brought it up because I believe as though it’s a better design then Server Links no matter if it took 6 months to make.

Not trying to argue. It’s just that you seem to contradict yourself with your words.

For example, the above is unclear.

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped

Yes. I bolded that part, which lead me to my question.

And here’s where it gets confusing:

you’d see that’s not the case.

.

What isn’t the case?

So are you saying this alliance idea is on the horizon, that it’s been newly reintroduced based on your “Insider” information? Or are you simply trying to push forward again an idea that was considered, then scrapped, for whatever reason?

Because the difference is important.

Battlegrounds take the worst exclusionary and “play my way or gtfo” aspects of guild/server leadership and make it a mandatory part of the WvW experience. I’m not surprised at its proponents. They are the people whose personal influence will be increased if the system is implemented.

Thelgar.7214:

Battlegrounds take the worst exclusionary and “play my way or gtfo” aspects of guild/server leadership and make it a mandatory part of the WvW experience. I’m not surprised at its proponents. They are the people whose personal influence will be increased if the system is implemented.

I dont see battlegroups making anything more exclusive or more inclusive. That is human nature and any system that allows even a little self-organization will result in players expressing their preferences to play with one group vs another.

Battlegroups do balance the population. Why wouldn’t you want any system that balances the population given that imbalances in population is the most destructive part of the game mode.

And battlegroups may possibly weaken the position of server leadership since recruiting and influence will likely be locked to the battlegroups and not the servers. This isn’t likely to bother anyone except for those few players that have manage to position themselves as kings/queens of the servers. Reducing the scale of the organizations naturally reduces the influence of those players.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped you’d see that’s not the case. I made my point clear and I can’t tell anymore if you’re just trying to argue for no reasons. I brought it up because I believe as though it’s a better design then Server Links no matter if it took 6 months to make.

Not trying to argue. It’s just that you seem to contradict yourself with your words.

For example, the above is unclear.

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped

Yes. I bolded that part, which lead me to my question.

And here’s where it gets confusing:

you’d see that’s not the case.

.

What isn’t the case?

So are you saying this alliance idea is on the horizon, that it’s been newly reintroduced based on your “Insider” information? Or are you simply trying to push forward again an idea that was considered, then scrapped, for whatever reason?

Because the difference is important.

My post in which I quoted the the Tyler saying why the overhaul was canceled. It didn’t have to do with what you’re saying. But in fact that’s not even the point. The point is Server Links did not work, and Battlegroups were not heard of as a possible fix to our solutions. Thus, I brought it up because I wanted discussion about it because I think it’s better. I made my point very very clear multiple times. It’s how you choose to pick apart my words for these said contradictions.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Thelgar.7214:

Battlegrounds take the worst exclusionary and “play my way or gtfo” aspects of guild/server leadership and make it a mandatory part of the WvW experience. I’m not surprised at its proponents. They are the people whose personal influence will be increased if the system is implemented.

I dont see battlegroups making anything more exclusive or more inclusive. That is human nature and any system that allows even a little self-organization will result in players expressing their preferences to play with one group vs another.

Battlegroups do balance the population. Why wouldn’t you want any system that balances the population given that imbalances in population is the most destructive part of the game mode.

And battlegroups may possibly weaken the position of server leadership since recruiting and influence will likely be locked to the battlegroups and not the servers. This isn’t likely to bother anyone except for those few players that have manage to position themselves as kings/queens of the servers. Reducing the scale of the organizations naturally reduces the influence of those players.

None of what you said is true. Battlegroups are basically unlimited stacking of guild groups, movement of which does more to imbalance play than individual transfers. And the server leadership will simply become battlegroup leadership with the ability to kick people, something they couldn’t do from servers (though they still manage to create an environment in which people are harassed from the map and/or server). Battlegroups put more influence into the hands of people that have proven they will use it to benefit themselves at the expense of others and game balance.

Norbe.7630:

Or Gaile could have merged them instead of just deleting, or even if pips dont want to post here

Yes they should have been merged.

It is a good idea all in all and turned bad. I do not find the need for WvW linking for the fact that, it "it is a toxic treadmill where the forsaken servers are often hopelessly outnumbered if not are over-full”. The idea in itself is not bad, but the matching with each server is not good. When you match with servers and mix them permanently it destroys each server as a whole coming together and battling it out like how the old system used to be. As I have stated in a previous Question I had put out it, actually hurts the servers by making the people new to the match ups want to move to higher placing servers, Or the people who you had previously met in the server pairs are now getting mixed up faster and the treadmill continues twice fold. Also ideas from each server are mix matched on how each commander leads and plans are if you will, have leaked outside of the way the server was being played. In conclusion the higher servers are fighting to take the lower population servers people due to being forced out in extreme competition. This also leads to the collapse of smaller servers, even being paired in groups of three. Our WvW tactics are leaked to our soon to be enemies and the chain goes on from there.

Thelgar.7214:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Thelgar.7214:

Battlegrounds take the worst exclusionary and “play my way or gtfo” aspects of guild/server leadership and make it a mandatory part of the WvW experience. I’m not surprised at its proponents. They are the people whose personal influence will be increased if the system is implemented.

I dont see battlegroups making anything more exclusive or more inclusive. That is human nature and any system that allows even a little self-organization will result in players expressing their preferences to play with one group vs another.

Battlegroups do balance the population. Why wouldn’t you want any system that balances the population given that imbalances in population is the most destructive part of the game mode.

And battlegroups may possibly weaken the position of server leadership since recruiting and influence will likely be locked to the battlegroups and not the servers. This isn’t likely to bother anyone except for those few players that have manage to position themselves as kings/queens of the servers. Reducing the scale of the organizations naturally reduces the influence of those players.

None of what you said is true. Battlegroups are basically unlimited stacking of guild groups, movement of which does more to imbalance play than individual transfers. And the server leadership will simply become battlegroup leadership with the ability to kick people, something they couldn’t do from servers (though they still manage to create an environment in which people are harassed from the map and/or server). Battlegroups put more influence into the hands of people that have proven they will use it to benefit themselves at the expense of others and game balance.

So your entire argument is based on your fear of getting kicked? Then form your own battlegroup with like minded people. It can be made up of many small guilds who hold hand and sing kumbaya.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped you’d see that’s not the case. I made my point clear and I can’t tell anymore if you’re just trying to argue for no reasons. I brought it up because I believe as though it’s a better design then Server Links no matter if it took 6 months to make.

Not trying to argue. It’s just that you seem to contradict yourself with your words.

For example, the above is unclear.

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped

Yes. I bolded that part, which lead me to my question.

And here’s where it gets confusing:

you’d see that’s not the case.

.

What isn’t the case?

So are you saying this alliance idea is on the horizon, that it’s been newly reintroduced based on your “Insider” information? Or are you simply trying to push forward again an idea that was considered, then scrapped, for whatever reason?

Because the difference is important.

My post in which I quoted the the Tyler saying why the overhaul was canceled. It didn’t have to do with what you’re saying. But in fact that’s not even the point. The point is Server Links did not work, and Battlegroups were not heard of as a possible fix to our solutions. Thus, I brought it up because I wanted discussion about it because I think it’s better. I made my point very very clear multiple times. It’s how you choose to pick apart my words for these said contradictions.

Ok that’s a huge difference. Thank you.

When you first introduced the “leak” into this thread, it seemed like this was something currently being considered or new.

I like Tyler. I think he has some great ideas. I think, given wvw’s history, he’s been very engaged. But for the multiple reasons I’ve outlined in this thread, alliances just aren’t conducive to building community; which is critical for any game’s longevity. Alliances would erode that self-identifier, would narrow the definition, and would exclude people when you want them involved.

Why not consider implementing some of the alliance principles to the existing server structure. Cap the population, etc.?

TorquedSoul.8097:

Thelgar.7214:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Thelgar.7214:

Battlegrounds take the worst exclusionary and “play my way or gtfo” aspects of guild/server leadership and make it a mandatory part of the WvW experience. I’m not surprised at its proponents. They are the people whose personal influence will be increased if the system is implemented.

I dont see battlegroups making anything more exclusive or more inclusive. That is human nature and any system that allows even a little self-organization will result in players expressing their preferences to play with one group vs another.

Battlegroups do balance the population. Why wouldn’t you want any system that balances the population given that imbalances in population is the most destructive part of the game mode.

And battlegroups may possibly weaken the position of server leadership since recruiting and influence will likely be locked to the battlegroups and not the servers. This isn’t likely to bother anyone except for those few players that have manage to position themselves as kings/queens of the servers. Reducing the scale of the organizations naturally reduces the influence of those players.

None of what you said is true. Battlegroups are basically unlimited stacking of guild groups, movement of which does more to imbalance play than individual transfers. And the server leadership will simply become battlegroup leadership with the ability to kick people, something they couldn’t do from servers (though they still manage to create an environment in which people are harassed from the map and/or server). Battlegroups put more influence into the hands of people that have proven they will use it to benefit themselves at the expense of others and game balance.

So your entire argument is based on your fear of getting kicked? Then form your own battlegroup with like minded people. It can be made up of many small guilds who hold hand and sing kumbaya.

Ahhh, manipulation of opinion by a personal attack – calling the other person afraid. These are exactly the kind of people that favor a system that allows them to attack and kick others like battlegroups – they are toxic lowest rung of the gaming community.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped you’d see that’s not the case. I made my point clear and I can’t tell anymore if you’re just trying to argue for no reasons. I brought it up because I believe as though it’s a better design then Server Links no matter if it took 6 months to make.

Not trying to argue. It’s just that you seem to contradict yourself with your words.

For example, the above is unclear.

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped

Yes. I bolded that part, which lead me to my question.

And here’s where it gets confusing:

you’d see that’s not the case.

.

What isn’t the case?

So are you saying this alliance idea is on the horizon, that it’s been newly reintroduced based on your “Insider” information? Or are you simply trying to push forward again an idea that was considered, then scrapped, for whatever reason?

Because the difference is important.

My post in which I quoted the the Tyler saying why the overhaul was canceled. It didn’t have to do with what you’re saying. But in fact that’s not even the point. The point is Server Links did not work, and Battlegroups were not heard of as a possible fix to our solutions. Thus, I brought it up because I wanted discussion about it because I think it’s better. I made my point very very clear multiple times. It’s how you choose to pick apart my words for these said contradictions.

Ok that’s a huge difference. Thank you.

When you first introduced the “leak” into this thread, it seemed like this was something currently being considered or new.

I like Tyler. I think he has some great ideas. I think, given wvw’s history, he’s been very engaged. But for the multiple reasons I’ve outlined in this thread, alliances just aren’t conducive to building community; which is critical for any game’s longevity. Alliances would erode that self-identifier, would narrow the definition, and would exclude people when you want them involved.

Why not consider implementing some of the alliance principles to the existing server structure. Cap the population, etc.?

You haven’t outlined any reasons what so ever. You can cap the population but you’d still need variety and you would still need to have a system in place to keep it that way. Arena Net would still need a better metric to decide balance.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped you’d see that’s not the case. I made my point clear and I can’t tell anymore if you’re just trying to argue for no reasons. I brought it up because I believe as though it’s a better design then Server Links no matter if it took 6 months to make.

Not trying to argue. It’s just that you seem to contradict yourself with your words.

For example, the above is unclear.

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped

Yes. I bolded that part, which lead me to my question.

And here’s where it gets confusing:

you’d see that’s not the case.

.

What isn’t the case?

So are you saying this alliance idea is on the horizon, that it’s been newly reintroduced based on your “Insider” information? Or are you simply trying to push forward again an idea that was considered, then scrapped, for whatever reason?

Because the difference is important.

My post in which I quoted the the Tyler saying why the overhaul was canceled. It didn’t have to do with what you’re saying. But in fact that’s not even the point. The point is Server Links did not work, and Battlegroups were not heard of as a possible fix to our solutions. Thus, I brought it up because I wanted discussion about it because I think it’s better. I made my point very very clear multiple times. It’s how you choose to pick apart my words for these said contradictions.

Ok that’s a huge difference. Thank you.

When you first introduced the “leak” into this thread, it seemed like this was something currently being considered or new.

I like Tyler. I think he has some great ideas. I think, given wvw’s history, he’s been very engaged. But for the multiple reasons I’ve outlined in this thread, alliances just aren’t conducive to building community; which is critical for any game’s longevity. Alliances would erode that self-identifier, would narrow the definition, and would exclude people when you want them involved.

Why not consider implementing some of the alliance principles to the existing server structure. Cap the population, etc.?

You haven’t outlined any reasons what so ever. You can cap the population but you’d still need variety and you would still need to have a system in place to keep it that way. Arena Net would still need a better metric to decide balance.

Nothing you, I, nor Arena Net can do can create balance if the players won’t get their act together.

You create the alliances, and it’s just another name for the same thing. Six months from now, you have the same stale stagnant lopsided matches. Players will stack to winning battlegroups, it will amount to the same thing, only with six months of chaos.

Your solution is to cap these battlegroup alliances.

My question is why not do that now with the existing server structure? Why do you need to blow things up in order to achieve this?

The answer? You don’t.

Alliances resolve nothing but to alienate a core playerbase; the community.

Ok little confused here, this thread is on server linking…what is all this nonsense about alliances and battle groups, and if I am not mistaken weren’t all these rumors shot down as not true by a dev months ago when they were first supposedly leaked?

Thelgar.7214:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Thelgar.7214:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Thelgar.7214:

Battlegrounds take the worst exclusionary and “play my way or gtfo” aspects of guild/server leadership and make it a mandatory part of the WvW experience. I’m not surprised at its proponents. They are the people whose personal influence will be increased if the system is implemented.

I dont see battlegroups making anything more exclusive or more inclusive. That is human nature and any system that allows even a little self-organization will result in players expressing their preferences to play with one group vs another.

Battlegroups do balance the population. Why wouldn’t you want any system that balances the population given that imbalances in population is the most destructive part of the game mode.

And battlegroups may possibly weaken the position of server leadership since recruiting and influence will likely be locked to the battlegroups and not the servers. This isn’t likely to bother anyone except for those few players that have manage to position themselves as kings/queens of the servers. Reducing the scale of the organizations naturally reduces the influence of those players.

None of what you said is true. Battlegroups are basically unlimited stacking of guild groups, movement of which does more to imbalance play than individual transfers. And the server leadership will simply become battlegroup leadership with the ability to kick people, something they couldn’t do from servers (though they still manage to create an environment in which people are harassed from the map and/or server). Battlegroups put more influence into the hands of people that have proven they will use it to benefit themselves at the expense of others and game balance.

So your entire argument is based on your fear of getting kicked? Then form your own battlegroup with like minded people. It can be made up of many small guilds who hold hand and sing kumbaya.

Ahhh, manipulation of opinion by a personal attack – calling the other person afraid. These are exactly the kind of people that favor a system that allows them to attack and kick others like battlegroups – they are toxic lowest rung of the gaming community.

Wow. What rung are you on?

At least one above you and the other people in favor of battle groups, which includes a guy who was involved in match fixing and deliberately stacking two servers for advantage as well as a guy who posted a screenshot here celebrating TC spawn camping with arrow carts after the first guy stacked the server. You fit right in with them, playing the victim and acting offended after you attacked someone first.

Jayne.9251:

I like Tyler. I think he has some great ideas. I think, given wvw’s history, he’s been very engaged. But for the multiple reasons I’ve outlined in this thread, alliances just aren’t conducive to building community; which is critical for any game’s longevity. Alliances would erode that self-identifier, would narrow the definition, and would exclude people when you want them involved.

Server links are doing a great job eroding server identity due to the implementation.

morrolan.9608:

Server links are doing a great job eroding server identity due to the implementation.

I agree, though at this point my opinion is that most if not all guest servers have been bled to the point that they cannot stand on their own, so completely ditching server linkings at this point would not be good for the smaller guest servers. They were just about dead before the linkings…I’d hate to see what they look like on their own now. Perhaps merging the less populated servers with each other would be necessary if the entire linking system is abandoned.

Thelgar.7214:

At least one above you and the other people in favor of battle groups, which includes a guy who was involved in match fixing and deliberately stacking two servers for advantage as well as a guy who posted a screenshot here celebrating TC spawn camping with arrow carts after the first guy stacked the server. You fit right in with them, playing the victim and acting offended after you attacked someone first.

Sorry Bro, didn’t mean to trigger you.

Been watching this discussion with interest.

First, the battlegroup idea. To what degree it was developed and the specifics of how it would work are unclear, and if it had gone Live the finished product would almost certainly have been different than what Mal’s sources told him.

But it is clear that World Linking is only a band-aid solution to WvW. A short term fix for larger systemic problems that need to be addressed to revitalize WvW.

I have been a WvW commander since the first month of the game(and am still active). The game-mode is incredibly stale, players and guilds are quitting, disbanding, or branching into other game-modes to maintain interest in GW2.

So to McKenna and the other members of the WvW team, pick a direction for WvW and go with it. It might be wrong, it might be right. It might work, it might not. But right now WvW is just sliding into oblivion.

If you have to do away with servers in the process, do it. If you have to fundamental change how scoring works, do that. If you need to revamp mechanics and maps, do that.

But don’t rely on the players to direct your attention. We’re a diverse and argumentative group that will never agree on anything, and if you leave things to us WvW will never change in any meaningful way.

Only if they have a poll with a super majority.

Thelgar.7214:

At least one above you and the other people in favor of battle groups, which includes a guy who was involved in match fixing and deliberately stacking two servers for advantage as well as a guy who posted a screenshot here celebrating TC spawn camping with arrow carts after the first guy stacked the server. You fit right in with them, playing the victim and acting offended after you attacked someone first.

lol wow. You are a comedian. If you could only understand, but you are beyond understanding. You choose to believe what you want to believe without even knowing what took place or the other side. If anyone is toxic and discriminating it’s you. You throw down others opinions just because you don’t like them as well.

Caliburn.1845:

Been watching this discussion with interest.

First, the battlegroup idea. To what degree it was developed and the specifics of how it would work are unclear, and if it had gone Live the finished product would almost certainly have been different than what Mal’s sources told him.

But it is clear that World Linking is only a band-aid solution to WvW. A short term fix for larger systemic problems that need to be addressed to revitalize WvW.

I have been a WvW commander since the first month of the game(and am still active). The game-mode is incredibly stale, players and guilds are quitting, disbanding, or branching into other game-modes to maintain interest in GW2.

So to McKenna and the other members of the WvW team, pick a direction for WvW and go with it. It might be wrong, it might be right. It might work, it might not. But right now WvW is just sliding into oblivion.

If you have to do away with servers in the process, do it. If you have to fundamental change how scoring works, do that. If you need to revamp mechanics and maps, do that.

But don’t rely on the players to direct your attention. We’re a diverse and argumentative group that will never agree on anything, and if you leave things to us WvW will never change in any meaningful way.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. The polls in general hurt the community. My example was something made by the devs that would have helped tremendously instead it was canceled out by Server links as a permanent solution.

Battlegroups indeed would have evolved from the point in which I knew it to be.

I think polling the players was a good PR move and we all appreciate that ANET listened. But it doesn’t really work. As was said above, find a direction and stick to it.

I can see ANET’s dilemma though, WvW for all of it’s problems is still a semi-popular game mode even 4 years out. It isn’t totally broken. So any major changes have the chance of breaking it and pushing even more people away.

Alliances sound interesting, but if done wrong it would break WvW.

It would be better to make what we have better. The first priority should be breaking up the blobs that dominate the game mode and destroy personal initiative. Reward small group play. Along with breaking up blobs they should destack servers like Blob… Blackgate.

There is no good reason to allow a server like Blackgate to exist.

You have to have at least 5 servers of similar coverage and numbers to create a competitive and fun game mode. Having only 1 is a sad joke.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

How does a battle group include me, a player without a dedicated wvw guild, but enjoys dropping in from time to time?

You can join a battlegroup as a singular person. There would still be a server as well. Thus if the season hasn’t started you could transfer to where you want to play just the same. Someone can kick you out a battlegroup just like they can kick you out a guild. That doesn’t mean they can kick you off a server. The leak says there is a time period for formation inbetween seasons. This is the time to move as a individual or guild. I wouldn’t be able to talk in depth about the match making system because the leak doesn’t have the entire system detailed.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

What you’re describing also sounds a similar to alliances in gw1.

However it sounds a lot like a “world” ( in the current meaning of the word world) would be made up of battle groups, who you’re teamed with decided by anet. A lot like world linking currently.

So a battle group sounds like a server – before its linked.

So as a player without a wvw guild.. I could end up anywhere – with battle groups made of guilds who have barely any interest in wvw, so I end up with dead maps?
Do I have to join a guild to be in a battle group at all?

as a player without a guild, you can still join a battlegroup. As a player without a guild or battlegroup you can still join a server during the formation period.

Battlegroups would be much like Alliances in GW1 except, Arena Net would be using the various layers of the community to depict match making for balanced match ups. Right now Arena Net uses an equation based solely off server population for server links, locks and balance. Doing it this way leads to issues, and improper balance. Taking it down to a battlegroup level allows for more flexibly in match making and balance in general.

It’s really hard to guess what it would be like especially with so little information. I am also curious on the procedure to match make because that makes or breaks Battlegroups. The original idea was to not split communities which it seems it wouldn’t.

“• We will have a system to populate worlds automatically with battlegroups, guild and non-guilded players.”

“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.”

“• 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.”

So by analyzing guilds and their battlegroups Arena Net would then be able to better place them and the community alike. Right now, they can’t do that with server links. Thus, each time they rematch us, they cause huge waves of transfers. Battlegroups would keep these communities together when a shuffle happens.

So who can kick me from a battle group?
Would I be moving as a person or guild to another server? to another battle group?
Who will “lead” these battle groups?

This sounds EXACTLY like gw1 alliances.

Just with a person cap rather than a number of guilds cap.
Where someone has to be designated leader.

How can one join any battle group if they can also be kicked?
That just means tonnes of work to keep purging random troll f2p accounts that keep filling up my alliance battle group.

So how does one join a server if they will be populated by battle groups + those not in battle groups via some matchmaking?
Can I be shuffled onto any random server as an individual without a battle group at the start of a season? How can the proposed system possibly work if it doesn’t potentially move me?
How does one then stay with their community? They would be forced to join a battle group or risk changing community random players every season?

If an individual can pick their server regardless of battle group membership, how does this solve anything?

What if one of my guilds joins a battle group – but they aren’t my wvw guild?
Which guilds battle group am I in? Will I be required to pay gems because the matchmaking didn’t put me with the “correct” guild/battlegroup/server?
Do battle groups then have to be totally independent of guilds?

So battle group === 1000 person cap guild by another name..?
Only the guilds battle groups can be dropped onto a server at random at the beginning of each season server linking.

What does this do, that is not currently fulfilled by guilds?
How does an individual not wanting to join a wvw dedicated guild, not get swept around like dust in the wind?

TorquedSoul.8097:

Thelgar.7214:

Battlegrounds take the worst exclusionary and “play my way or gtfo” aspects of guild/server leadership and make it a mandatory part of the WvW experience. I’m not surprised at its proponents. They are the people whose personal influence will be increased if the system is implemented.

I dont see battlegroups making anything more exclusive or more inclusive. That is human nature and any system that allows even a little self-organization will result in players expressing their preferences to play with one group vs another.

Battlegroups do balance the population. Why wouldn’t you want any system that balances the population given that imbalances in population is the most destructive part of the game mode.

And battlegroups may possibly weaken the position of server leadership since recruiting and influence will likely be locked to the battlegroups and not the servers. This isn’t likely to bother anyone except for those few players that have manage to position themselves as kings/queens of the servers. Reducing the scale of the organizations naturally reduces the influence of those players.

Simple: You can’t be kicked by another player from the server. Only anet can force you to leave a map ( which they are unlikely to do, unless they are banning you..).

A battle group is simply a guild by another name, with a larger cap. Along with all the current drama and politics that may come with it ( such as, “raid at this time or get kicked from the guild”).
However the “relinking” we currently have for worlds would be more like: world 1 : battle group 1 + 2 + random pugs number 1-100.
Effectively replacing “server” with “guild battle group”
and replacing “world 1 (+ world 9)” with faction 1.

I see lots of problems and issues to fix, but no meaningful benefit of the proposal.

Caliburn.1845:

Been watching this discussion with interest.

First, the battlegroup idea. To what degree it was developed and the specifics of how it would work are unclear, and if it had gone Live the finished product would almost certainly have been different than what Mal’s sources told him.

But it is clear that World Linking is only a band-aid solution to WvW. A short term fix for larger systemic problems that need to be addressed to revitalize WvW.

I have been a WvW commander since the first month of the game(and am still active). The game-mode is incredibly stale, players and guilds are quitting, disbanding, or branching into other game-modes to maintain interest in GW2.

So to McKenna and the other members of the WvW team, pick a direction for WvW and go with it. It might be wrong, it might be right. It might work, it might not. But right now WvW is just sliding into oblivion.

If you have to do away with servers in the process, do it. If you have to fundamental change how scoring works, do that. If you need to revamp mechanics and maps, do that.

But don’t rely on the players to direct your attention. We’re a diverse and argumentative group that will never agree on anything, and if you leave things to us WvW will never change in any meaningful way.

+1

Posting bug again?