Guild Wars 2

Diku.2546:

Hope this helps with your suggestion. Please expand & explain.

---

Issues you mention:

1. Population balance. It will always exist under the current server based model.

Might want to correct this typo as “inbalance or imbalance”.

---

Solution you’re propsing:

1. Have Mist “islands” or series of interconnected maps like we have in pve. All maps pool players from their assigned server color side.

---

Question that quickly come to mind needing an expanded detail behind the mechanics:

How do you assign players a server color?

What if everybody wants to be on Green team?

How do you prevent players from always joining the Green team?

If you offer more than 3 Colors to choose from…How do you handle requests for Guilds and Friends to be on the same Green or whatever Color team?

Glad you mentioned Language…it’s a concern for many EU players. Any mechanism being proposed to help coordinate this?

Currently I see Map Taxi being used in a lot PvE maps to get players together to play on the same map for the same event. Would this be the approved way to ferry in friends & family to fight together?

---

I wouldn’t depend on players to naturally spread out over the islands & Color teams being offered.

Past player behavior from my observation…is that they will want to be on the team that Wins more often.

---

Long term:

1) Can Players easily join a Color Team to play with Friends & Family?
2) Can Players really build communities around Team Color – TeamSpeak, Website, etc?
3) Will Match-Up always be between 3 Color Teams?

---

Sadly…from a Dev’s perspective…it’s a challenge to make things work.

Hope you can provide more insight & details on the mechanisms that will allow this to happen.

---

See issue #1 – Everything else falls apart if this isn’t addressed properly…imho.

Hi Diku,

Oh those silly typos, I’ll fix it up soon thanks.

“How do you assign players a server color?” The devs assign like they have done.

“What if everybody wants to be on Green team?” The devs change faction make up like they do with alliances.

“How do you prevent players from always joining the Green team?” Players move where they want. The devs make new faction make ups to balance like they will do with alliances. Transfers can be locked prior to “campaigns” and sides balanced accordingly before matches start.

“Can Players easily join a Color Team to play with Friends & Family?” Yes, through paid server transfers.

“Can Players really build communities around Team Color – TeamSpeak, Website, etc?” Yes, the players have the tools to coordinate that on their own like they do now.

“Will Match-Up always be between 3 Color Teams?” It’s a 3 sided faction war that would only need 3 colors used as identifiers.

Edit- The devs have full control over servers and transfers. They can be locked to prevent transfers. They can change grouping. Now they have the tech to do what they want to ensure a more balanced wvw.

You really should invest in some “Good Idea Fairy” repellent.

Re: Server pride. I never, ever, wanted to PvP in an MMO again as my hands have deteriorated so much from RA. But, I ended up doing WvW, for server pride. I figured out things I could do, to help my Server.

If you stomp out the last vestiges of Server Pride and identity, I simply will not be pressing B anymore. I’ve never been to EoTM for that very reason.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

You really should invest in some “Good Idea Fairy” repellent.

Re: Server pride. I never, ever, wanted to PvP in an MMO again as my hands have deteriorated so much from RA. But, I ended up doing WvW, for server pride. I figured out things I could do, to help my Server.

If you stomp out the last vestiges of Server Pride and identity, I simply will not be pressing B anymore. I’ve never been to EoTM for that very reason.

So how are you handling alliances? How will you handle changing alliances?

Swagger.1459:

Hi Diku,

Oh those silly typos, I’ll fix it up soon thanks.

“How do you assign players a server color?” The devs assign like they have done.

You’ll need to get past this 1st question before being able to answer the other questions that’s in my post.

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but server color is not assigned by the devs.

Take a Look at this article for reference:
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Edge_of_the_Mists#Match_Up

For those that can’t get to the link:

Edge of the Mists – Match Up

All European worlds will be matched up with one another in the Edge of the Mists. All North American worlds will be matched up with one another as well. Worlds will be matched according to which color they are in the current WvW matchup. For example, all green worlds will be on the same team in the Edge of the Mists.

World Rank of a Server will define which Color they’ll be assigned from my limited understanding.

Hope this helps you better refine your proposed solution.

Diku.2546:

Swagger.1459:

Hi Diku,

Oh those silly typos, I’ll fix it up soon thanks.

“How do you assign players a server color?” The devs assign like they have done.

You’ll need to get past this 1st question before being able to answer the other questions that’s in my post.

---

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but server color is not assigned by the devs.

Take a Look at this article for reference:
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Edge_of_the_Mists#Match_Up

---

For those that can’t get to the link:

Edge of the Mists – Match Up

All European worlds will be matched up with one another in the Edge of the Mists. All North American worlds will be matched up with one another as well. Worlds will be matched according to which color they are in the current WvW matchup. For example, all green worlds will be on the same team in the Edge of the Mists.

---

Hope this helps you better refine your proposed solution.

I’m honestly not sure why you are making this needlessly complex here. It’s all similar to what happens now.

A 3 sided faction war is relatively easy to figure out my friend. Take all servers, balance out 3 sides by average populations. Weekly rotation happens and your faction starts on another side.

I used “color” in my phrasing, but I’m assuming it’s understood considering we have had this system for going on 4 years now. Let’s not get fixated on “color” here.

Umm…sorry…but this is how Color/Team is used in EoTM as I understand it.

I just used the ANet’s article to help illustrate how “Teams” are formed in EoTM, and I thought you’d understand the reference.

That system that EoTM is using was described in my post above…not sure how long it’s been in use exactly.

Sorry if I’m making this too complex. That’s why I’m asking & providing a reference that I understand as a WvW player.

How do you assign player(s) to a team(s) in your proposed solution?

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

You really should invest in some “Good Idea Fairy” repellent.

Re: Server pride. I never, ever, wanted to PvP in an MMO again as my hands have deteriorated so much from RA. But, I ended up doing WvW, for server pride. I figured out things I could do, to help my Server.

If you stomp out the last vestiges of Server Pride and identity, I simply will not be pressing B anymore. I’ve never been to EoTM for that very reason.

I was thinking about how the community that sprouts out of MMOs really becomes the reason for a game’s longevity. Heck, look at EQ1, still chugging along, and I opened up EQ2 (a 12 year old game WITH a monthly sub) and it was so busy it had two versions of many zones.

It’s server pride, that sense of ownership, that keeps people emotionally tied to games. Remove that and the game dies.

Diku.2546:

Umm…sorry…but this is how Color/Team is used in EoTM as I understand it.

I just used the ANet’s article to help illustrate how “Teams” are formed in EoTM, and I thought you’d understand the reference.

That system that EoTM is using was described in my post above…not sure how long it’s been in use exactly.

Sorry if I’m making this too complex. That’s why I’m asking & providing a reference that I understand as a WvW player.

---

How do you assign player(s) to a team(s) in your proposed solution?

Well, you’d take US servers and break them down into 3 wvw sides based off of population averages that the devs have. You do the same for the EU side.

Populations shift over time, as stated by the devs, so the devs move whatever individual servers that need to be moved to rebalance. The tech is in place to do this now.

The neat thing is that this model includes different style maps (pvp, pvp/pve and pve) that cater to different players and play styles. Also, all maps contribute to scoring for their faction side.

In the long run the devs will have an easier time balancing populations and scoring for a 1 “world” wvw, instead on micromanaging multiple different match ups.

Swagger.1459:

Diku.2546:

How do you assign player(s) to a team(s) in your proposed solution?

Well, you’d take US servers and break them down into 3 wvw sides based off of population averages that the devs have. You do the same for the EU side.

Populations shift over time, as stated by the devs, so the devs move whatever individual servers that need to be moved to rebalance. The tech is in place to do this now.

The neat thing is that this model includes different style maps (pvp, pvp/pve and pve) that cater to different players and play styles. Also, all maps contribute to scoring for their faction side.

In the long run the devs will have an easier time balancing populations and scoring for a 1 “world” wvw, instead on micromanaging multiple different match ups.

Be very careful how you word this. Players might have a negative reaction.

In the above example you describe…would you confirm that you’re proposing the following:

1) Devs to Merge All Current Servers into 3 Major Teams balanced in strength
2) Devs to Merge Servers in the future if Population imbalances happen
3) All WvW Population will fight on 1 Map that have interconnected islands

Please correct me if what I’m describing above is incorrect, and explain things if there’s any misunderstanding.

I’m asking you to confirm the above, because I’ll want to ask the following questions:

How do devs decide which players and guilds get placed on which teams?

Do players have any say on where they’re placed?

Jayne.9251:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

You really should invest in some “Good Idea Fairy” repellent.

Re: Server pride. I never, ever, wanted to PvP in an MMO again as my hands have deteriorated so much from RA. But, I ended up doing WvW, for server pride. I figured out things I could do, to help my Server.

If you stomp out the last vestiges of Server Pride and identity, I simply will not be pressing B anymore. I’ve never been to EoTM for that very reason.

I was thinking about how the community that sprouts out of MMOs really becomes the reason for a game’s longevity. Heck, look at EQ1, still chugging along, and I opened up EQ2 (a 12 year old game WITH a monthly sub) and it was so busy it had two versions of many zones.

It’s server pride, that sense of ownership, that keeps people emotionally tied to games. Remove that and the game dies.

There are tons of players who don’t care about server pride, and that’s clear by all the server hoppers.

The individual server vs server vs server wvw obviously didn’t work correct?

Now we have alliances so how are you handling that “server pride”? What will you do when servers are changed again? What happens when your server needs to be combined with 3 other smaller server to be balanced?

Diku.2546:

Swagger.1459:

Diku.2546:

How do you assign player(s) to a team(s) in your proposed solution?

Well, you’d take US servers and break them down into 3 wvw sides based off of population averages that the devs have. You do the same for the EU side.

Populations shift over time, as stated by the devs, so the devs move whatever individual servers that need to be moved to rebalance. The tech is in place to do this now.

The neat thing is that this model includes different style maps (pvp, pvp/pve and pve) that cater to different players and play styles. Also, all maps contribute to scoring for their faction side.

In the long run the devs will have an easier time balancing populations and scoring for a 1 “world” wvw, instead on micromanaging multiple different match ups.

Be very careful how you word this. Players might have a negative reaction.

In the above example you describe…would you confirm that you’re proposing the following:

---

1) Devs to Merge All Current Servers into 3 Major Teams
2) Devs to Merge Servers in the future if Population imbalances happen
3) All WvW Population will fight on 1 Map that have interconnected islands

---

Please correct me if what I’m describing above is incorrect, and explain things if there’s any misunderstanding.

This 3 sided faction stuff happens inside this WvW model.

Servers are swapped as needed just like what’s happening in wvw now with alliances.

I’m honestly not worried about negative reactions, I’m more concerned with improving wvw for the long run.

Swagger.1459:

This 3 sided faction stuff happens inside this WvW model.

Servers are swapped as needed just like what’s happening in wvw now with alliances.

I’m honestly not worried about negative reactions, I’m more concerned with improving wvw for the long run.

This 3 sided faction stuff.

Do you have an ANet article that I can reference to understand how it works?

EoTM has a 3 sided faction, but it’s based on the following article that I mentioned previously:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Edge_of_the_Mists#Match_Up

However, this 3 sided faction is directly tied to World Server Ranking…which depends upon there being a World Server that players pick to join.

Thanks for confirming that your proposal does the following…since you didn’t seem to object to any of these lines:

1) Devs to Merge All Current Servers into 3 Major Teams
2) Devs to Merge Servers in the future if Population imbalances happen
3) All WvW Population will fight on 1 Map that have interconnected islands

Hope you can see why I’m confused about this 3 sided faction you’re proposing as it relates to:

1) How do you assign player(s) to a team(s) in your proposed solution?

2) How do devs decide which players and guilds get placed on which teams?

3) Do players have any say on where they’re placed?

Your proposal sounds like players are assigned into 3 faction teams automatically.

If you’re using the 3 factions map mechanic found in EoTM…then the assignment isn’t truly automatic.

Diku.2546:

Swagger.1459:

This 3 sided faction stuff happens inside this WvW model.

Servers are swapped as needed just like what’s happening in wvw now with alliances.

I’m honestly not worried about negative reactions, I’m more concerned with improving wvw for the long run.

This 3 sided faction stuff.

Do you have an ANet article that I can reference to understand how it works?

EoTM has a 3 sided faction, but it’s based on the following article that I mentioned previously:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Edge_of_the_Mists#Match_Up

---

However, this 3 sided faction is directly tied to World Server Ranking…which depends upon there being a World Server that players pick to join.

---

Hope you can see why I’m confused about this 3 sided faction you’re proposing as it relates to:

How do you assign player(s) to a team(s) in your proposed solution?

You take 24 US servers and divide them into 3 factions based off of populations.

You take 27 EU servers and divide them into 3 factions based off of populations.

If faction sides become unbalanced then you move some individual servers to rebalance, just like they will do for alliances currently.

Are you familiar with server alliances now? If so, think of this as super alliances.

Swagger.1459:

You take 24 US servers and divide them into 3 factions based off of populations.

You take 27 EU servers and divide them into 3 factions based off of populations.

If faction sides become unbalanced then you move some individual servers to rebalance, just like they will do for alliances currently.

Are you familiar with server alliances now? If so, think of this as super alliances.

Got it…thanks for confirming things.

Here’s how your proposal will work after clarifying things with you:

1) Devs will Merge All Current Servers into 3 Major Teams balanced in strength
2) Devs will Merge Servers in the future if Population imbalances happen
3) All WvW Population will fight on 1 Map that have interconnected islands
4) Devs will Balance Teams with no input from WvW community

Sounds like a plan. If I’ve misunderstood anything…please let me know to make any corrections to the above.

I’m sure there are other folks that would support this choice, but I’ll have to pass.

Thanks for clearing things up for me.

Good luck with garnering support from the WvW & Dev Community.

Wow…this Looks EXACTLY like the World Linking Beta!

You’re welcome Diku.

Swagger.1459:

You’re welcome Diku.

Guess you were right about where WvW is headed.

Glad I found my inner peace & can actually focus on other things in life.

WvW isn’t the huge thing for me anymore, but I’ll continue to play.

Just not so enthusiastically.

Cheers!
Diku

Bad WvW Players for Server Stacking!!!

See what you made ANet have to do?

They’re going to punish WvW by making us behave.

If we don’t…they’re gonna Population Balance us till we behave.

Shame on you WvW Players….

Hehehehe…can’t blame WvW Players for wanting to be on the “More Winning Team”.

Oh well…that’s one way to “fix” things.

Somehow it feels like we’re gonna get spayed or neutered…for our bad server stacking behavior…imho

Wow…this Looks EXACTLY like the World Linking Beta!

Had to say it again…

Diku.2546:

Swagger.1459:

You’re welcome Diku.

Guess you were right about where WvW is headed.

Glad I found my inner peace & can actually focus on other things in life.

WvW isn’t the huge thing for me anymore, but I’ll continue to play.

Just not so enthusiastically.

Cheers!
Diku

Diku.2546:

Bad WvW Players for Server Stacking!!!

See what you made ANet have to do?

They’re going to punish WvW by making us behave.

If we don’t…they’re gonna Population Balance us till we behave.

Shame on you WvW Players….

---

Hehehehe…can’t blame WvW Players for wanting to be on the “More Winning Team”.

Oh well…that’s one way to “fix” things.

---

Somehow it feels like we’re gonna get spayed or neutered…imho

---

Wow…this Looks EXACTLY like the World Linking Beta!

Had to say it again…

Yeah, unfortunately it is what it is. WvW has lots of major issues, players come and go, players jump servers to find fights and win and we can’t really blame them… WvW has been a mess so something needs to be done to revitilize it with the least amount of problems.

Swagger.1459:

Yeah, unfortunately it is what it is. WvW has lots of major issues, players come and go, players jump servers to find fights and win and we can’t really blame them… WvW has been a mess so something needs to be done to revitilize it with the least amount of problems.

Still feel that…there’s another solution that’s more simple & elegant…imho

I can’t support this idea.

Appreciate you clarifying things…that lead to me realize that the current World Linking Beta is what you’re proposing it seems.

Swagger.1459:

Jayne.9251:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

You really should invest in some “Good Idea Fairy” repellent.

Re: Server pride. I never, ever, wanted to PvP in an MMO again as my hands have deteriorated so much from RA. But, I ended up doing WvW, for server pride. I figured out things I could do, to help my Server.

If you stomp out the last vestiges of Server Pride and identity, I simply will not be pressing B anymore. I’ve never been to EoTM for that very reason.

I was thinking about how the community that sprouts out of MMOs really becomes the reason for a game’s longevity. Heck, look at EQ1, still chugging along, and I opened up EQ2 (a 12 year old game WITH a monthly sub) and it was so busy it had two versions of many zones.

It’s server pride, that sense of ownership, that keeps people emotionally tied to games. Remove that and the game dies.

There are tons of players who don’t care about server pride, and that’s clear by all the server hoppers.

The individual server vs server vs server wvw obviously didn’t work correct?

Now we have alliances so how are you handling that “server pride”? What will you do when servers are changed again? What happens when your server needs to be combined with 3 other smaller server to be balanced?

It isn’t alliances, it’s server linking. Which can be unlinked at will by Anet if servers get too stacked. Meanwhile the population is actually spreading out (without them realizing it) and each server retains its COMMUNITY … You all go together with people you’ve been playing with for years.

Anet was incredibly clever to do this. It kept what people value and is slowly moving the population around to gain better parity in the lower tiers.

The only people jumping servers are the bandwagoners, and when Anet unlinks, they’ll have managed to spread out the population.

It’s genius.

And not megaserver

@baldrick

I think you should reread the op because you obviously do not understand. The proposal was pretty clear on the different types of maps and their purpose.

The goal is to have a more meaningful mist war experience that gets different types of players involved.

The devs obviously want to get players to try wvw so the PvE maps are there to encourage that and provided the staging ground behind the mist war. These can be good hooks for players to get involved and try out pvp.

The PvP/PvE maps use Guild Wars lore to make them interesting and provide a great place for solo and small groups of players. The devs made Desert Borderlands to serve this smaller scale purpose, but the reason it wasn’t well received is because their current design took away 75% of the open space maps that were conducive to a mass pvp experience. There are solo and small group players who like roaming and contributing to their side, but they are limited by all the big “blobs” and big walls to defeat. These zones offer a small taste of “PvP server” style play and that appeals to some.

There are 8 PvP maps in this equation that do not have any added PvE stuff so I don’t see your complaint. Unless you are referring to the extra help to support outnumbered sides defend objectives, but outnumbered sides need a bit of a hand from the massive “blobs” beating at the door.

I’m more than willing to have a constructive conversation with you about this, but do your part and gain a better understanding of the proposal first.

Jayne.9251:

Swagger.1459:

Jayne.9251:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

You really should invest in some “Good Idea Fairy” repellent.

Re: Server pride. I never, ever, wanted to PvP in an MMO again as my hands have deteriorated so much from RA. But, I ended up doing WvW, for server pride. I figured out things I could do, to help my Server.

If you stomp out the last vestiges of Server Pride and identity, I simply will not be pressing B anymore. I’ve never been to EoTM for that very reason.

I was thinking about how the community that sprouts out of MMOs really becomes the reason for a game’s longevity. Heck, look at EQ1, still chugging along, and I opened up EQ2 (a 12 year old game WITH a monthly sub) and it was so busy it had two versions of many zones.

It’s server pride, that sense of ownership, that keeps people emotionally tied to games. Remove that and the game dies.

There are tons of players who don’t care about server pride, and that’s clear by all the server hoppers.

The individual server vs server vs server wvw obviously didn’t work correct?

Now we have alliances so how are you handling that “server pride”? What will you do when servers are changed again? What happens when your server needs to be combined with 3 other smaller server to be balanced?

It isn’t alliances, it’s server linking. Which can be unlinked at will by Anet if servers get too stacked. Meanwhile the population is actually spreading out (without them realizing it) and each server retains its COMMUNITY … You all go together with people you’ve been playing with for years.

Anet was incredibly clever to do this. It kept what people value and is slowly moving the population around to gain better parity in the lower tiers.

The only people jumping servers are the bandwagoners, and when Anet unlinks, they’ll have managed to spread out the population.

It’s genius.

And not megaserver

We don’t need to negotiate terminology here… Alliances/server linking/server grouping… same same… And I’m fully aware how it works.

Communities will function just fine in this “living” wvw as they are now with alliances, changing alliances and server hoppers.

Still didn’t answer my questions.

Sounds like someone’s playing too much ESO to me.

Can’t think of a worse example to model WvW after.

Raf.1078:

Sounds like someone’s playing too much ESO to me.

Can’t think of a worse example to model WvW after.

Never played that game.

I guarantee something like this suggestion would make WvW great again!

Edit- It’s pretty easy to swoop in and make a sentence saying it’s not a good suggestion, but can you explain why you are saying that?

If you want to sell your idea then look at it from the con perspective and not the pro. Or better said what you perceive as pro, because I pretty much disagree with you.

You dismiss way to many issues being brought up and down play other things that are equally as bad or worse when compared to the current situation.

Why should people take your idea serious at all.

Swagger.1459:

Diku.2546:

Umm…sorry…but this is how Color/Team is used in EoTM as I understand it.

I just used the ANet’s article to help illustrate how “Teams” are formed in EoTM, and I thought you’d understand the reference.

That system that EoTM is using was described in my post above…not sure how long it’s been in use exactly.

Sorry if I’m making this too complex. That’s why I’m asking & providing a reference that I understand as a WvW player.

---

How do you assign player(s) to a team(s) in your proposed solution?

Well, you’d take US servers and break them down into 3 wvw sides based off of population averages that the devs have. You do the same for the EU side.

Populations shift over time, as stated by the devs, so the devs move whatever individual servers that need to be moved to rebalance. The tech is in place to do this now.

The neat thing is that this model includes different style maps (pvp, pvp/pve and pve) that cater to different players and play styles. Also, all maps contribute to scoring for their faction side.

In the long run the devs will have an easier time balancing populations and scoring for a 1 “world” wvw, instead on micromanaging multiple different match ups.

So, once you have broken all the servers down to three ‘sides’, how do you then move individual servers to ‘balance’? Haven’t you already done away with ‘servers’ when you created your ‘sides’?

What about the more complex Euro servers, where we have different languages? How is your proposal going to work there?

You mean break up whatever identity they have tried to form on a whim and hope they like where they are sent?

What about gaming the system. Once you destroyed the servers in forming your teams, what’s to stop everyone piling up on, say, green? Going to shift players who have paid for a transfer off again? Randomly send players to another server?

I tried posting a short reply but it got removed by the forum gremlins, so hence the longer reply.

The pve maps you can remove. They don’t belong in wvw, and wvw players don’t want MORE pve in a pvp mode- it’s taken three years to get that garbage toned down or removed. Tunnels aren’t good places for fights. Having unconnected objectives makes holding them meaningless, as Deserted BL’s aptly demonstrated. Being able to totally avoid the enemy is also not promoting the fun aspects of the game mode, which is about fighting other people, not having eyt more ways to avoid fights.

In short, no. just no. Terrible ideas.

Swagger.1459:

@baldrick

I think you should reread the op because you obviously do not understand. The proposal was pretty clear on the different types of maps and their purpose.

The goal is to have a more meaningful mist war experience that gets different types of players involved.

The devs obviously want to get players to try wvw so the PvE maps are there to encourage that and provided the staging ground behind the mist war. These can be good hooks for players to get involved and try out pvp.

The PvP/PvE maps use Guild Wars lore to make them interesting and provide a great place for solo and small groups of players. The devs made Desert Borderlands to serve this smaller scale purpose, but the reason it wasn’t well received is because their current design took away 75% of the open space maps that were conducive to a mass pvp experience. There are solo and small group players who like roaming and contributing to their side, but they are limited by all the big “blobs” and big walls to defeat. These zones offer a small taste of “PvP server” style play and that appeals to some.

There are 8 PvP maps in this equation that do not have any added PvE stuff so I don’t see your complaint. Unless you are referring to the extra help to support outnumbered sides defend objectives, but outnumbered sides need a bit of a hand from the massive “blobs” beating at the door.

I’m more than willing to have a constructive conversation with you about this, but do your part and gain a better understanding of the proposal first.

I read it in it’s entirety and understood exactly what you proposed. I was short of time and made a short and to the point reply giving my opinion of your proposals. i thought my reply made clear my understanding of your proposals and my clear opinion of it. I don’t need to re read what I consider utter trash (again, my opinion of your proposals, duly considered, not meant to be insulting in any way, just a direct way of expressing it) to enable me to make an informed judgement on what you proposed.

8 maps is too many, especially off hours.

Lore maps are only of interest in that small minority of the player base that actually follow it. They don’t make great places for smaller groups as you haven’t got any control over who goes there or how many, and attract all the wrong sorts of people, like those that enjoy griefing or those under the mistaken impression that fights might be fair there.

Having mixed pve/pvp maps has been tried in other MMo’s and generally turn out to be terrible ideas (usually gank fests) which rather than encouraging people to explore further in pvp turn them off it completely.

Destroying what is left of servers and forcing people into anonymous blobs won’t encourage the current wvw player base to stay around, especially when you then propose not just one shift but potentially endless tinkering with players not knowing who they are fighting with from one week to the next. The suggestion that people should be moved to balance populations (as there won’t be servers to move, your proposal makes 3 ‘sides’) would be game breaking for many.

What makes people keep playing the game mode isn’t some trainee map (gank fest), some pve map where pvp is enabled, or numerous gimmicks and tunnels and the like, it’s the community and the fun. Take away the community and you’re left with badly organised blobs karma training like EoTM.

It’s already clear from the current server match up trails that we end up with a load of players who don’t seem able to read map chat, run pve builds, don’t join commanders, and run at the first sign of an enemy that we have way too many players that have been in EoTM way too long – now imagine taking away the core that keeps things running and you are just left with a meaningless mess.

If they brought in your proposals I’d try it for a couple weeks just to confirm it’s an awful mess then go play something else permanently.

Baldrick.8967:

Swagger.1459:

Diku.2546:

Umm…sorry…but this is how Color/Team is used in EoTM as I understand it.

I just used the ANet’s article to help illustrate how “Teams” are formed in EoTM, and I thought you’d understand the reference.

That system that EoTM is using was described in my post above…not sure how long it’s been in use exactly.

Sorry if I’m making this too complex. That’s why I’m asking & providing a reference that I understand as a WvW player.

---

How do you assign player(s) to a team(s) in your proposed solution?

Well, you’d take US servers and break them down into 3 wvw sides based off of population averages that the devs have. You do the same for the EU side.

Populations shift over time, as stated by the devs, so the devs move whatever individual servers that need to be moved to rebalance. The tech is in place to do this now.

The neat thing is that this model includes different style maps (pvp, pvp/pve and pve) that cater to different players and play styles. Also, all maps contribute to scoring for their faction side.

In the long run the devs will have an easier time balancing populations and scoring for a 1 “world” wvw, instead on micromanaging multiple different match ups.

So, once you have broken all the servers down to three ‘sides’, how do you then move individual servers to ‘balance’? Haven’t you already done away with ‘servers’ when you created your ‘sides’?

What about the more complex Euro servers, where we have different languages? How is your proposal going to work there?

You mean break up whatever identity they have tried to form on a whim and hope they like where they are sent?

What about gaming the system. Once you destroyed the servers in forming your teams, what’s to stop everyone piling up on, say, green? Going to shift players who have paid for a transfer off again? Randomly send players to another server?

I tried posting a short reply but it got removed by the forum gremlins, so hence the longer reply.

The pve maps you can remove. They don’t belong in wvw, and wvw players don’t want MORE pve in a pvp mode- it’s taken three years to get that garbage toned down or removed. Tunnels aren’t good places for fights. Having unconnected objectives makes holding them meaningless, as Deserted BL’s aptly demonstrated. Being able to totally avoid the enemy is also not promoting the fun aspects of the game mode, which is about fighting other people, not having eyt more ways to avoid fights.

In short, no. just no. Terrible ideas.

Home severs are not removed. See how server linking is being done… The devs can move and link different server make ups like they are doing now. That was already mentioned in the suggestion.

EU can be completely managed.

It’s seems you didn’t really read the suggestion because I broke down the different map types that would appeal to different play styles… There are 8 total PvP maps alone that don’t have “PvE”… Even clarified by saying “No PvE”…

And you don’t think there are players who love “PvP server” style with those Hot Zone PvP/PvE maps?

You don’t think this is a better way to get PvE players interested in PvP? Or do you think getting 500 BoH for a legendary requirement is enough to garner interest for the long term?

It always puzzles me how easy some of you forget the struggles wvw has had since the beginning. It’s like some of you want to hold on to a struggling game more for some reason. Alliances aren’t going to hold long term interest, it’s just an emergency fix to keep wvw breathing at this point. The novelty will wear off and the devs will keep having to micromanage every aspect to keep it alive.

WvW is not epic, nor has it been at all. EotM counts for nothing. WvW had a short shelf life as is, and it’s time to make some big changes to make it interesting.

Honestly, what are some of you going to do when other games come out with some great RvRvR games and you’re sitting on empty servers?

Time to think ahead people.

Edit- And what do you think is more marketable to the mmo world? Server linking, 2 hour time frame score manipulation and the same old maps? Or a “living” WvW that the devs built to show customers they care about making the best RvRvR experience as possible?

Beating up doors with “blobs” is stale gameplay too, the least that could be done is to completely refresh things by adding “stuff”.

There are how many devs working on a new xpac? Imagine if even 25% of those efforts were devoted to wvw…

Swagger.1459:

Raf.1078:

Sounds like someone’s playing too much ESO to me.

Can’t think of a worse example to model WvW after.

Never played that game.

I guarantee something like this suggestion would make WvW great again!

Edit- It’s pretty easy to swoop in and make a sentence saying it’s not a good suggestion, but can you explain why you are saying that?

I can answer that for them. Your idea is no better than what Anet is currently doing. Reread your OP and think about it long and hard. Your idea solves nothing and brings little if nothing to the table. Have a nice day.

I got dinged for “derailing” the thread by replying to your direct question, so I’ll un-derail and respond. And then expect you to do the same.

Swagger.1459:

There are tons of players who don’t care about server pride, and that’s clear by all the server hoppers.

There’s equally enough players that do care, that’s clear by all the folks posting on the forum expressing this. What do you do about those players?

Swagger.1459:

The individual server vs server vs server wvw obviously didn’t work correct?

It worked fine for three-plus years, with no meaningful updates. So moot point here. And it’s continuing to work fine with the linking.

Are you able to acknowledge that server linking has been a clever decision by Anet? It satisfies all types of players, while retaining server pride.

Swagger.1459:

Now we have alliances so how are you handling that “server pride”?

It’s not alliances, it’s linking. And I know you see linking/alliances/megaserver as all the same thing, but it’s not.

The linking allowed players to retain their community and server pride, while augmenting populations on the map. That linking can easily be undone when needed and guess what? You still stay with the people you’ve played with as part of your community.

Server pride is alive and well.

Swagger.1459:

What will you do when servers are changed again?

Won’t be a big deal since we’re still with our original teammates.

Conversely, the megaserver doesn’t guarantee you stay with your same teammates if you’re not guilded. How will you make those kinds of players happy since they’re a significant number in the game?

Swagger.1459:

What happens when your server needs to be combined with 3 other smaller server to be balanced?

So far isn’t happening. Everyone’s bandwagoning to the lower tier cheaper server. Anet unlinks and BAM you have a populated lower tier again.

Miracles do happen.

Better still, NO megaserver. It’s just a bad idea. But you know that.

Jayne.9251:

I got dinged for “derailing” the thread by replying to your direct question, so I’ll un-derail and respond. And then expect you to do the same.

Swagger.1459:

There are tons of players who don’t care about server pride, and that’s clear by all the server hoppers.

There’s equally enough players that do care, that’s clear by all the folks posting on the forum expressing this. What do you do about those players?

This will give them a better WvW! A Living World versus World versus World!

Swagger.1459:

The individual server vs server vs server wvw obviously didn’t work correct?

It worked fine for three-plus years, with no meaningful updates. So moot point here. And it’s continuing to work fine with the linking.

If it “worked fine for three-plus years” where were the tournaments? Why are they needing to make alliances? Years of predictable match ups? Hmm? That’s not “fine” sorry my friend.

Are you able to acknowledge that server linking has been a clever decision by Anet? It satisfies all types of players, while retaining server pride.

Alliances are based off of need, it’s an emergency bandaid. It’s also the route of least resources as per usual for wvw

Swagger.1459:

Now we have alliances so how are you handling that “server pride”?

It’s not alliances, it’s linking. And I know you see linking/alliances/megaserver as all the same thing, but it’s not.

Again, it’s the same same. I never referred to it as “megaserver”, that’s an assumption on your part

The linking allowed players to retain their community and server pride, while augmenting populations on the map. That linking can easily be undone when needed and guess what? You still stay with the people you’ve played with as part of your community.

*And some of you who care would stil have your “server pride” because “you still stay with the people you’ve played with as part of your community”…

Server pride is alive and well.

And it still would be, for the some that care, under this model as well.

Swagger.1459:

What will you do when servers are changed again?

Won’t be a big deal since we’re still with our original teammates.

Exactly the same under this model

Conversely, the megaserver doesn’t guarantee you stay with your same teammates if you’re not guilded. How will you make those kinds of players happy since they’re a significant number in the game?

And this statement tells me you didn’t bother to read the suggestion, so here is where I end responding until you understand what you are arguing against

Swagger.1459:

What happens when your server needs to be combined with 3 other smaller server to be balanced?

So far isn’t happening. Everyone’s bandwagoning to the lower tier cheaper server. Anet unlinks and BAM you have a populated lower tier again.

Miracles do happen.

Better still, NO megaserver. It’s just a bad idea. But you know that.

Bolded responses.

Hopefully the powers that be also see this as a more complex and not so very good idea. I won’t even to into my own details because I’ve seen them posted here by so many other people. Nothing like this will change the face of wvw in any way that resembles better… imo.

I think the real issue with the Op’s suggestion is 8 or more maps just for wvw is never going to happen. Designing ones that function for a mix of pvp and pve that people want to play on would take thousands of dev hours (probably a lot more man hours).

Anet aren’t going to spend that amount of time on wvw, so the OP’s suggestion is never going to happen, so the thread may as well be closed.

Arguing about how it would be implemented is an exercise in pointlessness.

Baldrick.8967:

I think the real issue with the Op’s suggestion is 8 or more maps just for wvw is never going to happen. Designing ones that function for a mix of pvp and pve that people want to play on would take thousands of dev hours (probably a lot more man hours).

Anet aren’t going to spend that amount of time on wvw, so the OP’s suggestion is never going to happen, so the thread may as well be closed.

Arguing about how it would be implemented is an exercise in pointlessness.

Never say never because you never know… I have a strong feeling the devs read this and said “Wow, these are truly amazing ideas!”.

Swagger.1459:

Never say never because you never know… I have a strong feeling the devs read this and said “Wow, these are truly amazing ideas!”.

Don’t you work for ANet?

You seem to be in sync with how things are being planned for the WvW game mode…imho.

The main idea for the OP is to remove the actual WvW system, with only 2 map who are not connected together (EB + BL) to something more like the PVE map are working.
I mean a full continent with different map. Each map is connected to others.

You can have 3/4/5 or more team, depend on how you see your system. You can make 3 or more team fighting together at the same time.

You can have only 3 team and 1 tiers, or maybe less map and more team and working like the actual tiers.

In EU we can do maybe 2 tiers, then you can have 1 team with French, 1 team with German, and other team with EU. Barush will have trouble as it’s the only 1 Spain server…

You can have 8 map with only 2 tiers to spread players. 8 maps (it’s just an example) is really not too much for merging 3 actual tiers !

With this system no need to build big map like DBL. Small map are probably the best. They can be faster to make, concentrate more the players on fight. No need for tons of gimmick like the DBL… Simple is the best for PvP. And you can make basic map to start, and then add slowly more “life” with small village like near north camp, fishing camp like near water camp, etc..

To balance the team you can use different system.
Keep the actual server and link them together. Then you can link / unlink every quarter to rebalance the team.
Or you can have only 6 teams (for 2 tiers), and lock the biggest team if they have too much active players (national server can be a issue with the locking). Yes this will block people to join friends, but this is the same for the actual server system. The good thing with that is your team is more permanent.
Maybe you can lock characters / team. When you create a character you choose your team and you can’t change later… To go to another server you have to create another characters from scratch. And ofc lock the biggest team.

About the PVE it’s only for the closer map to the spawn. And only in “safe” map (own by only 1 team). The PvE event are here to “attack” team position, then players have to join the map to protect stuff. Like supply line, keep, etc.. Something like last stand with wave of pve mobs. This is only to have players on those maps when they are secure. Or the players will only go to the “contested” map where there is fight. It’s only to spread players, not to force them into pve. And it’s only some idea…

As I say, the main idea is to remove the only 2 map not connected together to go something more “living”. Where you really protect your home and attack ennemy territory… Not 3 identical BL not connected together and EB somewhere else not connected at all to the home BL.
Once you have this concept then you can speak about number of team, size and numbers of map, balancing, more ressources….

But I agree with one thing… Anet will probably never do that, there is really too much work to do. This is another game with the GW2 engine.
But maybe as GW3 with a new engine that can allow 1 big map, or as another xpac…

Swagger.1459:

Baldrick.8967:

I think the real issue with the Op’s suggestion is 8 or more maps just for wvw is never going to happen. Designing ones that function for a mix of pvp and pve that people want to play on would take thousands of dev hours (probably a lot more man hours).

Anet aren’t going to spend that amount of time on wvw, so the OP’s suggestion is never going to happen, so the thread may as well be closed.

Arguing about how it would be implemented is an exercise in pointlessness.

Never say never because you never know… I have a strong feeling the devs read this and said “Wow, these are truly amazing ideas!”.

I, on the other hand, think the devs wouldn’t read it at all. Someone will check it, ie a mod, to ensure it conforms to their rules. It might be on a list somewhere to be glanced at as part of the ‘hundred ideas from the forums’ list.

They might even read it and think ‘if only we had the budget of a small country, we might be able to try that’.

If they did read it, their thoughts were probably more along the lines of ’ terrible ideas, we will alienate most of the wvw playerbase if we went near that, look what happened when we brought in more pve to the Deserted BL.’

When coming up with suggestions, bear in mind the wvw budget is very small. The Deserted BL feels like a missing main map section that could have appeared next to Dry Top, which was then altered to try and fit in wvw. They don’t have the budget for multiple maps.

Just because you don’t have server prides means no one should have it. Gotcha.

Server pride can go to team pride… It’s exactly the same… Your community is
just bigger…

Diku.2546:

Swagger.1459:

Never say never because you never know… I have a strong feeling the devs read this and said “Wow, these are truly amazing ideas!”.

Don’t you work for ANet?

You seem to be in sync with how things are being planned for the WvW game mode…imho.

No I do not, nor do I know anyone who does.

I’m just a visionary Diku, and full of great ideas!

No no no x infinity cubed.

Skynet.7201:

No no no x infinity cubed.

So are you saying you like a struggling wvw that will need a ton of developer manipulation to balance? A wvw that doesn’t even receive 1/10th of the development that pve does?

I know the devs are trying, but it’s easy to see the road ahead. Something big needs to happen to make WvW better for the long run.

Diku.2546:

Swagger.1459:

Never say never because you never know… I have a strong feeling the devs read this and said “Wow, these are truly amazing ideas!”.

Don’t you work for ANet?

You seem to be in sync with how things are being planned for the WvW game mode…imho.

Until you see a red name attached, take everything with a grain of salt,

I do think we were headed towards the megaserver plan, but enough feedback here averted that … Thankfully. I still say kudos to Anet for being flexible enough to reevaluate.

Swagger.1459:

Skynet.7201:

No no no x infinity cubed.

So are you saying you like a struggling wvw that will need a ton of developer manipulation to balance? A wvw that doesn’t even receive 1/10th of the development that pve does?

I know the devs are trying, but it’s easy to see the road ahead. Something big needs to happen to make WvW better for the long run.

We are coming up on four years into the game. Why the hell would we want a whole revamp done to a game mode that we love? If I wanted a “new” game, I’d play something else.

Skynet.7201:

Swagger.1459:

Skynet.7201:

No no no x infinity cubed.

So are you saying you like a struggling wvw that will need a ton of developer manipulation to balance? A wvw that doesn’t even receive 1/10th of the development that pve does?

I know the devs are trying, but it’s easy to see the road ahead. Something big needs to happen to make WvW better for the long run.

We are coming up on four years into the game. Why the hell would we want a whole revamp done to a game mode that we love? If I wanted a “new” game, I’d play something else.

He just want to megaserver wvw and be the one that killed it.

Offair.2563:

Skynet.7201:

Swagger.1459:

Skynet.7201:

No no no x infinity cubed.

So are you saying you like a struggling wvw that will need a ton of developer manipulation to balance? A wvw that doesn’t even receive 1/10th of the development that pve does?

I know the devs are trying, but it’s easy to see the road ahead. Something big needs to happen to make WvW better for the long run.

We are coming up on four years into the game. Why the hell would we want a whole revamp done to a game mode that we love? If I wanted a “new” game, I’d play something else.

He just want to megaserver wvw and be the one that killed it.

“Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.” – Alfred Pennyworth

Skynet.7201:

Swagger.1459:

Skynet.7201:

No no no x infinity cubed.

So are you saying you like a struggling wvw that will need a ton of developer manipulation to balance? A wvw that doesn’t even receive 1/10th of the development that pve does?

I know the devs are trying, but it’s easy to see the road ahead. Something big needs to happen to make WvW better for the long run.

We are coming up on four years into the game. Why the hell would we want a whole revamp done to a game mode that we love? If I wanted a “new” game, I’d play something else.

See how pve gets all the dev love? Players want the same for pvp modes.

Don’t you want rvr in this game to grow and thrive for the next 10 years?

I’m not taking anything away from pvp with this idea, I’m suggesting adding to it and making the pvp space better.

Game companies need to compete in the market, so investments need to be made to stay ahead. More and more games are coming out and some rvr games are in the works as we type, and Anet can’t just emergency band aid parts of their game anymore.

Just a small bump on this topic because I like the idea
At least maybe for GW3, or some xpac.

GW3? Possibly. The suggestion is an entirely new game, that’s the issue – this could take 2-3 years to build. I like the idea of open-world PvP, but I’m not sure GW2 can really support a whole new worldmap with mixed PvP at this stage.

Wow, so complicated on something we already have. We have wvw were no pve should be up, and we have EotM were all the pve players which have lots of pve mixed with some open pvp and all those tomes of knowledge farmers do also have a spot here without messing up wvw as they do now.