Guild Wars 2

Ok…Pandora’s Gennie in a Box has been opened.

What does this magical crystal box reveal?

The following is an opinion that could be right, but I’m hoping it’s not.

You be the judge & decide for yourself…

State of WvW Ecosystem

Current Upper Tiers of WvW are experiencing a phenomenol amount of activity as a result of the World Linking Feature.

Upper Tier Commanders & their Communities are having to deal with a large influx of new & unfamiliar faces.

In response…Host & Paired Worlds are attempting to create relationships through a bonding process to share in-game & out-of-game resources.

In-game resource sharing is faily simple & straight forward…

• Tactical – Commander Tags & Team Channel directly coordinates operations

Out-of-game resource sharing is not as straight forward…

• Tactical & Strategic – TeamSpeak & Website Server access to coordinate operations

Possible fix would be to allow Dual Name of a Paired World to be displayed In-Game which would allow Out-of-game resources to be maintained separately.

Upper Tier Commanders (UT Commanders) are primarily tasked with leading the charge due to a percieved higher ranking attributed to being from the Host World.

UT Commanders if not properly prepared may suffer burn out from a constant need to lead…otherwise known as…Churn & Burn Mentality

Warfare will be won by sheer numbers by a decent Commander leading.

Lower Tier Commanders (LT Commanders) are primarily tasked with assisting the Host World due to a percieved lower ranking attributed to being from the Paired World that has been stripped of their World Flag Military “Colors”.

Typically Host World Communities & their citizens will enjoy a consistent influx of bodies from their assigned Paired World.

Current Lower Tiers of WvW are experiencing a phenomenol amount of activity as a result of the World Linking Feature.

Lower Tier Commanders & their Communities are having to deal with their Lost “Colors” while attempting to bond with their assigned Host World.

Two strategies to cope include:

• Keep Old World Colors – Keep Separate Relations & Renew Old Vows
• New Host World Colors – Fully Embrace & Pledge New Allegiance

World Linking Schedule will impact how relationships will be allowed to interact between Host & Paired Worlds in the Long Term.

Faster turnover will encourage distant relations…while a Slower turnover will encourage close ties that may be difficult to break when the time comes.

Old School – Lower Tier Commanders (LT Commanders) that choose to Keep Old World Colors will struggle to maintain their Vow without any explicit display of it.

Old School (LT Commanders) will often voluntarily stand down & stop playing if nothing is done to help them.

New School – (LT Commanders) that choose to Fully Embrace the New Host World Colors will struggle when World Pairings Change.

Typical Paired World Communities will constantly loose their Commanders due to Voluntary Retirement or Flight Migration to a Host World.

Non-Commander type players will continue to enjoy the higher levels of activity through the World Link as long as they have a Commander to follow.

Long Term – Lower Tier Worlds will loose all their Commanders & be in a bad situation if World Linking ever stops.

Fixed 3 Way Fight Model continues to be the core engine driving WvW.

Inherent Design still encourages Players to Stack to the Strongest of the 3.

Population Imbalances will continue to result, but ANet can now rebalance it with World Linking

Offpeak Capping will also continue, but I predict ANet will attempt to Manipulate Score mechanics to fix this.

Manipulating or Fixing Score Mechanics that discriminate…is a huge NO-NO…in my Books, but ANet may choose to ask the Majority if it’s Ok to do this.

Long Term WvW Ecosystem will depend upon ANet’s ability to skillfully manipulate Population & Score.

To be “Efficient”…ANet has to be given free reign to Manipulate both Population & Score.

Balanced & Fair Match-Ups will be an illusion based on ANet’s skill & speed at Manipulating these variables.

My opinion is that the Long Term Health & Viability of WvW Game Mode will work, but never thrive given the inherent design flaws of the Fixed 3 Way Fight Model.

Overall Long Term Health & Viability will be on an extremely slow & painful declining trend for the WvW Popluation & Game Mode…if nothing is done to change the Core Fight Model engine that is driving WvW…imho

Yours truly,
Diku

Possible Better Long Term Solution – Google Search – wvg world vs globes

The takeaway from all this is that the terms and conditions of the polls need to be stated clearly and unequivocally at the time the poll is set. For all the arguing here over logic and math and statistics the plain fact is that the poll ran with no specified framework given for how the result would be interpreted or implemented.

I think it is entirely reasonable for ANet to run polls in order to gauge interest and feeling on a particular topic and then use the information gained as part of their internal decision-making process, which is what appears to have happened here. What isn’t reasonable is to run a series of polls, some of which have “hard” results that are implemented even against the preference of the people responsible for drafting them and others which have “soft” results that can be finessed, without making it very clear which is which.

I voted for one month. I’d have voted for one week if it had been an option. That said, I don’t think bimonthly is a bad compromise. I do think the polls need to be much more coherently drafted and explained in future, though. And we are certainly having too many, too close together and on some decisions that are too low-level to merit a referendum.

Personally I don’t believe WvW can be “fixed” in its current form no matter how many polls we have. It would probably be better to scrap the entire game mode and start afresh.

Swagger.1459:

Aceofsppades.6873:

Swagger.1459:

Ben K.6238:

morrolan.9608:

This was stated to be a simple majority poll, the majority voted for 1 month

Simple majority means >50%, which the 1-month option didn’t reach. That kind of renders the rest of your post meaningless

No it does not, nor was it stated to be a 50% needed vote… Seriously, y’all keep grasping at straws and defending poor decisions.

You’re the one grasping at straws to insult anet.

You purpose of the poll was to get the opinions of the playerbase in a form of data that could easily be interpreted. It was not an election or referendum.

You are suggesting that anet act without nuance or flexibility which is a terrible idea.

It was not stated to be an “opinion poll”, that’s you assuming more stuff. Anet changed their mind after they saw the poll results for their own reason, which was contrary to the actual winning vote.

Previous polls were determined by a needed “super vote” of 75%. It was clearly stated by Tyler that this poll did not require a super vote, nor did they say they were going to average votes to determine winner…

Since you like to ignore facts… On the voting page it clearly stated that the benefit of linking more frequently would produce more balanced matches… The page is now gone, but a dev can swoop on here to verify the precise wording.

WvW is still very unbalanced, and all this 2 month time frame does is keep those unbalanced matches longer. If you haven’t noticed, most matches are already determined in the first day or two… Now you tell those players to enjoy their blow out and unbalanced match up, they have zero chance of winning, for 2 months instead of 1…

All this is doing is prolonging more even pairings unnecessarily. The rational minded thing to do would be to reach a state of balance faster, then reevaluate frequency once things are more even and settled.

Linking was voted in as a feature to bring balance, slowing down that achievement of balance is bad considering the poor state wvw is in right now…

You can defend and spin doctor this decision all you want, but players will vote by other means and you will find yourself begging for Anet to save wvw when players are bailing out of wvw in the near future…

Hope the devs make some flawless pairing on the 24th or they are going to have some very annoyed players on their hands again.

If the people leaving includes you then I’m sure the game will be in a markedly healthier place.

Tiny Doom.4380:

The takeaway from all this is that the terms and conditions of the polls need to be stated clearly and unequivocally at the time the poll is set. For all the arguing here over logic and math and statistics the plain fact is that the poll ran with no specified framework given for how the result would be interpreted or implemented.

I think it is entirely reasonable for ANet to run polls in order to gauge interest and feeling on a particular topic and then use the information gained as part of their internal decision-making process, which is what appears to have happened here. What isn’t reasonable is to run a series of polls, some of which have “hard” results that are implemented even against the preference of the people responsible for drafting them and others which have “soft” results that can be finessed, without making it very clear which is which.

I voted for one month. I’d have voted for one week if it had been an option. That said, I don’t think bimonthly is a bad compromise. I do think the polls need to be much more coherently drafted and explained in future, though. And we are certainly having too many, too close together and on some decisions that are too low-level to merit a referendum.

Personally I don’t believe WvW can be “fixed” in its current form no matter how many polls we have. It would probably be better to scrap the entire game mode and start afresh.

Exactly.

Tiny Doom.4380:

The takeaway from all this is that the terms and conditions of the polls need to be stated clearly and unequivocally at the time the poll is set. For all the arguing here over logic and math and statistics the plain fact is that the poll ran with no specified framework given for how the result would be interpreted or implemented.

I think it is entirely reasonable for ANet to run polls in order to gauge interest and feeling on a particular topic and then use the information gained as part of their internal decision-making process, which is what appears to have happened here. What isn’t reasonable is to run a series of polls, some of which have “hard” results that are implemented even against the preference of the people responsible for drafting them and others which have “soft” results that can be finessed, without making it very clear which is which.

I voted for one month. I’d have voted for one week if it had been an option. That said, I don’t think bimonthly is a bad compromise. I do think the polls need to be much more coherently drafted and explained in future, though. And we are certainly having too many, too close together and on some decisions that are too low-level to merit a referendum.

Personally I don’t believe WvW can be “fixed” in its current form no matter how many polls we have. It would probably be better to scrap the entire game mode and start afresh.

Couldn’t have said that any better. Be clear up front and all would have been fine…..

@Tiny Doom.4380

I agree…

Polls need to be implemented better, but for the person hosting it…they may need to go through a bit of a learning curve.

Also, the existing WvW game mode should be kept in place while a better long term solution is engineered to replace it. That would be a better option…imho.

The current WvW without all these new changes…managed to survive for the last 3 years without any major changes.

GW2 will be 4 years old in August 2016.

Currently there is no product anywhere near what WvW does.

This unique & high quality product that ANet created…truly sets it apart with a signature genre…that makes it very distinct in a field of common MMOs.

This is why I’ll continue to hope that this game mode will get its mojo in gear.

When it does…we’ll see it grow from a 3 story building into the tallest of skyscrappers in the industry…imho

Diku

PariahX.6970:

What I can’t comprehend is how people think more frequent linking is going to result is fresh match-ups in NA?

Many voted for 1 month to because the shorter the linking time, the less we’d see temporary bandwagoning to the bottom servers that are linked with the very top ones.

Lord Kuru.3685:

PariahX.6970:

What I can’t comprehend is how people think more frequent linking is going to result is fresh match-ups in NA?

Many voted for 1 month to because the shorter the linking time, the less we’d see temporary bandwagoning to the bottom servers that are linked with the very top ones.

And that also means we get to balanced pairings sooner, but that’s what most don’t understand.

The faster we balance the less we have to balance over time and things can settle.

People QQing and threatening to leave over a relatively minor change to a feature they didn’t even have a few months ago.

Imagine if you are the fellow that voted 4 or 6 months. 8.5 weeks is a big jump from 21.

Entenkommando.5208:

I think the 2 months seem like a good compromise looking at the poll’s results.
Also it’s quite funny to see people without even a basic understanding of statistics bashing around because their opinion isn’t in the majority.

I’m half convinced it’s a strange form of trolling. Otherwise it’s just too baffling.

Diku.2546:

The Fixed 3 Way Fight Model will continue to Server Stack Players as a naturally as a flame attracts moths, or water flowing downhill.

You keep going on and on about this. The 3 way server fight has nothing to do with server stacking, server stacking happens no matter how many sides there are. If you have ever played a 2 sided fight you would know why 3 way is better. If you have 2 sides only, eventually when one side gets beaten and demoralized they stop playing, stop showing up, or go to the winning side which creates an even worse landslide than 3 way.

At least with 3 way you have one other side to take pressure off that demoralized side. The problem with GW2 is the setup of the sides, being tier based, and winning based on population and coverage is what promotes server stacking. There’s also no mechanic in place to have the two weaker sides push the top side in the 3 way fight, 2nd place teams tend to just follow along and beat on 3rd place to make sure they finish in 2nd to get their chest because it’s easier.

Players always go for the path of least resistance, that includes stacking on servers to have an easier play time.

@Xenesis

Do you understand how each World earns their Rank & Tier Level in this leaderboard?

https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/na/wvw

The 3 Way Fight Model has everything to do with Server stacking.

All Worlds earn their WvW Rank & Tier Level by Scoring points during the Week.

The WvW Leaderboard tells you exactly who is the Strongest of the 3 for each Tier.

Players can easily determine which World tends to win in their Weekly Match-Ups for their Tier.

Players study this to find out which World they should consider joining so they can earn the most while winning.

Don’t tell me you didn’t study this or ask your friends which WvW World was a good choice to join before choosing.

So on the relinking on the 24th, will there be a preview of the next linkings of paired server and also will the servers be locked on relink?

Kekkei Genkai Kage.5930:

So on the relinking on the 24th, will there be a preview of the next linkings of paired server and also will the servers be locked on relink?

I doubt it. Anet will probably they do it to prevent rigged matches (ie guilds transfering on purpose) but in reality not telling anyone who links with who will give them a major gemstore boost because WvW players will be suckered into scrambling to another server, as usual.

Dawdler.8521:

Kekkei Genkai Kage.5930:

So on the relinking on the 24th, will there be a preview of the next linkings of paired server and also will the servers be locked on relink?

I doubt it. Anet will probably they do it to prevent rigged matches (ie guilds transfering on purpose) but in reality not telling anyone who links with who will give them a major gemstore boost because WvW players will be suckered into scrambling to another server, as usual.

Or they could, I dunno, get better instead of leaving to get carried and easy mode? Kinda the players own fault if they think they need to keep swapping around.

Pompeia.5483:

Dawdler.8521:

Kekkei Genkai Kage.5930:

So on the relinking on the 24th, will there be a preview of the next linkings of paired server and also will the servers be locked on relink?

I doubt it. Anet will probably they do it to prevent rigged matches (ie guilds transfering on purpose) but in reality not telling anyone who links with who will give them a major gemstore boost because WvW players will be suckered into scrambling to another server, as usual.

Or they could, I dunno, get better instead of leaving to get carried and easy mode? Kinda the players own fault if they think they need to keep swapping around.

My guild and I want to know and don’t want to be linked with a t1 server that will clog queues during our raid time so if get a preview and if we get linked with a t1, we want go to a server that isn’t linked with t1

These polls all should be a guideline rather than a rule anyway.

It sounds cool that you get to vote and that that fully determines what they’re going to implement, but the fact is that they really should not loose the ability to choose for us.
E
Yeah, I guess a disclaimer every poll would be nice to know in advance but anyone with a bit of intelligence would see that picking the compromise option is the smartest. But if you want to nitpick over that, go right ahead. Hopefully ArenaNet sees how immature parts of the community can be at times.

Diku.2546:

@Xenesis

Do you understand how each World earns their Rank & Tier Level in this leaderboard?
https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/na/wvw

The 3 Way Fight Model has everything to do with Server stacking. All Worlds earn their WvW Rank & Tier Level by Scoring points during the Week. The WvW Leaderboard tells you exactly who is the Strongest of the 3 for each Tier. Players can easily determine which World tends to win in their Weekly Match-Ups for their Tier.

Players study this to find out which World they should consider joining so they can earn the most while winning. Don’t tell me you didn’t study this or ask your friends which WvW World was a good choice to join before choosing.

WOW really there’s a leader board!?!?!?! I’ll have to go study this right away……
Btw I just moved 1 of my accounts and I had 5 servers in mind, going to the leader had nothing to do with my decision, I moved to the server that I thought would best fit me, had friends, had decent population on my play times, attitude of the server, avoidance of certain guilds.

The 3 way model still has nothing to do with stacking. Stacking will happen no matter what restrictions you try to put in place, or however many sides are involved, there will always be a top side and most players will gravitate to it more. Even the megaserver system of eotm doesn’t work properly, there were months of green side domination and emptying red and blue within the first 30 mins of the 4 hour matches.

Players have stacked in this game due to alliances (Titan, Empire, Rebel), entire communities picking a couple servers (sea, ocx), free transfers from tournaments, players catering to their playstyle (T1 blob, T2/3 gvg paradise), populations going down so multiple guilds moving up to the more populated servers. Players have access to multiple accounts, so they can even choose what side to stack whenever they want.

P.S Your post are still hard on the eyes.

@Xenesis.6389

Really good feedback btw…

Basic Player motivation still boils down to a consistent & persistent desire to BE PART of a winning team.

Nobody wants to be on the Loosing Team.

The Fixed 3 Way Fight & Tier system just makes being on a Loosing Team worse. It systematically pigeon holes “Looser” Worlds to hell.

The current Fight Model is a Bully system. The 3rd World in a Tier eventually always ends up getting beat down by the 2 stronger Worlds…imho

The Leader Board is a quick way to check where a player should go to BE PART of a winning team.

Large Alliances can game the system…this is what you describe. They basically create the winning team themselves.

The 3 Way Fight Model then works to their advantage.

Large Alliances are the 800 pound Gorilla in the room…with the 2 other Fighters dancing around the Gorilla to avoid being killed.

We need a New Fight Model that takes this advantage away from the 800 pound Gorilla…imho

Yours truly,
Diku

P.S.
Sorry about the formatting…would you perhaps consider sending an example post that you’ve had a chance to correct to me?

Possible Better Long Term Solution – Google Search – wvg world vs globes

Again the number of sides is not the issue as to why wvw is not working properly, it’s the mechanics in place that always favor the top side which boils down to the side with more population and coverage. Anet seemingly wanted a system where the winning side was rewarded with more power so they roll over their opponents. The system promotes beating on the weakest opponent, by overwhelming them with numbers, right down to the bloodlust buff, and the outnumbered buff being useless. Of course in the end that would cause stacking population and coverage.

Dark age of camelot which wvw is based off of, was a 3 sided war, the difference is they didn’t have the scoring or upgrade system gw2 has. The scoring system currently in place is what needs to change, so that population does not have the greatest impact (time slice will help but far from solving this), other system like points per capture can help.

Systems need to be in place to promote the 2nd and 3rd place teams to go after the 1st place team, not 1st 2nd going after 3rd. Outnumbered buff should be able to actually help you take on greater numbers, not a laughable reminder that you’re outnumbered.

The only real 800 lb gorilla these days is probably BG.

Diku.2546:

P.S. Sorry about the formatting…would you perhaps consider sending an example post that you’ve had a chance to correct to me?

I already did, look at the quoted part of my previous post.

@Xenesis.6389

Systems to promote 2nd & 3rd teaming up to go after 1st may end up being very complex & players may end up using it for something else.

What mechanics would you advise be put into place to accomplish this?

Actually…a system that allows All Lower Worlds to attack All the Upper Worlds…would be a simpler solution.

King of the Hill Fight Model would be a better alternative…imho

The Tiers could be kept intact…they’d just turn into “Labels” for a King of the Hill Fight Model.

Agree…BG is the current 800 lb gorilla.

Editing done as requested

Yours truly,
Diku

Possible Better Long Term Solution – Google Search – wvg world vs globes

Diku.2546:

@Xenesis.6389

Systems to promote 2nd & 3rd teaming up to go after 1st may end up being very complex & players may end up using it for something else.

What mechanics would you advise be put into place to accomplish this?

Actually…a system that allows All Lower Worlds to attack All the Upper Worlds…would be a simpler solution.

King of the Hill Fight Model would be a better alternative…imho

The Tiers could be kept intact…they’d just turn into “Labels” for a King of the Hill Fight Model.

Agree…BG is the current 800 lb gorilla.

Editing done as requested

Yours truly,
Diku

---

Possible Better Long Term Solution – Google Search – wvg world vs globes

It’s called megaserver and enough maps to host the entire wvw population.

The origins of WvW/RvR started with DAoC, and the predecessor to that game is in development. They are using a 3 sided faction and 1 world map without queues. Total sandbox war… 3 sided is how it’s done, that’s how ESO does it as well… There is no reinventing the RvR wheel here Diku. You put all pvp players into one space, not spread them out like we have here because it causes problems like we have here…

Either Anet gets on board with megaserver realms or wvw will be empty in the future. Even your own idea is megaserver-like, because it potentially combines players from all over… Simple and elegant is a 3 sided faction war on 1 map or connected maps, all else will fail here, but the devs won’t put in the proper resources to make that happen because PvE is more important to them at this time…

All this linking stuff is not sustainable for the long run, neither is tossing some rewards and calling at a wrap. Things will only change when WvW is taken as seriously as PvE.