Guild Wars 2

Yes, it has come to this, and an alliance/battle group type system will likely be placing all of GW2’s WvW eggs into 1 proverbial basket in the future, so let’s hope it is done right, because quite honestly, the risk is astronomical. I know people are likely sick of hearing player suggestions on how to salvage the state of GW2’s WvW, but I think you can deal with one more quicky.

So I’m going to suggest something in the hopes that it (or even just a part) sounds more reasonable, feasible, realistic, and agreeable than what is rumored to be entailed in an upcoming alliance system. It’s short, relatively simple, and I think has a much better chance of saving face for WvW, all while utilizing much of what’s already in use or available.

WvW Alliance System That Retains Server Identities
In this suggested WvW system all servers retain their respective population identities and contribute as a server to the success of their alliance for that week. Servers are divvied up similar to EotM’s current alliance system based on weekly server colors. They can still use their own native voice comms while collectively making their best efforts when fighting alongside and against new faces.

How would server colors be determined week by week? Each server is rated based on the respective contribution they put into the WvW war effort the week before. This contribution can be gauged based on involvement with captures, kills, guild missions, etc.

Servers can still vie for a higher ranking in this system and weekly WvW server rewards/chests can be based on their movement throughout the ranks (i.e. 3 chests for moving up, 2 chest for staying the same, 1 chest for moving down — with moderately improved chest contents or some other reward).

Team Color Determination
North America

• Green: 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th, 22nd
• Blue: 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th, 23rd
• Red: 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th

Europe

• Green: 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th, 22nd, 25th
• Blue: 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th, 23rd, 26th
• Red: 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th, 27th

Maps In Rotation

• 3 Alpine Borderlands maps (green, blue, red)
• 3 Desert Borderland maps (green, blue, red)
• 1 (or 3) Eternal Battlegrounds map(s) (if 3 then each color has a different home 1/3 of map in each of the 3 EB instances)

Identity Visuals
Enemy WvW nameplates reflect which guild, alliance, and server a player belongs to. This is a good time to clean up WvW’s obnoxious nameplate pollution with some long needed abbreviations, especially in the server name and rank department. There are 15 base ranks (Invader thru Legend) in each tier of ranks (starter thru Diamond) and for sake of simplicity could be merely color coded Roman numerals (I thru XV), similar to SPvP League Division icons. They could also just be unique colored icons designed by Anet. I don’t have any speculation or suggestion at this time for alliance names (the shorter the better) but nameplates could easily be as simple as the following couple examples:

• 1A without enemy player moused over/selected “Green Team * (JQ) [GILD]” where * denotes appropriate rank icon
• 1B with enemy player moused over/selected “Green Team Bronze Champion (Jade Quarry) [GILD]”
• 2A without enemy player moused over/selected “Red Team * (SoS) [GILD]” where * denotes appropriate rank icon
• 2B with enemy player moused over/selected “Red Team Platinum Invader (Sea of Sorrows) [GILD]”

EDIT: Clarification of PPT in this system per subsequent thread conversation
The existing PPT system has long been in need of some attention in helping to prevent wild score swings and early leads; in this proposal it would even moreso need that adjustment. But it could easily be remedied by having the value worth of objectives tweaked a bit and then introduce a slight diminishing return depending on a team’s lead and position in a match (1st vs 2nd vs 3rd). The score ticker could also be changed from 4-15min ticks per hour to 3-20min ticks/hr or even 2-30min ticks/hr. All of this would help to deter the swing leads that wildly occur in many current tiers within the first days of WvW reset.

Here would be an example’s key layout values based on a team’s present position in the match (1st/2nd/3rd). Sentries and Stonemist Castle values excluded for sake of simplicity:

• Camps = 3/4/5 points each
• Towers = 8/9/10 pts ea
• Keeps = 13/14/15 pts ea

The worth of these objectives is directly related to a team’s position in the current match and changes accordingly if one team overtakes another during said match. The above PPT score possibilities would roughly translate as follows using the number of maps I’ve proposed, via the 6 BL + 1 EB model (note how comparable they are to the PPT in WvW’s current state, even when adding 3 more maps to the lineup):
PPT with 100% of objectives owned (1st place / 2nd / 3rd / Current State)

• 687 / 786 / 885 / 695

PPT with ~33% of objectives owned (1st place / 2nd / 3rd / Current State)

• 229 / 262 / 295 / 230

This sort of scoring method coupled with a slightly lengthened score ticker (from the current 4-15min ticks per hour to 3-20min ticks/hr or even 2-30min ticks/hr) would keep the scores considerably closer and would lessen the chances and extent of a team taking off into the sunset with the lead.

In Closing
That’s pretty much it. I know it’s not likely to get much attention but I figure it’s best to at least throw it out there in the off chance that something piques the interest and support of the WvW community. I am just as concerned about WvW as most others and likewise want to see it survive and thrive. There are plenty of folks besides myself who play GW2 largely for its potentially epic large scale PvP fights, and the more gimmicky and arcade-like it gets the sooner we’ll be moving on to something else somewhere else. I support Anet and GW2 through Gem purchases, but will not continue to do so for a game mode that is turning into nothing more than a social experiment of perpetual disappointment and a disconnection with its market.

Here’s hoping for hope.

akeldama.6709:

Team Color Determination
North America

• Green: 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th, 22nd
• Blue: 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th, 23rd
• Red: 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th

Europe

• Green: 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th, 22nd, 25th
• Blue: 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th, 23rd, 26th
• Red: 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th, 27th

Have you ever played in EotM? I’m guessing no. Stacking the winning servers all on one team has to be one of the most mind-boggling and inept decisions in the history of gaming… and you want it to continue?

As mentioned, the color/rank choice allocation is not balanced in such as simple way. Discrepancies between tiers and within them are massive. EoTM is unbelievably imbalanced.

It needs to keep track of way more server-specific metrics and match servers based on internal data pertaining to the servers like guild coverage, population density coverage, player-activity mapping for blob sizes and havoc, objective flips, siege deployed, objective loss rate, and so on.

With this kind of data and an algorithm to combine servers paired with some sort of random-basing for allocation for fluctuating match-ups, only then can an “alliance” model be absolutely preferable for balancing matches.

EoTM purely, however, is absolutely NOT the answer.

Might as well take the week off if you roll red huh?

Are you guys saying that EotM is ONLY dominated by green? I think not. And even if it were, the proposed system laid out here does not operate on the same unevenly non-mirrored EotM map premise where the 3 sides each have just 1 unique map 1/3, and only that for an entire week.

The part people seem to be missing is that while there is presently a theoretical “big picture” in the matchmaking glicko tier system, the servers are realistically still only participating and somewhat stuck in the “small picture”, that being within their own tiered matchup. And it’s that small picture that people are basing their “stacking the winning servers all on one team” misconception on. There are no winning servers if the tier walls are brought down. Just a single bumper-to-bumper, top-to-bottom line of ranking. 4th place, 7th place, 10th place, etc. would no longer be considered “winning” servers and likewise 6th place, 9th place, 12th place, etc. would no longer be considered merely “losing” servers.

But if that “open concept” is too deep to comprehend then the following pairing would negate that expressed “worry” as it has “winners/mids/losers” appropriately represented in all colors in a reverse descension ranking concept (NA servers):
North America

• Green: 1st, 6th, 8th, 10th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th
• Blue: 2nd, 4th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 18th, 20th, 22nd
• Red: 3rd, 5th, 7th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 21st, 23rd

Europe

• Green: 1st, 6th, 8th, 10th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, 26th
• Blue: 2nd, 4th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 18th, 20th, 22nd, 27th
• Red: 3rd, 5th, 7th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 21st, 23rd, 25th

It looks messier than the original proposal, and is not necessarily needed IMO, but it shows that the “stacking” fear could be remedied in this latter matching method.

Also a related side note, presently tier 1’s top 3 NA servers are frequently changing colors, so JQ, BG, and YB would, at the start, likely be the most influential servers but would rarely remain the same color, in theory. I cannot speak for EU’s top servers though as I’m uncertain of their particular fluctuations.

I appreciate the criticism of this system and I hope people can see the potential merit in a paradigm shift that is needed to salvage what was once a great game mode.

This is the road WvW is going down and it sounds like people would rather sit back and let it turn into whatever it turns into. So far that hasn’t been a good thing. I know that Anet isn’t likely to read most of their community’s suggestions, and if they do they won’t be taken all that seriously, but at least we can say we tried. And I personally figure that smaller changes with bigger implications would be more attractive to a game developer rather than another overhaul that has no currently successful basis within its game on which to model itself; it will be more groping in the dark.

Thanks for the input!

I have suggested something similar before (well except using almost all the available WvW maps, minus a couple of tiers of borders) but it really need to go hand in hand with a PPT redesign or it doesnt work.

On current mechnics, such a shift as is would still mean that a single (or several) nightcap servers will methodically run through all the borders and EBs and… well, dominate. Imagine waking up and seeing a PPT of 1200/50/50 with the first color being 100,000+ points ahead.

akeldama.6709:

Team Color Determination
North America

• Green: 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th, 22nd
• Blue: 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th, 23rd
• Red: 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th

Europe

• Green: 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th, 22nd, 25th
• Blue: 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th, 23rd, 26th
• Red: 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th, 27th

You honestly think they would cram ALL of us into just one wvw instance? I know it’s quiet out there, but sheesh! If anet decides to try to increase populations by putting multiple servers together in an alliance, I think it would be more conservative to start by lumping 2 or 3 together per side, not 8.

It’s more likely they’ll go ESO-style and create 3-4 “campaigns” and let everyone choose which one they want to join. That way the guilds could stay together if every member chooses the same campaign. Also, if they announce a couple weeks before going live, all the guild leadership could reach out to other guild leaders and decide that campaign A will be the open-field battle campaign, and campaign B will be PPT-focused, etc.

Osu.6307:

Also, if they announce a couple weeks before going live, all the guild leadership could reach out to other guild leaders and decide that campaign A will be the open-field battle campaign, and campaign B will be PPT-focused, etc.

I don’t think you are understanding that you cannot have one without the other in WvW.

It’s symbiotic.

Or you get dead maps.

Or you get ktrain maps similar to pve champ trains. And if you prefer this style of play, you already have EoTM.

Osu.6307:

You honestly think they would cram ALL of us into just one wvw instance? I know it’s quiet out there, but sheesh! If anet decides to try to increase populations by putting multiple servers together in an alliance, I think it would be more conservative to start by lumping 2 or 3 together per side, not 8.

It was 7 maps (6 borders + EB) or 9 maps (6 borders + 3 EB) per OPs suggestion, not one WvW instance.

So basicly slapping together 3 tiers and removing 3 redundant borders to compact the the amount of maps per population.

But granted, I am not sure that will be enough. When I suggested my similar idea, I mentioned 9 EBs and 18 borders (EU) or something like that to fit the entire WvW population.

I’m happy you mentioned the PPT issue because it’s something that’s needed attention long ago and there have been easy options existing for softening the blow. And as you’ve pointed out, it would be needed even moreso in the system I’ve suggested. Fortunately one of those options fits well into this context.

I agree that the PPT system would need an adjustment due to the number of capture points possible. But it could easily be remedied by having the value worth of objectives tweaked a bit and then introduce a slight diminishing return depending on a team’s lead and position in a match (1st vs 2nd vs 3rd). The score ticker could also be changed from 4-15min ticks per hour to 3-20min ticks/hr or even 2-30min ticks/hr. All of this would help to deter the swing leads that wildly occur in many current tiers within the first days of WvW reset.

I don’t foresee the occurrence of servers that have the only monopoly on night cappers being matched exclusively together happening in the layout I proposed. But for the sake of argument let’s go with that extreme possibility in an example of score swinging based on diminished returns rather than universally set values. But first, here would be the example’s key layout values based on a team’s present position in the match (1st/2nd/3rd). Sentries and Stonemist Castle values excluded for sake of simplicity:

• Camps = 3/4/5 points each
• Towers = 8/9/10 pts ea
• Keeps = 13/14/15 pts ea

The worth of these objectives is directly related to a team’s position in the current match and changes accordingly if one team overtakes another during said match. The above PPT score possibilities would roughly translate as follows using the number of maps I’ve proposed, via the 6 BL + 1 EB model (note how comparable they are to the PPT in WvW’s current state, even when adding 3 more maps to the lineup):
PPT with 100% of objectives owned (1st place / 2nd / 3rd / Current State)

• 687 / 786 / 885 / 695

PPT with ~33% of objectives owned (1st place / 2nd / 3rd / Current State)

• 229 / 262 / 295 / 230

This sort of scoring method coupled with a slightly lengthened score ticker (from the current 4-15min ticks per hour to 3-20min ticks/hr or even 2-30min ticks/hr) would keep the scores considerably closer and would lessen the chances and extent of a team taking off into the sunset with the lead.

Thanks for the feedback.

akeldama.6709:

The above PPT score possibilities would roughly translate as follows using the number of maps I’ve proposed, via the 6 BL + 1 EB model (note how comparable they are to the PPT in WvW’s current state, even when adding 3 more maps to the lineup)

It still probably wouldnt be enough maps though. I mean we cant fill all the borders sure, but there are 36 maps currently (EU). You suggest shrinking that to 7 maps. Going over GW2 current technical limitations of 250 players on a map is impossible.

Ignoring a full fixed map setup (such as 36 is a full 1:1 conversion or somewhat closer to that number), the only way a manageable amount of maps (<10) can exist for the whole WvW population is what I can imagine as a simple WvW/EoTM hybrid system. For example 9 static EBs (1 for each current tier) that will always be there. But once an EB goes queued, it automatically generate an associated border in a short 2 hour EoTM style battle, where a victory in turn generate some sort of boon to the associated EB (like how we are supposed to get supplies now). Then you can have a low amount of maps while having room in “overflows” that doesnt mess with PPT generation. Plus we can remove EoTM as a separate entity, bring all of WvW together.

You’d need to make the alliances by coverage. For example, JQ and DB cannot be on the same team.

Green: 1st, 6th, 7th, 12th, 13th, 18th, 19th, 24th
Blue: 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th, 23rd
Red: 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th, 15th, 16th, 21st, 22nd

…fixed that for you….

who cares about kittening server identities. identities change all the time, get used to it. lets make the fix that will benefit the health of the game mode, and deal with the aftermath as it comes.

In a Disney World were all people think and feel the same thing about the game this might be a good thing, but realisty is that if this goes live, it will be decided what team that will be the faceroll team, and then everybody else will do what they can to get in to that team. And then faceroll the other servers.

This is nothing new, been done in so many games with the same result. And in the end players leave because they can’t be kitten d to try and join the winning alliance, and they do not like being farmed, and left is the people asking why noone is playing anymore.

WvW was a exsclusive game mode and i have no idea why anyone wants to ruin it by making it to something that already is out there and not working well. It is a absolutly garantie that the day this happens and servers have no meaning anymore, they will loose half the wvw population and the other half will bleed off within half a year, probably less. Just watch EoTM, and how the green team always won. This is how a big pile of gamers plays, they don’t want to fight for the win, they just want to be on the winning side.

These suggestions are over-complicated and the posts are much too long.

It should be something as simple as current megaserver WvW, with choose your color/team or whatever. With some simple matchmaking or choices provided to the player you can keep loyalties. You can keep friends joining the same favorites. You could even keep the servers in place with some dynamic coding.

Ok I am not a programmer nor a mathematician so please if this is way off the mark so be it. However, as it stands right now could we possibly evenly distribute the servers to make 3 alliances while each server keeps it identity within the alliance. I believe that would be like 8 servers to each alliance. If they matched them as closely as possible in numbers it might work and would allow servers to maintain their own server presence within an alliance.

Leaa.2943:

And in the end players leave because they can’t be kitten d to try and join the winning alliance…

Like people transferring to the “winning” server.

Leaa.2943:

…left is the people asking why noone is playing anymore.

Like this forum asking the same about WvW.

Leaa.2943:

WvW was a exsclusive game mode and i have no idea why anyone wants to ruin it…

What is there to ruin? As a RvR / Mass scale PvP game mode it is not well designed, the redeeming feature about WvW is the combat, the rest of it is basically not fit for purpose.

You have a mass scale PvP mode where “winning” is about points which involves PvDoor, avoiding fights and getting up at 4am when other people are not playing, it is an absolute joke.

As for this server pride or community nonsense, as far as I can see the majority of WvW players have not stayed on one server, many have switched multiple times, many have more than one account, the idea that server equates to community and no other system does is nonsense, EVE Online is based on alliances and has a stronger, deeper community than this game will ever have.

Leaa.2943:

…and the other half will bleed off within half a year…

In case you’ve missed it, the WvW population has been bleeding off for a long time and is at an all time low, the farce that is the current system isn’t working, WvW passed its peak a long time ago.

server pride is past time doesn’t exist the same as it once did. it’s almost a non-factor now.

22BF12DD-6886-49A6-84BC-836A8957AD67:

server pride is past time doesn’t exist the same as it once did. it’s almost a non-factor now.

Not true at all. At least not in EU.

Hey! I have an idea! Since this merger idea is mostly to fix NA issues, how about mega server NA and leave EU as server based?

You also might want to register your name here instead of posting your game code. Just a thought.