devtrackers.gg
These changes are really good, I'm looking forward to them. I assume people will be assigned random worlds when they start with GW2? If not, how does the game determine if a player is french/spanish/german? Ingame language?
These changes are really good, I'm looking forward to them. I assume people will be assigned random worlds when they start with GW2? If not, how does the game determine if a player is french/spanish/german? Ingame language?
Guilds will be able to set their language. An alliance will take the language of the guild that created it. If you aren't playing with a guild then the system will use whatever language you set the game as to sort you into a world that is that language.
Implementation question: how will this work with Discords and stuff? Will anet update the api for this new system? How is that all going to work?
We plan to update the api.
McKenna "The Absolute Madwoman" Berdrow
This would have been a better reddit name :P
So if I play the game in Spanish but I always played in international servers (English) Will I still be moved with other Spanish players even if I don't play with them? ...
I think you should add an option to choose "International". If Iplay the game in German/French/Spanish that doesn't mean I wanna play only with people from my country.
An international option is a great idea! I will bring that up with the rest of the team.
this is excellent, but one suggestion:
wvw guilds can create wvw alliances (500-1000 players max, still not decided)
this is far too big. an alliance should have a max player cap of 300 and/or a max guild size of 5.
"lack of granularity" is sited as one of the reasons to use this system. if alliances can have 500-1000 people in them, this additional granularity goes right out the window again. you KNOW all those big servers will try whatever method necessary to fit all of their friends into a single alliance, basically creating "Blackgate 2.0" or similar.
anet absolutely need to set the alliance population caps low, or find a way to actively discourage stacking an alliance. otherwise, they might as well keep the current system and not bother.
We started with 500 since 500 is the max size of a guild, but those numbers could change in the future. We are aware that servers will try and form alliances filled with really skilled players, and that there needs to be a limit so that they can't create a "Blackgate 2.0" which is why there is going to be a cap. This is one of the numbers we will be constantly testing and tweaking to make sure the system meets our goals of balanced team.
i think the idea is that the individual player metrics are combined to make the alliance metric
^ This is correct!
play hours is my concern. I'll be matched much lower because I don't have the time, which forces me into a guild that may or may not allow me to be as inactive as I tend to be. It's simply a concern of mine.
It works like dzernumbrd explained, except with play hours. So, Alliance A usually has around 700 play hours a week and Alliance B has around 800 play hours a week. A group of players that make up about 300 play hours a week will be placed on Alliance A and a group of players that make up 200 play hours a week will be placed with Alliance B so that both worlds are at about 1000 play hours a week.
It is important to keep in mind that the players that make up those 200 play hours could be a small group of active WvW players, or a large group of more casual WvW players. The system just makes sure that the play hours of each world is relatively the same.
So this gives the giant shaft to those of us that don't hardcore WvW. This means I'll forever become stuck on a "world" with a bunch of people, like me, that don't play WvW 10 hours a day every day as my only game mode. I play PvE (fractals, raids, open world) and WvW but I only play Wvw maybe an hour or so a day. It's a lot of fun and I get to play with more experienced commanders who teach the ropes. If I'm put on a world with "like minded players" WvW just becomes a completely dead gametype for me.
A world can be made up of "casuals" and "hardcore" WvW players. The system uses stats like play hours in WvW, commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels to create worlds that are balanced. Some of the new worlds might have more hardcore players and some might have less but overall the new worlds should have similar play hours.
So what happens if an alliance that has reached the cap then has a bunch of players in it's guilds, who had originally selected other guilds outside the alliance as their WvW guild, switch their selected guild to one of the guilds in the alliance? That could be a way of getting around the cap.
If the alliance is capped, they wont be able to join it.
will there still be some kind of glicko rating to determine a worlds performance?
We will still be using 1 up 1 down with this system not glicko.
Hey guys just posted this link on the forums so here you guys go too. Here are all the worlds in NA and EU ordered by size names have been omitted to protect the innocent:
https://i.imgur.com/1uFZPf9.png
how about the number of worlds in each region?
Are you planning on adjusting them after each season, if queues get too long or population/participation dwindles for some other reason?
The number of worlds can change every season depending on play hours. It will always need to be divisible by 3, but one season could have 12 worlds and the next season it could be 15.
Worlds have an impact on which shard you get sorted into, and a lot of roleplayers choose TC just to help add to the weighting. If we lose that, some ability to pick shards (like in GW1) would be nice.
This is something we hadn’t fully considered and we’ll start looking into possible solutions.
500, when map max is somewhere around 100?
Small guilds like me and my buddy who have been roaming WvW nightly for the last 4 years are going to be locked out?
We don't need any "alliance" to get shit done in WvW. We don't follow commanders. We do our own thing, and do it really well. What's in this for us?
As far as I can see, nothing. We're going to get tossed around from match to match and never see our fellow roamers again. The people we know we can rely on in a fight for a camp, or to bring supps for sneak tower/keep attack.
For what it's worth, we've taken keeps with just the two of us. We've taken SM with just three. We don't need a crowd and don't like following them, but we like our fellow roamers.
500 players is around 20% of WvW world sizes currently (this is only using active WvW players). Since world sizes are predicted to be similar in size to how they are currently, you will still be able to play.
Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for you and your friends, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives you take, and points you earn for your world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world.
If you want to guarantee playing with other roamers that you are friends with, then you can make a guild. If you do not want to do that, then there should still be plenty of roamers on the new worlds.
I’ve seen some roamers worried about this system, and I’d be interested in hearing what in this system could change to make it better for roamers in their opinions. If you could mark your account as a WvW roamer account, and the system guaranteed a percentage of roamers on each world, would that feel better? Or is there anything else we could do besides use a different system. We would love to hear other ideas, and even though we haven’t been able to respond to everything we have been reading it all and taking notes.