We've been Borlis Pass since Beta and planned to be loyal to our server for all time, won't be happy to be shoved onto a new world for sure... Also how about making it easier to earn Favor? How will this affect earning of Favor. What about bringing back the aspect of the old influence system where if guildies party up in PvE and do events etc together they also earn Favor? Awesome that WvW is getting some love but I forsee some pretty major issues if our guild doesn't declare itself as a WvW guild regardless of whether we are or are not WvWcentric?
do you want creat new maps? I left this game long time ago, because there is no reality update for WvW, its really boring.
you just cut some hills, and change skills timer , that all
its too late for thinking about WvW, but its better than nothing,
bad work for wvw Arenanet.
@Phlogistn.7893 said:
I realize that many servers no longer feel they have an "identity". That is not, I feel, the case for Tarnished Coast and some other servers I know of. Some people have been on their server since day one, have friends across guilds and have a history. Although "something" needed to be done with WvW I am sad to think that all the people we play with here will be dispersed to the winds. Even stating they can be in an "alliance" with alliances changing from season to season, makes the continuity of community null. Baby, bathwater.....
I feel the same way. I feel quite sad and demotivated by the thought of our world’s population being dispersed. I feel our world has quite a good community that I’ve come to know over a long period of time, and one of the things I find the most compelling about WvW is jumping in with familiar commanders on the field that I know and recognize.
I get where this is coming from and that other world have balance and population issues, but this is a sad day for me as a WvW player.
What this concept does is eliminate the pride we feel in our world, which for many of us, is literally the chief motivation to play.
I don't like it. I play WvW on the server I play on because I like the community. I have no interest in being thrust into a toxic environment that I know exists in many other servers. This destroys community.
@McKenna Berdrow.2759 Instead of WvW it can soon either be called GvG, AvA or PvP. Although I like AvA, it has a nice ring to it. I'm excited, as recently I find myself more likely to SPvP because I get more consistent fights and rewards like gold/ascended gear etc. But my first preference of fighting is just small scale roaming with my guild mates in WvW.
Goodluck, I will say if your going ahead with this it would be best to bring out new maps at the sametime for wow factor to lure back more players eager and keen to retry a fresh Guild Wars 2 WvW like experience.
Also the participation mechanic needs a rework such as a cashout system etc. So large ques don't happen on the release of this new world restructuring creation or the new plan. People hate waiting for afkers to leave a map.
Finally if reward chests are match based or seasonal, not sure how that will wor yet, is it possible to get a monetary reward like the SPvP chests? I ask because for me I can make vastly greater sums of gold from SPvP than WvW currently. It seems odd to me that a WvW player should be forced into SPvP to get gold so they can afford a new suit or gear for WvW faster. All this to feel like they can be competitive. Don't get me wrong though I like SPvP, but others might get salty about that and it could ruin SPvP players fun or ratings in ranked matches.
People who play SPvP should be those wanting to be there, not just for gold, rewards or daily achieve achievements!
Just as those who want to WvW should be those players wanting to participate and do well for their world that they take pride in or feel like they have a sense of belonging to over a long period of time. On that note I will miss Sanctum of Rall, but there isn't many of us left. So this change needs to happen and as soon as possible. Sometimes at the times I play NA nights maps are like ghost towns
Marks are essentially the problem as they are so costly to craft. Harvesting nodes don't provide enough sustained revenue to even buy good food or utilities these days. Perhaps because the wood, cloth, ores etc are so cheap to buy and sell now. Anyways that is enough from me grumbling about the lack of gold or rewards for WvW.
Just a thought... WvW players shouldn't feel like they are the forgotten ones, but your plans already are a step in the right direction.
@Karnasis.6892 said:
My concern is honestly in transferring. It would have to be a harsher restriction than it currently is, simply for the fact that server transfers/world linking is what got us into this mess of imbalance in the first place. I get that there will be people impacted in the sense that their friend is on "Server A" and they are currently on "Server E", but give them a chance before the system goes live to decide if they want to play with that friend or guilds. I just feel that the overall impact of having no transfers will overall outweigh the cons of not being able to have one or two friends come play with you. But that's just my initial thoughts.
We are planning to give the community some lead time before this goes live. Organizing yourselves will take time and we want to allow that to happen. Transfers are something we can monitor better with this system and respond to more quickly. Since worlds should be relatively even the amount of transferring to the higher population worlds before they become full will be less. This should prevent guilds and alliances trying to use transferring to stack servers more difficult. We're open to discussion about this though and the "fullness %s" are things be looking at and adjusting if needed until we find a good spot.
this new system will kill diversity within the server. It's gonna be 1 or 2 guilds dominates whole server and the rest tries to get in those guilds to get easy loot. big guilds sell transfer spots for gold. it's like wvw during the game release when everything was fresh, but where are you gonna find those fresh people now? 5.5 years game, sieges too strong, damage strong. new players even can't realise how they died in 1 secs from stealth. even this system has no sign of how to introduce new players to wvw.
As someone who has played mainly WvW since starting GW2 a year after launch, I honestly think that this a great and refreshing idea to bring into WvW and the game! I'm very excited to see some of the proposed changes and hope that they will go through. My main server is Crystal Desert and I've seen it go from thriving all day to having peak and non-peak times, which really hurt the server as a whole and made certain times of day almost unplayable. Restructuring how worlds are made/matched and giving us the option to choose/form alliances is a great, interactive, and fun idea. I understand that people have server pride, and there is nothing wrong with that as I love CD, but my first and foremost alliance is to my friends and guild, which I think will greatly benefit from this. Overall, I think these are great changes and am excited to see where this goes!
Well, rip the 1800 gems I spent transferring to Maguuma...I wasn't even there for very long. If I would've knew this change was coming I wouldn't have bothered transferring worlds. =/
@Symmol.8639 said:
Is the setting to be a WvW guild independant from the Guild Mission settings? I want to play WvW with my guild mates but still being able to do PvE missions with my other guild mates that don't play WvW.
It is independent. It will be a new setting launching with the system.
Nice thanks, that's a relief I'm so happy to see this change coming then!
First off I believe that the numbers for alliances should be tuned to accept a large number of guilds, but a low number of players. IE, only two large guilds can be in one alliance because they hit the player cap, but say, 10 small guilds can form an alliance. The intended effect for this is to allow smaller guilds to be able to join these guild alliances without "wasting a guild slot." Also, overall i would say 500-1000 players in an alliance is too high of a number for current populations. While i dont have the concrete data, I would wager that 500-1000 is basically a medium population server's entire active playerbase(gut feeling). In order to produce that granularity you guys mention in the original post, those numbers should be lower.
Here's some counter arguments to the naysayers:
Looking to play casually with a friend but not interested in joining a wvw guild? Make a personal guild with you and your friend and set it as your wvw guild. Now you'll always be able to play with your friend whenever.
Afraid that your community is being torn apart? Create a community guild, guilds have 500 slots for a reason.
In closing, deleting the current servers is in my opinion the only way to set populations back on the right track. They will never fix themselves via linking or discounted transfers. Its like you broke your arm and it was set wrong, yeah it sucks, but you're going to have to get your arm re-broken so that it can be set properly. It'll be painful in the short term, but in the long run we only stand to benefit from it.
I have made some of the GREATEST friendships here in Yaks Bend and I wont get to see them all the time now.... what about talking in Teamspeak and discord??? new people all the time... WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!
Well I guess this is going to be the final nail in the coffin for me. As a working adult, I am unable to keep up with long play hours and so, I predict I will be lumped with others who play very little or simply log into wvw only for the dailies. Even though I do not play long hours, I also do not play wvw solely for the dailies and I am exclusively a wvw player. I guess players with such demographics can consider looking for another game.
Extremely disappointed with this change. Overhaul was needed but not like this.
1) Basically turning into EoTM style maps where playing for your server means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING since worlds are gonna change anyway, which also means no room for community growth.
2) The PuGs (by far the larger population than "guilds") are indirectly shown the way out. No allegiance to any particular server means, unfortunately, no real rewards for actually working towards your community (which won't exist anymore).
Might as well rename the mode as GvG or AvA and be done with WvW as a whole. This disrespect towards the wvw community (that took years to build) started with wvw linking which had ZERO benefit and has only caused problems. This reconstruction change will be the final nail in the coffin for majority of the users.
It was nice while WvW lasted (just prior to world linking) and good luck to Anet in future.
@Karnasis.6892 said:
My concern is honestly in transferring. It would have to be a harsher restriction than it currently is, simply for the fact that server transfers/world linking is what got us into this mess of imbalance in the first place. I get that there will be people impacted in the sense that their friend is on "Server A" and they are currently on "Server E", but give them a chance before the system goes live to decide if they want to play with that friend or guilds. I just feel that the overall impact of having no transfers will overall outweigh the cons of not being able to have one or two friends come play with you. But that's just my initial thoughts.
We are planning to give the community some lead time before this goes live. Organizing yourselves will take time and we want to allow that to happen. Transfers are something we can monitor better with this system and respond to more quickly. Since worlds should be relatively even the amount of transferring to the higher population worlds before they become full will be less. This should prevent guilds and alliances trying to use transferring to stack servers more difficult. We're open to discussion about this though and the "fullness %s" are things be looking at and adjusting if needed until we find a good spot.
Can you just unlock all the servers until this new system goes in then? It would be nice for people on JQ and BG to get friends over.
Sounds good and fresh in so many ways and I'm looking forward to it, my only concerns are with how the community may use alliances to over stack especially if its anything like 500 - 1000 ppl. 200 - 400 would be more then enough.
I also understand why some ppl are upset at losing their community but really a shake up is long over due.
Rest in peace, Fort Aspenwood.
I will always have fond memories of rolling over people with Shrouded Warband and The Legion of Charrs under your banner.
Getting onto the actual changes that will be in place someday, these are interesting and while I can't say I know how this will actually play out given that none of this is actually set in stone yet: I am skeptical but also interested in seeing how it all goes down in the long run since this might be the jump start that the game mode needs to actually breathe some life back into it.
[TLC] The Legion of Charr § Silver Scout § Fort Aspenwood
I like this idea. The only issue I see with it is people in multiple guilds because they play in different timezones will have a hard time choosing. My guild personally has a few players in an OCX guild,but our guild is mainly EST,although we have quite a few EU players now also. I enjoy running with that OCX guild when they are on,but feel they are more likely to want to ally with other OCX guilds as opposed to a group of EST guilds. At the same time based on the balancing maybe we would end up together regardless. Overall I think it will be good for the health of the game, a much better alternative then world linking. Which has basically just become linking fight guild transfer wars.
@Symmol.8639 said:
Is the setting to be a WvW guild independant from the Guild Mission settings? I want to play WvW with my guild mates but still being able to do PvE missions with my other guild mates that don't play WvW.
It is independent. It will be a new setting launching with the system.
So, why would a guild not be set as a "WvW guild" exactly? I don't see any benefits from not being a WvW guild at all. It actually seems disadvantageous for a guild to be set as a non WvW guild. As a guild leader I don't see why I would want my members not have that option to play in the same shard as eachother.
Furthermore, as that will give access to the alliance system, no guild will think twice to hit that checkmark and form that alliance. Regardless of whether thats for WvW or for PvE.
I feel like its going to run in alot of discussions based around "But thats not what this system is/was/will be made for."
@keelhaul.8039 said:
Sounds good and fresh in so many ways and I'm looking forward to it, my only concerns are with how the community may use alliances to over stack especially if its anything like 500 - 1000 ppl. 200 - 400 would be more then enough.
Would be 500-1000 total for all members of an alliance, not 500-1000 online at a time (can be, sure, but there's still queues). I don't think you can stack much, in numbers at least. Quality, that's a different deal.
I would limit Alliance sizes to the maximum size of a Guild (500 players). That way the biggest guild can be contested with an alliance of smaller ones. Limit the alliance based on number of players, not number of guilds.
@Fairhair.9750 said:
I don't like it. I play WvW on the server I play on because I like the community. I have no interest in being thrust into a toxic environment that I know exists in many other servers. This destroys community.
Basically create an alliance. That is your new community.
This is an amazing structure and vision. Please implement ASAP!
It is a blow to the stomach as I just helped or fully paid for 30/43 members who transferred servers last month for server to be nullified, but the move helped my guild tremendously, so I can't complain too much! As an ex leader and organizer of TC and a representative of several guild circles, there are already cross server communities and camaraderie that allow each guild and individuals to interact with each other. This will not hinder communities growing no more than servers currently do. This is a smart move to improve the WvW experience, and I cannot wait!
A member spoke up stating this will make members choose between two guilds if they are not allied together. While he is concerned, I believe this can be paralleled to moving servers -- members must choose. I do not think it will become a problem.
How will this work if for example, you have 4 guilds, where everyone is a member of all 4 guilds. These guilds have all been upgraded to allow for various types of claiming in WvW, so for example, 1 can hold 2 camps, 1 tower and 1 keep at the same time. Right now you can do this by swapping guilds. This brings up a couple questions.
1.) Will this sort of activity be possible under the new proposed system?
2.) If these 4 guilds, lets say a total of 200 unique players among them, are all a part of the same alliance, for the sake of alliance size, will the population of each guild be the only thing looked at, or the unique players in each guild, so if an alliance allows for say 500 players and I'm I'm a member of all 4 guilds in the alliance, do I count as 1 player or 4 players, furthermore given that the membership is shared across the guilds, would they even really count as 4 guilds in the alliance?
Now just to make it clear, i think the idea is fantastic, but the proof is in the pudding, or in this case, how good the execution of the idea is done. Do it well and all will be good, do it poorly and it could bury WvW, or should that be AvA
@Airwikjohn.7581 said:
This a change wvw has needed for so long. Thanks anet.
Just a few questions:
Will there be a cap on how many alliances in a world?
Alliances can be different sizes so there isn't plans to have a caps on alliances currently. Instead the world size cap will control how many alliances can be on a world.
What if you are in multiple wvw based guilds, say if you're playing in more than one timezone, would you have to rely on alliances to play in both/all of them?
Yes, you would need to be in an alliance with all of those guilds to guarantee all those guilds being on the same world.
I know it's not really related. But will the character limit of maps change?
There are no plans to change character limits on WvW maps.
If you want to guarantee you continue to play with your WvW friends, it's very simple. For the people that don't want to be broken up from their WvW friends, make a WvW guild! And you can still be a part of other PvE guilds, and the people from those PvE guilds that want to WvW with you can also join your WvW guild. I don't see how it's going to be impossible to play with the same people you're playing with right now. Yes, you won't be Team Yak's Bend or Team Blackgate. But you can make a guild named Team Yak's Bend and still play together.
@fieraviolet.3160 said:
I like this idea. The only issue I see with it is people in multiple guilds because they play in different timezones will have a hard time choosing. My guild personally has a few players in an OCX guild,but our guild is mainly EST,although we have quite a few EU players now also. I enjoy running with that OCX guild when they are on,but feel they are more likely to want to ally with other OCX guilds as opposed to a group of EST guilds. At the same time based on the balancing maybe we would end up together regardless. Overall I think it will be good for the health of the game, a much better alternative then world linking. Which has basically just become linking fight guild transfer wars.
You seem to be misunderstood. Most of the OCX guilds have nothing but hatred or rivalry to ally with each other. Not a lot of us left. Why would we ally to decrease our fights.
There are many easily foreseeable problems, but with an indefinite time scale and the fact that the WvW team is actually reaching out to us, the players, to gauge our feedback and take it into consideration, this is just what WvW needed.
@Phlogistn.7893 said:
It also raises the issue of: does total guild member count towards how much "space" a guild takes up in an Alliance? What if a guild is 100+ people but has an active wvw of 25? Are they counted as 100? Will they have to kick friends/retires/folks on break just to meet the threshold to join their alliance? If only the active folks count, what stops BG or any other server from having people go "dead" for a while before relink, stack an alliance, then exceed the limit?
Only people who mark the guild as their wvw guild will count. Guilds that specialize can still band together in an alliance if they so choose. We started this dialogue early so we could hear feedback and work to improve the design where possible.
@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:
We are planning to give the community some lead time before this goes live. Organizing yourselves will take time and we want to allow that to happen. Transfers are something we can monitor better with this system and respond to more quickly. Since worlds should be relatively even the amount of transferring to the higher population worlds before they become full will be less. This should prevent guilds and alliances trying to use transferring to stack servers more difficult. We're open to discussion about this though and the "fullness %s" are things be looking at and adjusting if needed until we find a good spot.
Your wording indicates that this is largely finished and nearly ready to deploy. Also the willingness to discuss it with the community and having such concrete answers to questions.
Will our next re-link at the end of February possibly be our last, or will we get one or two more after that?
Of course it won't be easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is.
Very interesting. Definitely did not expect to see any changes made in this mode at this point...
It's nice to see thought.
Just a few things I wanted to ask/suggest...
My understanding is that...
WORLD = (an alliance[or a few] +guilds[a few smaller ones?] + individuals[those who didn't declare a wvw guild??])
In a world, is it random alliances that are matched together? And random guilds put in? and random individuals?
Also if alliance size is large enough, would it be possible that...
WORLD = (an alliance + individuals) or even just an alliance?
Like, can an alliance be large enough to be its own small world? Then a few small worlds (that are primarily 1 alliance + individuals) can fight each other in a matchup?
How much population is every world expected to have?
For example, when compared what Blackgate has right now? I imagine (and really hope) it would be much lower.
What about inactive players?
A player comes back and wants to join his guild that is already part of an alliance/world. Can he just join them with ease?
What about players who don't declare their 'wvw guild' but go into wvw? Are they assigned to a random world upon first entering the mode?
What about scores? or rankings?
Ideally, alliances or even just guilds within the alliance should have some sort of score or ranking system within them.
Maybe this is a good time to introduce things like PPT/PPK/kills counters for guilds? (or something along those lines, I'm not sure)
Every guild can have its statistics saved up. Like, how many players have been killed by members of a certain guild.
These statistics should be easy access and watch.
Also, these statistics can be used for ranking. Also there should be different rankings, like top kills, top PPT earned etc.
Im not sure how to some of these, but yeah.....
This remake has a lot of potential.
Please do this right...
@KOPPER.1458 said:
Hard to tell right now but it seems this system doesn't bode well for those who aren't in a guild? Am I wrong?
According to the post you will just be randomly assigned to a world for the duration of that matchup season (8 weeks). So, if you really enjoy running with a certain person or guild then you'll want to join their guild or alliance.
I don't really want to join their guilds. I'm a more casual player and this seems to hurt those people. I like to join the guilds I know now from time to time. I am not saying this is a bad idea but it seems like I'll just be thrown into a world where I don't know people and the matchup might be terrible.
If you're a casual player that likes to join from time to time then pretty much nothing is changing for you. It would be the same thing if most of the guilds on your current server transferred off to somewhere else and you were left following totally new and different guilds that had transferred onto the server.
Well that isn't true. I know the commanders and people on my server. Most of whom I probably won't see when this happens. Or at least there is the potential of losing contact with those people. That is a huge loss and change for me personally.
For the record I realize that the 1 person like myself might just have to bear it. Just vocing my concerns that I see so far.
Comments
this is perfect please please please make this happens
We've been Borlis Pass since Beta and planned to be loyal to our server for all time, won't be happy to be shoved onto a new world for sure... Also how about making it easier to earn Favor? How will this affect earning of Favor. What about bringing back the aspect of the old influence system where if guildies party up in PvE and do events etc together they also earn Favor? Awesome that WvW is getting some love but I forsee some pretty major issues if our guild doesn't declare itself as a WvW guild regardless of whether we are or are not WvWcentric?
do you want creat new maps? I left this game long time ago, because there is no reality update for WvW, its really boring.
you just cut some hills, and change skills timer , that all
its too late for thinking about WvW, but its better than nothing,
bad work for wvw Arenanet.
I feel the same way. I feel quite sad and demotivated by the thought of our world’s population being dispersed. I feel our world has quite a good community that I’ve come to know over a long period of time, and one of the things I find the most compelling about WvW is jumping in with familiar commanders on the field that I know and recognize.
I get where this is coming from and that other world have balance and population issues, but this is a sad day for me as a WvW player.
What this concept does is eliminate the pride we feel in our world, which for many of us, is literally the chief motivation to play.
I don't like it. I play WvW on the server I play on because I like the community. I have no interest in being thrust into a toxic environment that I know exists in many other servers. This destroys community.
Will you open the servers up before the introduction of the new system?
@McKenna Berdrow.2759 Instead of WvW it can soon either be called GvG, AvA or PvP. Although I like AvA, it has a nice ring to it. I'm excited, as recently I find myself more likely to SPvP because I get more consistent fights and rewards like gold/ascended gear etc. But my first preference of fighting is just small scale roaming with my guild mates in WvW.
Goodluck, I will say if your going ahead with this it would be best to bring out new maps at the sametime for wow factor to lure back more players eager and keen to retry a fresh Guild Wars 2 WvW like experience.
Also the participation mechanic needs a rework such as a cashout system etc. So large ques don't happen on the release of this new world restructuring creation or the new plan. People hate waiting for afkers to leave a map.
Finally if reward chests are match based or seasonal, not sure how that will wor yet, is it possible to get a monetary reward like the SPvP chests? I ask because for me I can make vastly greater sums of gold from SPvP than WvW currently. It seems odd to me that a WvW player should be forced into SPvP to get gold so they can afford a new suit or gear for WvW faster. All this to feel like they can be competitive. Don't get me wrong though I like SPvP, but others might get salty about that and it could ruin SPvP players fun or ratings in ranked matches.
People who play SPvP should be those wanting to be there, not just for gold, rewards or daily achieve achievements!
Just as those who want to WvW should be those players wanting to participate and do well for their world that they take pride in or feel like they have a sense of belonging to over a long period of time. On that note I will miss Sanctum of Rall, but there isn't many of us left. So this change needs to happen and as soon as possible. Sometimes at the times I play NA nights maps are like ghost towns
Marks are essentially the problem as they are so costly to craft. Harvesting nodes don't provide enough sustained revenue to even buy good food or utilities these days. Perhaps because the wood, cloth, ores etc are so cheap to buy and sell now. Anyways that is enough from me grumbling about the lack of gold or rewards for WvW.
Just a thought... WvW players shouldn't feel like they are the forgotten ones, but your plans already are a step in the right direction.
We are planning to give the community some lead time before this goes live. Organizing yourselves will take time and we want to allow that to happen. Transfers are something we can monitor better with this system and respond to more quickly. Since worlds should be relatively even the amount of transferring to the higher population worlds before they become full will be less. This should prevent guilds and alliances trying to use transferring to stack servers more difficult. We're open to discussion about this though and the "fullness %s" are things be looking at and adjusting if needed until we find a good spot.
this new system will kill diversity within the server. It's gonna be 1 or 2 guilds dominates whole server and the rest tries to get in those guilds to get easy loot. big guilds sell transfer spots for gold. it's like wvw during the game release when everything was fresh, but where are you gonna find those fresh people now? 5.5 years game, sieges too strong, damage strong. new players even can't realise how they died in 1 secs from stealth. even this system has no sign of how to introduce new players to wvw.
this is the kind of bold move WvW needs, I hope this happens sooner rather than later
As someone who has played mainly WvW since starting GW2 a year after launch, I honestly think that this a great and refreshing idea to bring into WvW and the game! I'm very excited to see some of the proposed changes and hope that they will go through. My main server is Crystal Desert and I've seen it go from thriving all day to having peak and non-peak times, which really hurt the server as a whole and made certain times of day almost unplayable. Restructuring how worlds are made/matched and giving us the option to choose/form alliances is a great, interactive, and fun idea. I understand that people have server pride, and there is nothing wrong with that as I love CD, but my first and foremost alliance is to my friends and guild, which I think will greatly benefit from this. Overall, I think these are great changes and am excited to see where this goes!
Been there. Done that.
Well, rip the 1800 gems I spent transferring to Maguuma...I wasn't even there for very long. If I would've knew this change was coming I wouldn't have bothered transferring worlds. =/
No. There will be some cap to the number of guilds in an alliance.
A little risky, but we needed something new and fresh. I'm excited!
I'm sad that we will not get a new Borderlands though. By the moment.
Nice thanks, that's a relief
I'm so happy to see this change coming then!
So here's my two cents on this.
First off I believe that the numbers for alliances should be tuned to accept a large number of guilds, but a low number of players. IE, only two large guilds can be in one alliance because they hit the player cap, but say, 10 small guilds can form an alliance. The intended effect for this is to allow smaller guilds to be able to join these guild alliances without "wasting a guild slot." Also, overall i would say 500-1000 players in an alliance is too high of a number for current populations. While i dont have the concrete data, I would wager that 500-1000 is basically a medium population server's entire active playerbase(gut feeling). In order to produce that granularity you guys mention in the original post, those numbers should be lower.
Here's some counter arguments to the naysayers:
Looking to play casually with a friend but not interested in joining a wvw guild? Make a personal guild with you and your friend and set it as your wvw guild. Now you'll always be able to play with your friend whenever.
Afraid that your community is being torn apart? Create a community guild, guilds have 500 slots for a reason.
In closing, deleting the current servers is in my opinion the only way to set populations back on the right track. They will never fix themselves via linking or discounted transfers. Its like you broke your arm and it was set wrong, yeah it sucks, but you're going to have to get your arm re-broken so that it can be set properly. It'll be painful in the short term, but in the long run we only stand to benefit from it.
I have made some of the GREATEST friendships here in Yaks Bend and I wont get to see them all the time now.... what about talking in Teamspeak and discord??? new people all the time... WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!
Well I guess this is going to be the final nail in the coffin for me. As a working adult, I am unable to keep up with long play hours and so, I predict I will be lumped with others who play very little or simply log into wvw only for the dailies. Even though I do not play long hours, I also do not play wvw solely for the dailies and I am exclusively a wvw player. I guess players with such demographics can consider looking for another game.
Extremely disappointed with this change. Overhaul was needed but not like this.
1) Basically turning into EoTM style maps where playing for your server means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING since worlds are gonna change anyway, which also means no room for community growth.
2) The PuGs (by far the larger population than "guilds") are indirectly shown the way out. No allegiance to any particular server means, unfortunately, no real rewards for actually working towards your community (which won't exist anymore).
It was nice while WvW lasted (just prior to world linking) and good luck to Anet in future.
Thats bad
Its better to do delete T3/T4 and have T1 & T2 only
With random matchup
https://imgur.com/a/8212w https://imgur.com/0r3Axas
Can you just unlock all the servers until this new system goes in then? It would be nice for people on JQ and BG to get friends over.
Sounds good and fresh in so many ways and I'm looking forward to it, my only concerns are with how the community may use alliances to over stack especially if its anything like 500 - 1000 ppl. 200 - 400 would be more then enough.
I also understand why some ppl are upset at losing their community but really a shake up is long over due.
INCREDIBLY HAPPY about this Anet, this will bring WvW back to being alive many guild will come back for this many thumbs up for this!!!!!!!!!
VR Driver
Salty beavers top guild 2 years in a row back to back, the double champs
https://saltybeavers.com/
Rest in peace, Fort Aspenwood.
I will always have fond memories of rolling over people with Shrouded Warband and The Legion of Charrs under your banner.
Getting onto the actual changes that will be in place someday, these are interesting and while I can't say I know how this will actually play out given that none of this is actually set in stone yet: I am skeptical but also interested in seeing how it all goes down in the long run since this might be the jump start that the game mode needs to actually breathe some life back into it.
[TLC] The Legion of Charr § Silver Scout § Fort Aspenwood
I like this idea. The only issue I see with it is people in multiple guilds because they play in different timezones will have a hard time choosing. My guild personally has a few players in an OCX guild,but our guild is mainly EST,although we have quite a few EU players now also. I enjoy running with that OCX guild when they are on,but feel they are more likely to want to ally with other OCX guilds as opposed to a group of EST guilds. At the same time based on the balancing maybe we would end up together regardless. Overall I think it will be good for the health of the game, a much better alternative then world linking. Which has basically just become linking fight guild transfer wars.
So, why would a guild not be set as a "WvW guild" exactly? I don't see any benefits from not being a WvW guild at all. It actually seems disadvantageous for a guild to be set as a non WvW guild. As a guild leader I don't see why I would want my members not have that option to play in the same shard as eachother.
Furthermore, as that will give access to the alliance system, no guild will think twice to hit that checkmark and form that alliance. Regardless of whether thats for WvW or for PvE.
I feel like its going to run in alot of discussions based around "But thats not what this system is/was/will be made for."
I literally just transferred servers yesterday and this gets announced. Can people in my situation get their gem balances credited?
GvG Mode with this update?
doublepost
Would be 500-1000 total for all members of an alliance, not 500-1000 online at a time (can be, sure, but there's still queues). I don't think you can stack much, in numbers at least. Quality, that's a different deal.
Can an alliance be big enough that they are effectively a world?
I would limit Alliance sizes to the maximum size of a Guild (500 players). That way the biggest guild can be contested with an alliance of smaller ones. Limit the alliance based on number of players, not number of guilds.
Sorry not McKenna but:
This is something we've thought about and are defiantly going to investigate.
I'm all for it. I've been so bored of wvw lately i've only been coming to guild raids and omg the server, it's about time things change.
I was honestly never expecting something so big. WHERE WERE YOU!??!?!
Basically create an alliance. That is your new community.
This is an amazing structure and vision. Please implement ASAP!
It is a blow to the stomach as I just helped or fully paid for 30/43 members who transferred servers last month for server to be nullified, but the move helped my guild tremendously, so I can't complain too much! As an ex leader and organizer of TC and a representative of several guild circles, there are already cross server communities and camaraderie that allow each guild and individuals to interact with each other. This will not hinder communities growing no more than servers currently do. This is a smart move to improve the WvW experience, and I cannot wait!
A member spoke up stating this will make members choose between two guilds if they are not allied together. While he is concerned, I believe this can be paralleled to moving servers -- members must choose. I do not think it will become a problem.
How will this work if for example, you have 4 guilds, where everyone is a member of all 4 guilds. These guilds have all been upgraded to allow for various types of claiming in WvW, so for example, 1 can hold 2 camps, 1 tower and 1 keep at the same time. Right now you can do this by swapping guilds. This brings up a couple questions.
1.) Will this sort of activity be possible under the new proposed system?
2.) If these 4 guilds, lets say a total of 200 unique players among them, are all a part of the same alliance, for the sake of alliance size, will the population of each guild be the only thing looked at, or the unique players in each guild, so if an alliance allows for say 500 players and I'm I'm a member of all 4 guilds in the alliance, do I count as 1 player or 4 players, furthermore given that the membership is shared across the guilds, would they even really count as 4 guilds in the alliance?
Now just to make it clear, i think the idea is fantastic, but the proof is in the pudding, or in this case, how good the execution of the idea is done. Do it well and all will be good, do it poorly and it could bury WvW, or should that be AvA
Alliances can be different sizes so there isn't plans to have a caps on alliances currently. Instead the world size cap will control how many alliances can be on a world.
Yes, you would need to be in an alliance with all of those guilds to guarantee all those guilds being on the same world.
There are no plans to change character limits on WvW maps.
McKenna Berdrow
Game Designer
If you want to guarantee you continue to play with your WvW friends, it's very simple. For the people that don't want to be broken up from their WvW friends, make a WvW guild! And you can still be a part of other PvE guilds, and the people from those PvE guilds that want to WvW with you can also join your WvW guild. I don't see how it's going to be impossible to play with the same people you're playing with right now. Yes, you won't be Team Yak's Bend or Team Blackgate. But you can make a guild named Team Yak's Bend and still play together.
Yesssss. We need this!
I transfer to CD like 3 weeks ago, I want my gems back...
You seem to be misunderstood. Most of the OCX guilds have nothing but hatred or rivalry to ally with each other. Not a lot of us left. Why would we ally to decrease our fights.
Don't fear change.
There are many easily foreseeable problems, but with an indefinite time scale and the fact that the WvW team is actually reaching out to us, the players, to gauge our feedback and take it into consideration, this is just what WvW needed.
Also l o l that shade thrown at the CD bandwagon
good lord i am absolute trash at this video game
Only people who mark the guild as their wvw guild will count. Guilds that specialize can still band together in an alliance if they so choose. We started this dialogue early so we could hear feedback and work to improve the design where possible.
This is pretty cool! Looking forward to seeing how this develops over time!
Your wording indicates that this is largely finished and nearly ready to deploy. Also the willingness to discuss it with the community and having such concrete answers to questions.
Will our next re-link at the end of February possibly be our last, or will we get one or two more after that?
Of course it won't be easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is.
Very interesting. Definitely did not expect to see any changes made in this mode at this point...
It's nice to see thought.
Just a few things I wanted to ask/suggest...
My understanding is that...
WORLD = (an alliance[or a few] +guilds[a few smaller ones?] + individuals[those who didn't declare a wvw guild??])
In a world, is it random alliances that are matched together? And random guilds put in? and random individuals?
Also if alliance size is large enough, would it be possible that...
WORLD = (an alliance + individuals) or even just an alliance?
Like, can an alliance be large enough to be its own small world? Then a few small worlds (that are primarily 1 alliance + individuals) can fight each other in a matchup?
How much population is every world expected to have?
For example, when compared what Blackgate has right now? I imagine (and really hope) it would be much lower.
What about inactive players?
A player comes back and wants to join his guild that is already part of an alliance/world. Can he just join them with ease?
What about players who don't declare their 'wvw guild' but go into wvw? Are they assigned to a random world upon first entering the mode?
What about scores? or rankings?
Ideally, alliances or even just guilds within the alliance should have some sort of score or ranking system within them.
Maybe this is a good time to introduce things like PPT/PPK/kills counters for guilds? (or something along those lines, I'm not sure)
Every guild can have its statistics saved up. Like, how many players have been killed by members of a certain guild.
These statistics should be easy access and watch.
Also, these statistics can be used for ranking. Also there should be different rankings, like top kills, top PPT earned etc.
Im not sure how to some of these, but yeah.....
This remake has a lot of potential.
Please do this right...
Seems pretty good so far, long as I don't land in nsp, cd, sbi, or yb
.
I like the idea.
This is essentially breaking down world into smaller identities while giving more freedom to move between them.
Well that isn't true. I know the commanders and people on my server. Most of whom I probably won't see when this happens. Or at least there is the potential of losing contact with those people. That is a huge loss and change for me personally.
For the record I realize that the 1 person like myself might just have to bear it. Just vocing my concerns that I see so far.