World Restructuring - Page 43 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

World Restructuring

1404143454649

Comments

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It would be nice to hear from Anet if this is still on the table or if they gave up on it, yes.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @devious.4605 said:
    To be honest, it wouldn't be the first time Arena net said they would do a major overhaul to WvW only to back peddle.
    If you've been playing WvW since or close to launch you will remember Devon Carver "Major WvW Revamp"
    When it was quietly announced he was no longer with Anet, Devon disclosed on Reddit he hadn't worked on WvW for the prior 8 months.

    You mean this? https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/devon-carver-on-the-future-of-world-vs-world/
    Some of it came through, some of it wasn't exactly spelled out what it was like the roles which could have just been what something the ruins or wvw abilities provided.
    Let's not forget that wvw team has had a few different devs come and go, two of which we know was pulled off the wvw team for other things, and really that's on the uppers for the delays or stuff not happening, speaking of which we haven't heard from McKenna since like feb, although I don't know if she's been on any of the wvw streams since...

    The alliance system was apparently in the works before and wasn't announced, but due to conflicting internal feedback they decided that wasn't the route to go at the time, and moved on to links instead which was a quick and easy fix to the dying wvw population after HoT. This time it was announced, so I fully expect they will work on it till finish, however long that is. It's been like 5 months now and they told us upfront it was expected to take a long time, cut them some slack for a couple more months.

    ^ Another derailing post - Anet
    Perma stealth is needed to outrun zergs - Thieves
    A skill overpowered? just nerf their dodge, balanced. - Anet
    There's no power creep you just don't recognize more people hitting you - Flat Earther

  • HazyDaisy.4107HazyDaisy.4107 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The ND event was supposed to happen at the beginning of May and that was just a week long event. This is a pretty major and a pretty permanent one, 5 months thus far with possibly more months wait isn't a big deal.

  • aspirine.5839aspirine.5839 Member ✭✭✭

    All that alliance talk. They need to fix the kitten blobbing that ruins this gamemode once and for all. All I see is one boring mapblob going from object to object.

  • SlippyCheeze.5483SlippyCheeze.5483 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @aspirine.5839 said:
    All that alliance talk. They need to fix the kitten blobbing that ruins this gamemode once and for all. All I see is one boring mapblob going from object to object.

    It is literally impossible to fix this without imposing some sort of mechanic limitation like "y'all die if you get too close" or something. People will do whatever is most effective, and big groups win easier than small groups.

  • aspirine.5839aspirine.5839 Member ✭✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @aspirine.5839 said:
    All that alliance talk. They need to fix the kitten blobbing that ruins this gamemode once and for all. All I see is one boring mapblob going from object to object.

    It is literally impossible to fix this without imposing some sort of mechanic limitation like "y'all die if you get too close" or something. People will do whatever is most effective, and big groups win easier than small groups.

    Well they could give it a try in a weekend like the no downstate. Simple as creating a debuff if you are more than 20 in 600 range or something, take 25 % more damage. If more than 20 in 300 range take 30% more damage. Something like that. Just a thought and the mumblings of someone really tired of the mapblob....

  • Kovu.7560Kovu.7560 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Social Awkwardness week.
    Make it happen, Anet.

    ~ Kovu

    Ranger, Necromancer, Fort Aspenwood.

  • dailyroom.3024dailyroom.3024 Member
    edited June 23, 2018

    So Anet is going to announce shortly in a blog post that the Alliance update is not gonna happen to mid to late 2019 at the earliest.
    Heard here it first guys.
    kitten not happening folks

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 23, 2018

    Reporting live from a closet at anet studios?

    ^ Another derailing post - Anet
    Perma stealth is needed to outrun zergs - Thieves
    A skill overpowered? just nerf their dodge, balanced. - Anet
    There's no power creep you just don't recognize more people hitting you - Flat Earther

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 24, 2018

    While we're waiting...

    Can we have a "WvW Server Guesting Event"?

    During the Event...Players are allowed to use the Server Guesting mechanic to visit & Fight on other World Servers?

    The game mechanic is already built & working...why not just re-purpose it for a couple of weeks?

    ANet could set a Weekly Limit on Which servers & How many servers that we can Guest Fight on.


    Also, Players wanting to stack for the win is common knowledge.

    Let the max map capacity naturally queue up.

    Popular World Servers will become like restaurants where folks just have to wait to find a seat to dine there.

    Let players decide if they want to "wait" for an open seat at their favorite restaurant...or choose to go somewhere else to dine.


    Please...

    Give players the option to pick their own match-ups using Server Guesting for a couple of weeks.


    Guild Wars 2: How To Use Guesting

    Respectfully,
    Diku

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    Credibility requires critical insight & time.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/89449/wvg-world-vs-globes/p1

  • Substance E.4852Substance E.4852 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 24, 2018

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @aspirine.5839 said:
    All that alliance talk. They need to fix the kitten blobbing that ruins this gamemode once and for all. All I see is one boring mapblob going from object to object.

    It is literally impossible to fix this without imposing some sort of mechanic limitation like "y'all die if you get too close" or something. People will do whatever is most effective, and big groups win easier than small groups.

    They could spend the time and resources to code a system that has a dynamic player limit that's based on the total player pop of your enemies.

    IE, you can't have more than 10 people per map over the lowest server.

    If server A has 20 people on a map, servers B and C can't get in more than 30. Anyone joining over the limit is put in queue like normal.

    Make it adjust automatically as server A gets in more. Obviously kicking wouldn't happen. Just don't try and swap toons etc.

    It's not a perfect system but it would help counter full squads K training on servers that can barely scrape together 12 pugs following a no-coms commander.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Substance E.4852 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @aspirine.5839 said:
    All that alliance talk. They need to fix the kitten blobbing that ruins this gamemode once and for all. All I see is one boring mapblob going from object to object.

    It is literally impossible to fix this without imposing some sort of mechanic limitation like "y'all die if you get too close" or something. People will do whatever is most effective, and big groups win easier than small groups.

    They could spend the time and resources to code a system that has a dynamic player limit that's based on the total player pop of your enemies.

    IE, you can't have more than 10 people per map over the lowest server.

    If server A has 20 people on a map, servers B and C can't get in more than 30. Anyone joining over the limit is put in queue like normal.

    Make it adjust automatically as server A gets in more. Obviously kicking wouldn't happen. Just don't try and swap toons etc.

    It's not a perfect system but it would help counter full squads K training on servers that can barely scrape together 12 pugs following a no-coms commander.

    Its definetly not a perfect system as you set the bar on the lowest activity.

    The problem here become very simple and to make a common example - what if server A only has 5 people because its a Spanish server (1h+ later primetime than the rest) but server B has 80 people wanting to play and server C also have 80 players wanting to get in and they both want to fight each other with a vengance? You're gonna say no sorry only 10 is the max, 70 gets dumped into queue?

    That is a bad method of "balancing". It becomes very bad when you consider how WvW is played in practice. A zerg moving border would become impossible, as would moving a zerg there to respond to the enemy zerg. WvW would grind to a halt as people would get bored being stuck in the same place all the time. Zergs wouldnt start to form, gameplay would fall apart.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'd generally prefer to scale after the middle server.

    • A 80
    • B 40
    • C 10

    Thus set the scaling after server B, and allow n+10, so server A could have 50 players, against B's 40. To a minimum of 20 or so.

    This allows for more even battles all over, while only restricting the largest server so it doesn't over-run both the others.

    As Dawdler pointed out though, it does hurt zerg map hopping.

  • Menzo.2185Menzo.2185 Member ✭✭✭

    I will give some suggestions for when alliance came out...
    (sorry my bad english)

    1- Rebuild all borderlines with new stuffs, such as placing shrines on alpine borderline OR introduce mounts on WvW.
    2- Remove Vistas, POI's and HP's from the WvW maps. Is useless.
    3- Change the functionality or remove the Centaurs, Quaggans, Skritts... sites. It is currently useless.
    4- Limit the amount of siege weapons built inside each location not only by proximity (Keep, Tower and Camp).
    5- Battle of Kyhlo treb changes must be introduced at WvW for trebuchets, Arrow Carts, Mortars and, maybe, Cannons.
    6- Develop a siege tower that cost a lot of supply to be build, be runnable by only one person (like charr car) and can carry up to 20 ppl at the top. But this siege can only be built at respawn, camp, tower or keep that you own And like omega/alpha golems, if destroyed, kill all who are inside. This will bring a lot of emotions to ppl.
    7- WvW glider should have 5 skills. 1: Damage, 2: AOE Damage, 3: AOE Healing, 4: Clear 1 Condition, 5: Evade... similar to Bloodstone Fen.

    8- New Map

    • Alpine Borderline to Green (1st)
    • Desert Bordeline to Red (3rd)
    • New Map to Blue BL (2nd): Maybe Edge of the Mist Borderline. Will this map still be needed in the future with the alliance changes?

    9- Introduce to WvW when Alliance comes out:

    • WvW League Tab (Previous- Current)
    • Guild Skill Rating / Divisions (Bronze - Legendary): Based on the guild contribuition to War Score (Skirmish/Total) and Kill/Death (Skirmish/Total).
      This can be done by one single roamer representing their guild per tik or the whole guild.

    • Leaderboard (All / Top / Rewards): Rewards like a crown above my head "Gods of WvW": This will bring WvW to a new better level.

    • Badges (Bronze - Legendary): To show off how good your guild was in the last season

    • Please!!!!!! Don't launch the Alliance Changes only when a new expansion comes out.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Alliance mode is about redistributing the population, not remaking wvw.

    1. Shrines should stay in desert. Mounts will probably come at the end of this expansion.
    2. No point putting work into removing Vista's, POI's, HP's from the maps, it's there, go see them, or not.
    3. Again why waste development time on removing stuff on maps unless it's to turn into a useful revamp like adding another tower up there or something.
    4. Already discussed at length in the siege thread.
    5. Most have already said no to the spvp treb changes for wvw as it changes things unique to wvw, the kyhlo map is small and the change suits it there.
    6. How big are these towers? Is pangloss going to have to build a bigger ceiling? What's really the point if you're next to a structure already? I do think they could maybe add player built barricades like they had on desert, but I imagine a lot of things could go wrong with this. Side note you don't get killed in golems if you have the mastery.
    7. Barely use gliders other than get from point a to point b, why do we need all these extra skills for it?
    8. New map takes a lot of time, there's no current plans for one, certainly not while they're building alliance mode.
    9. Additions that can come after alliance mode. Once populations are more evened out I'm sure they could more seriously look at more competitive things to add to wvw.

    ^ Another derailing post - Anet
    Perma stealth is needed to outrun zergs - Thieves
    A skill overpowered? just nerf their dodge, balanced. - Anet
    There's no power creep you just don't recognize more people hitting you - Flat Earther

  • ZNICK.8537ZNICK.8537 Member ✭✭

    @hunkamania.7561 said:
    2020. they prob got 1 dev working on it.

    In fact, this is accurate from what I've been told...
    Z

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ZNICK.8537 said:

    @hunkamania.7561 said:
    2020. they prob got 1 dev working on it.

    In fact, this is accurate from what I've been told...
    Z

    Reporting live from the drone in the broom closet at anet studios.

    ^ Another derailing post - Anet
    Perma stealth is needed to outrun zergs - Thieves
    A skill overpowered? just nerf their dodge, balanced. - Anet
    There's no power creep you just don't recognize more people hitting you - Flat Earther

  • @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Reporting live from a closet at anet studios?

    Well, when you put your ear to the ground you hear stuff.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/8tklt8/new_infos_about_the_wvw_alliance_system_are/
    BTW

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    So you have your ear on the ground in the closet? XD

    It would be a mistake for them to release information "soon" if the system isn't going to be ready for another year. I originally predicted 6-12 months for them to work on this, if it's going to take the same time it takes to develop a regular expansion, they really announced it way too early, and really do only have 1 dev on it, lol.

    ^ Another derailing post - Anet
    Perma stealth is needed to outrun zergs - Thieves
    A skill overpowered? just nerf their dodge, balanced. - Anet
    There's no power creep you just don't recognize more people hitting you - Flat Earther

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 25, 2018

    @dailyroom.3024 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Reporting live from a closet at anet studios?

    Well, when you put your ear to the ground you hear stuff.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/8tklt8/new_infos_about_the_wvw_alliance_system_are/
    BTW

    There was a discord post from ray himself a month ago too, iirc, so I believe that was talking about a month old comment.

    Founder & Retired Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi
    https://discord.gg/P5dj7fd

  • fewfield.7802fewfield.7802 Member ✭✭✭

    @Menzo.2185 said:
    I will give some suggestions for when alliance came out...
    (sorry my bad english)

    1- Rebuild all borderlines with new stuffs, such as placing shrines on alpine borderline OR introduce mounts on WvW.

    5- Battle of Kyhlo treb changes must be introduced at WvW for trebuchets, Arrow Carts, Mortars and, maybe, Cannons.
    6- Develop a siege tower that cost a lot of supply to be build, be runnable by only one person (like charr car) and can carry up to 20 ppl at the top. But this siege can only be built at respawn, camp, tower or keep that you own And like omega/alpha golems, if destroyed, kill all who are inside. This will bring a lot of emotions to ppl.
    7- WvW glider should have 5 skills. 1: Damage, 2: AOE Damage, 3: AOE Healing, 4: Clear 1 Condition, 5: Evade... similar to Bloodstone Fen.

    8- New Map

    • Alpine Borderline to Green (1st)
    • Desert Bordeline to Red (3rd)
    • New Map to Blue BL (2nd): Maybe Edge of the Mist Borderline. Will this map still be needed in the future with the alliance changes?

    Do you really think that most of main wvw player play wvw because of these fancy machanics ?
    You can see a result as the population in the red border. No one wants to go there.

    The fun part of wvw is massive scale pvp. I can play wvw for 5-6 hrs if i have some decent fights like Blob vs Blob. But i cant even play more than 20 mins against sieges and players hugging tower/keep.

  • Redponey.8352Redponey.8352 Member ✭✭✭

    I dont really think those changes will make great again WvW as it was previously.

    Actually there is no MMO that provide such dynamic gameplay and combat system with a massive amount of people with a minimum of latency.
    Why regular WvW player leave the gamemode? because it has became poor in gameplay/build, less variability in build.
    I dont mean that other alternative build are not viable. i mean that one or maybe two build outperform totally all other alternative. This push people to play this "meta build" instead of try several alternative.

    I have talk with many of friends that have already left the game because of this...

    The Major point of this gamemode is F U N but actually with this non possibility to play with my friend several alternative without totally outperfom by others .

    We went in a vicious cycle, that regular player doesnt want to get involve to help new player in WvW and left the game, and then started the decrease of population in WvW.

    One major point that will bring a lot of people back in WvW , is to make a great and huge balance that allow us to play different way (not in number of people) but in Build composition. this change wont bring new content but will use all the content already developed.

    For example, i loved play core guardian build in WvW but without firebrand specialization in WvW , you're completly behind in DPS/ Support (heal buff) and even in selfsustain.
    Same issue with necro, most of all necro , you will check in WvW are scourge (except people who doesnt own PoF) and are in celestial or condi/tank. is it a healthly gamemode? no, we need VARIABILITY in MetaBuild . Just look at the past, GW1 was the greatest PvP game ever made because it has completly separate skill (pve/PvP)
    it have a lot of skills and possibility to counterplay an other build (it means variability).

    I think just using the recipe that made GW1 great may help to recover the issue of population in WvW.

  • Substance E.4852Substance E.4852 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 26, 2018

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Substance E.4852 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @aspirine.5839 said:
    All that alliance talk. They need to fix the kitten blobbing that ruins this gamemode once and for all. All I see is one boring mapblob going from object to object.

    It is literally impossible to fix this without imposing some sort of mechanic limitation like "y'all die if you get too close" or something. People will do whatever is most effective, and big groups win easier than small groups.

    They could spend the time and resources to code a system that has a dynamic player limit that's based on the total player pop of your enemies.

    IE, you can't have more than 10 people per map over the lowest server.

    If server A has 20 people on a map, servers B and C can't get in more than 30. Anyone joining over the limit is put in queue like normal.

    Make it adjust automatically as server A gets in more. Obviously kicking wouldn't happen. Just don't try and swap toons etc.

    It's not a perfect system but it would help counter full squads K training on servers that can barely scrape together 12 pugs following a no-coms commander.

    Its definetly not a perfect system as you set the bar on the lowest activity.

    The problem here become very simple and to make a common example - what if server A only has 5 people because its a Spanish server (1h+ later primetime than the rest) but server B has 80 people wanting to play and server C also have 80 players wanting to get in and they both want to fight each other with a vengance? You're gonna say no sorry only 10 is the max, 70 gets dumped into queue?

    That is a bad method of "balancing". It becomes very bad when you consider how WvW is played in practice. A zerg moving border would become impossible, as would moving a zerg there to respond to the enemy zerg. WvW would grind to a halt as people would get bored being stuck in the same place all the time. Zergs wouldnt start to form, gameplay would fall apart.

    I really don't care about EU problems. Expecting a match making system to work across half a dozen languages and timezones was a mistake from the start.

    NA tier 1 is already enough of a cluster kitten because of JQ's massive EU pop playing on an NA server.

  • Imo capping Tower/keep should award points according to how many Enemy players are on map. Make it have some timegate how long player counts as a point. Also you would get something like half of the third teams numbers towards the capped objective.
    Hide how points are given or calculated. I think it would be better if you get to know your worlds score after the week.
    Reward players/commanders/guilds with something like MVP title with small benefits for next week. Just something small to show off and make servers/alliances/Guild compete each other. Title for most kills, cool Guild banner for most objectives defended, statue in middle of SM to one with most solokills. Keep The reward rotating, every week.

  • ZNICK.8537ZNICK.8537 Member ✭✭

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    @ZNICK.8537 said:

    @hunkamania.7561 said:
    2020. they prob got 1 dev working on it.

    In fact, this is accurate from what I've been told...
    Z

    Reporting live from the drone in the broom closet at anet studios.

    My GL knows a dev and gets pretty accurate info from him, that's where it came from.

    Z

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 27, 2018

    @ZNICK.8537 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    @ZNICK.8537 said:

    @hunkamania.7561 said:
    2020. they prob got 1 dev working on it.

    In fact, this is accurate from what I've been told...
    Z

    Reporting live from the drone in the broom closet at anet studios.

    My GL knows a dev and gets pretty accurate info from him, that's where it came from.

    Z

    Reported live from Znicks's phone in the backyard relayed from icq message from their guild leader out camping in the sleepy woods via satellite skype with the drone in the broom closet with the secret dev hidden in the classified living story lab in the second basement of anet studios.

    ^ Another derailing post - Anet
    Perma stealth is needed to outrun zergs - Thieves
    A skill overpowered? just nerf their dodge, balanced. - Anet
    There's no power creep you just don't recognize more people hitting you - Flat Earther

  • Menzo.2185Menzo.2185 Member ✭✭✭

    @fewfield.7802 said:
    Do you really think that most of main wvw player play wvw because of these fancy machanics ?

    I don't think, I know.

    You can see a result as the population in the red border. No one wants to go there.

    Who is "no one"???? Your empty server perhaps.

    The fun part of wvw is massive scale pvp. I can play wvw for 5-6 hrs if i have some decent fights like Blob vs Blob. But i cant even play more than 20 mins against sieges and players hugging tower/keep.

    Youo ARE not the majority of the WvW players. Speak for yourself.

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @hunkamania.7561 said:
    2020. they prob got 1 dev working on it.

    Nah, Ben says he's got a fren. It's always "we"
    But I suppose it might be an imaginary one because he's allllll alone down in the Anet basement and it's scary down there.

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @LetoII.3782 said:

    @hunkamania.7561 said:
    2020. they prob got 1 dev working on it.

    Nah, Ben says he's got a fren. It's always "we"
    But I suppose it might be an imaginary one because he's allllll alone down in the Anet basement and it's scary down there.

    AND according to Xe(errrr) the spy he is there in a closet. So.... not sure how many people can fit in there...

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • We should have an interesting post on Monday. 3 phases and still 16 - 24 months away :(
    How many WvW peeps will still be around in 16 months?

  • aspirine.5839aspirine.5839 Member ✭✭✭

    @Menzo.2185 said:

    @fewfield.7802 said:
    Do you really think that most of main wvw player play wvw because of these fancy machanics ?

    I don't think, I know.

    You can see a result as the population in the red border. No one wants to go there.

    Who is "no one"???? Your empty server perhaps.

    The fun part of wvw is massive scale pvp. I can play wvw for 5-6 hrs if i have some decent fights like Blob vs Blob. But i cant even play more than 20 mins against sieges and players hugging tower/keep.

    Youo ARE not the majority of the WvW players. Speak for yourself.

    Not sure about the NA servers, but on EU these ideas will not land very well., They play wvw for a reason and would like to have as little pve in there as possible.

  • Menzo.2185Menzo.2185 Member ✭✭✭

    Not sure about the NA servers, but on EU these ideas will not land very well., They play wvw for a reason and would like to have as little pve in there as possible.

    I just want to see new and good content, as PvE, on WvW.

  • Redponey.8352Redponey.8352 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 1, 2018

    All we just need is a fun and competitive massive gamemode that allows hardcore player and casual gamers to play with fun.
    The major issue is the lack of fun and objectives in WvW... Regular players are leaving because of this.

    2 Big points that need change are :

    ** Few specialization possibilities**
    1)
    Specializations archetype is not that well suited for WvW because it forces you to take some specialization over others because of one or two traits. Old specialization system was more complexe but it allowed more flexible build and gave more possibility => More fun :D, Maybe a major rework would revitalize this gamemode and bring back old regular players in this gamemode.

    Lack of interest in Regular WvW population
    2) Anet should more focused on regular WvW players and associated communities. They are the WvW heart, they have made and carry on this gamemode for years. This is through these communities and players that casual gamers and beginners in WvW get charmed by this gamemode. Theses regulars players have taught and helped many beginners and casual gamers.
    They can give good and fun moment to new player and show them that Massive Pvp isnt only for hardcore players.

    I have led many Pick up player (PUG) over 3 years and that was a great experience and i loved that because of fun moment and fights with them.
    Now all of these have nearly disappear because now with re-linking, server's heart (server communities) have been eroded to dust and people that join WvW doesnt care about playing with each others and get focused only on loot ...

    MAKE WvW GREAT AGAIN

    We need major change and not waiting for a year to have change....

  • atheria.2837atheria.2837 Member ✭✭✭

    Wait, what?

    Elitism and biases built in to 'inviting' into an alliance from the get go? Yikes, and I mean yikes.

    WvW was supposed to bring people together for (hobby - wise) for a good cause.

    Anti-Woman biases will be insanely fed by 'inviting' only in many time zones where VPNs rule and the player whose country they chose to play in, isn't being honored
    by many - and most of those are very anti-female and even more anti-communication.

    One point I'm starting to appreciate at this point, is that Alliances, unlike Servers, gives players the chance to accept or deny players. Being a resident of Kaineng, I've seen our server been bandwagoned a few times, our entire community/culture trampled under bandwagoners that only cares about using us to be the next big thing and then dump it, letting us deal with the leftovers. And knowing that there isn't a single thing we can do about it, because lets face it, no player can stop another player from joining a server. In this regard I'm looking forward to the Alliances, because at least we have something we can build a community around...

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @atheria.2837 said:
    Wait, what?

    Elitism and biases built in to 'inviting' into an alliance from the get go? Yikes, and I mean yikes.

    WvW was supposed to bring people together for (hobby - wise) for a good cause.

    Anti-Woman biases will be insanely fed by 'inviting' only in many time zones where VPNs rule and the player whose country they chose to play in, isn't being honored
    by many - and most of those are very anti-female and even more anti-communication.

    One point I'm starting to appreciate at this point, is that Alliances, unlike Servers, gives players the chance to accept or deny players. Being a resident of Kaineng, I've seen our server been bandwagoned a few times, our entire community/culture trampled under bandwagoners that only cares about using us to be the next big thing and then dump it, letting us deal with the leftovers. And knowing that there isn't a single thing we can do about it, because lets face it, no player can stop another player from joining a server. In this regard I'm looking forward to the Alliances, because at least we have something we can build a community around...

    Curious why is this an elitist thing ? In the example I gave, a casual server was actually more or less "invaded" by elitists, trying to make a server into a hardcore server, and brush the existing fairly casual community (by comparison) under the rug ?

    The idea here is that it can go in every direction. I mean you could just as well have a "casual" alliance that refuses any "hardcore" or "elite" players, is that any more or less biased/elitist than the other way around?


    And what does any of this has to do with "anti-woman bias" ? I mean, what the heck is that even?

  • It sounds like a reasonable way to address balance issues in populations and play times, but I can't help but feel people will lose the sense of "patriotism" they might have towards their "home server", if it becomes a transient thing. Even if you're with your guild and alliance, drifting from world to world loses the sense that you're fighting alongside others for a "homeland", and pushes you into only caring about your guild/alliance.

    Still, it's a tough puzzle to solve. It's not really fair to pit high population worlds against low population ones, or ones that can only field a solid fighting force during part of the day. I remember much worse back in the days of Shadowbane (!), when big guilds would find out when your keep was most lightly defended and schedule their attacks for that time, and there wasn't much you could do about it. Not fun to log in and discover you got wiped out while everyone was sleeping.

    Perhaps factoring in how often someone plays WvW would help. By that, I mean when the algorithm to shuffle players (and guilds, and alliances) around to new "world" groupings runs, people who play WvW more consistently might be more likely to "stick" to the world they're already in, whereas the more casual players with a weaker connection to it would be more likely to shift around to balance population.

  • Heibi.4251Heibi.4251 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 6, 2018

    On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

    I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

    Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

    Henge of Denravi Commander
    CA/CH/HOD/AIR

  • aspirine.5839aspirine.5839 Member ✭✭✭

    @joneirikb.7506 said:

    @atheria.2837 said:
    Wait, what?

    Elitism and biases built in to 'inviting' into an alliance from the get go? Yikes, and I mean yikes.

    WvW was supposed to bring people together for (hobby - wise) for a good cause.

    Anti-Woman biases will be insanely fed by 'inviting' only in many time zones where VPNs rule and the player whose country they chose to play in, isn't being honored
    by many - and most of those are very anti-female and even more anti-communication.

    One point I'm starting to appreciate at this point, is that Alliances, unlike Servers, gives players the chance to accept or deny players. Being a resident of Kaineng, I've seen our server been bandwagoned a few times, our entire community/culture trampled under bandwagoners that only cares about using us to be the next big thing and then dump it, letting us deal with the leftovers. And knowing that there isn't a single thing we can do about it, because lets face it, no player can stop another player from joining a server. In this regard I'm looking forward to the Alliances, because at least we have something we can build a community around...

    Curious why is this an elitist thing ? In the example I gave, a casual server was actually more or less "invaded" by elitists, trying to make a server into a hardcore server, and brush the existing fairly casual community (by comparison) under the rug ?

    The idea here is that it can go in every direction. I mean you could just as well have a "casual" alliance that refuses any "hardcore" or "elite" players, is that any more or less biased/elitist than the other way around?


    And what does any of this has to do with "anti-woman bias" ? I mean, what the heck is that even?

    Didnt you get the memo? Everything is anti-woman now.
    Sorry for mansplaining while manspreading. :/

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Heibi.4251 said:
    On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

    I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

    Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

    It will prevent individual alliances from being able to effectively dominate multiple time zones.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Blaeys.3102Blaeys.3102 Member ✭✭✭

    It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

    This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 6, 2018

    @Heibi.4251 said:
    On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

    I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

    Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

    How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?

    500 people is a ton of people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 6, 2018

    I'd like for 1 person to name 1 guild that has 500 active members for wvw.
    Wait, ok let's try 400.
    Maybe 300?
    Ok ok 200?
    For sure there's gotta be some with at least 100 right?
    500 people even for a community guild is quite a lot to carry into a world.
    Anyone prepare a community guild yet and reach that high? anyone?

    Let's get a list before we start inflating max cap numbers for imaginary maxed out guilds. I say active because you can certainly can get 500 members with a ton of them haven't played in years, but they don't count if they're not on to list their wvw guild.

    ^ Another derailing post - Anet
    Perma stealth is needed to outrun zergs - Thieves
    A skill overpowered? just nerf their dodge, balanced. - Anet
    There's no power creep you just don't recognize more people hitting you - Flat Earther

  • shiri.4257shiri.4257 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Heibi.4251 said:
    On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

    I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

    Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

    Make WvW guild limit 100. and the max guild pve/pvx stay at 500. Only 100 people can designate your guild as wvw. done, now 2 of them together make an alliance.

    Spectre [VII] - Wood League Champion. Making "fight guilds" stack on higher tiers since 2013.
    Michelin rated WvW guild since 2015. The gold standard. Never transferred, never reformed, adapting and reloading with or without Anet.

  • BlueMelody.6398BlueMelody.6398 Member ✭✭✭

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

    This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

    nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

  • Blaeys.3102Blaeys.3102 Member ✭✭✭

    @BlueMelody.6398 said:

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

    This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

    nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

    It is definitely not nonsense. The people I play with on the 1-2 days I do go into WvW play with a lot of other hardcore WvW players - and among their existing guilds, they definitely number at least 500 players (not all play at once or are even very active, but they will not want to be left out). Me - and the 20 or so other members of my guild that only go into WvW a few days a week - would have to take the place of some of those hardcore players in order to be in their alliance. And their alliance would be the only one we are interested in. We have been playing with some of those people - in our casual way - for YEARS now. And I know that isn't a unique case. It is the obvious (to players if not to devs) problem we are going to run into if this system goes live. Alliances and WVW guilds will have to make some very tough decisions among their groups of friends.

    Call it nonsense all you want. You obviously aren't in a situation where this will be a factor, and for that, I am glad - but others will be.

    Anet needs to do better than this.

  • BlueMelody.6398BlueMelody.6398 Member ✭✭✭

    @Blaeys.3102 said:

    @BlueMelody.6398 said:

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

    This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

    nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

    It is definitely not nonsense. The people I play with on the 1-2 days I do go into WvW play with a lot of other hardcore WvW players - and among their existing guilds, they definitely number at least 500 players (not all play at once or are even very active, but they will not want to be left out). Me - and the 20 or so other members of my guild that only go into WvW a few days a week - would have to take the place of some of those hardcore players in order to be in their alliance. And their alliance would be the only one we are interested in. We have been playing with some of those people - in our casual way - for YEARS now. And I know that isn't a unique case. It is the obvious (to players if not to devs) problem we are going to run into if this system goes live. Alliances and WVW guilds will have to make some very tough decisions among their groups of friends.

    Call it nonsense all you want. You obviously aren't in a situation where this will be a factor, and for that, I am glad - but others will be.

    Anet needs to do better than this.

    If you're going to restrict yourself to getting into a particular hard-core guild as a casual player, then you are creating your own problem. You're asking anet to stop doing something that will improve the game for many people for the sake of a minority who refuse to look for other casual players to ally with. There will be plenty of non-elitist, non-hardcore alliances out there for you. Stamping your feet and insisting that you must play with only these particular players is a very narrow viewpoint.

    You were new to the game once, you didn't know any of those people. You met them and became friends with them. Don't lock yourself into thinking you can only play with people you've met in the past few years. Meeting new people is how you picked up those existing friendships in the first place.

  • Blaeys.3102Blaeys.3102 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 7, 2018

    @BlueMelody.6398 said:

    @Blaeys.3102 said:

    @BlueMelody.6398 said:

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

    This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

    nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

    It is definitely not nonsense. The people I play with on the 1-2 days I do go into WvW play with a lot of other hardcore WvW players - and among their existing guilds, they definitely number at least 500 players (not all play at once or are even very active, but they will not want to be left out). Me - and the 20 or so other members of my guild that only go into WvW a few days a week - would have to take the place of some of those hardcore players in order to be in their alliance. And their alliance would be the only one we are interested in. We have been playing with some of those people - in our casual way - for YEARS now. And I know that isn't a unique case. It is the obvious (to players if not to devs) problem we are going to run into if this system goes live. Alliances and WVW guilds will have to make some very tough decisions among their groups of friends.

    Call it nonsense all you want. You obviously aren't in a situation where this will be a factor, and for that, I am glad - but others will be.

    Anet needs to do better than this.

    If you're going to restrict yourself to getting into a particular hard-core guild as a casual player, then you are creating your own problem. You're asking anet to stop doing something that will improve the game for many people for the sake of a minority who refuse to look for other casual players to ally with. There will be plenty of non-elitist, non-hardcore alliances out there for you. Stamping your feet and insisting that you must play with only these particular players is a very narrow viewpoint.

    You were new to the game once, you didn't know any of those people. You met them and became friends with them. Don't lock yourself into thinking you can only play with people you've met in the past few years. Meeting new people is how you picked up those existing friendships in the first place.

    You obviously don't want to understand the situation. It has nothing to do with finding a particular kind of group - it is about wanting to keep a group of friends together a couple of nights a week in this game mode - friends that I know by name today - without forcing them to choose between their hardcore wvw relationships and with people like me and my guild. Those people Ive met in the past few years actually mean something to me. I hate that this system will force them to make these kinds of decisions. It is just unacceptable in any form.

    Again, I respect that you have a different opinion about how the game works, but, for me, those friendships aren't something I want to replace. The idea that they will have to give up playing with their hardcore WvW friends to include my guild is unacceptable. The idea that if we might not be a part of their alliance because of the ridiculously low cap, which means there is a chance we might have to fight against them in WvW, is also unacceptable.

    For people like that (and I know there are plenty of them out there), that only leaves one option - WvW wont be a part of the game for us anymore. And that should be unacceptable to ArenaNet. It seems like they are looking for any way they can to push casual players out of large portions of the game.

    ArenaNet has to do better than this.

  • Heibi.4251Heibi.4251 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Heibi.4251 said:
    On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

    I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

    Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

    How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?

    500 people is a ton of people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.

    Let's say we wish to have 10 guilds for an alliance. We give each guild 50 slots for players to fill and hopefully give them room to recruit or add members who return at a later date. We hit our cap immediately. If one guild thinks they don't need 50 slots and gives some back, but then suddenly discovers that they need them back it is now too late since the other guilds may have used up the slots. There won't be 500 players all on at once, and not every day/night either. Of those 500 players their times will be spread out over the week.

    By limiting that number to such a low number friends who show up in the a guild who have not yet been added to the slots allowed are now left out. This will split not only servers up, but guilds as well. This is a game killer overall. The server allowed all members of a guild to most likely be on the same server and be on the same side if they went to WvW. With the system being considered this will no longer be the case. Guilds will be separated by this alliance system.

    ANeT you really need to do some more thinking on this. I'd like to see this alliance system implemented with as little pain to actual guilds as possible.

    Henge of Denravi Commander
    CA/CH/HOD/AIR

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 7, 2018

    @Heibi.4251 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Heibi.4251 said:
    On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

    I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

    Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

    How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?

    500 people is a ton of people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.

    Let's say we wish to have 10 guilds for an alliance. We give each guild 50 slots for players to fill and hopefully give them room to recruit or add members who return at a later date. We hit our cap immediately. If one guild thinks they don't need 50 slots and gives some back, but then suddenly discovers that they need them back it is now too late since the other guilds may have used up the slots. There won't be 500 players all on at once, and not every day/night either. Of those 500 players their times will be spread out over the week.

    By limiting that number to such a low number friends who show up in the a guild who have not yet been added to the slots allowed are now left out. This will split not only servers up, but guilds as well. This is a game killer overall. The server allowed all members of a guild to most likely be on the same server and be on the same side if they went to WvW. With the system being considered this will no longer be the case. Guilds will be separated by this alliance system.

    ANeT you really need to do some more thinking on this. I'd like to see this alliance system implemented with as little pain to actual guilds as possible.

    Which again begs the question... how many 50 man WvW guilds that want to be together do you know? Really?

    I can barely name 5 "larger" guilds (ie those that can field 15+ active people in a raid) on my entire server and I can guarantee you most of them wouldnt work together in an alliance. That's also linked servers, so we're looking at 2 servers...

    IMO you're giving a scenario that doesnt exist in practice and one that the alliances actively work to prevent - too much stacking. It's the same thing players have complained about for years and want to reduce, especially raiding guilds so they can "fight" (or at least that's what they say). I could also easily say well if 50 guilds with 100 players each want to play together, they cant under alliances, that's bad and limiting! But the very point of alliances is to make smaller chunks of players. Instead of one massive 2500+ man chunk like the current servers, Anet wants five 500 man chunks. The cap is there for a reason.

    Also in your specific scenario and if we're assuming active players and raiding guilds, even at a "limiting" 10 guilds with 50 people in each you just created an alliance that would DOMINATE any current T1 matchup on its own. That's how many people 500 really are.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Marcel.1857Marcel.1857 Member ✭✭

    I wish the system they mentioned in this post will come soon, can´t wait for it. Although i know it would mean a hell of work to change the complete structure but i still hope for it to get running till end of the year.