World Restructuring - Page 44 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

World Restructuring

1414244464754

Comments

  • Marcel.1857Marcel.1857 Member ✭✭
    edited July 7, 2018

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @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.

    I thing the main problem would be for e.g.. in our guild we have 84 Players and there are only 15 active atm. so should i choose the 15 active one and if the inactive get´s back tell them maybe we can play together in 2 months? So basically it´s rly something twisted up.
    I would rather see the cap of 1000 Ppl since it´s less then the actual worlds and would mean enough space for the inactive too. And to keep it more balanced just work with the map cap instead.

    E.g. you have 1k players but only 200 can join the wvw since of the map caps ( 50 ea map for e.g.). So there would be 2 positive affects first the map of the enemy could be filled the same way since 50 ppl is way lower then the actual one and also helps to reduce the lags occurring if 3 server smash each other e.g. in stone mist.

    I know that would mean they can´t play all on the same map but since an alliance would consist of more guilds they can talk to each other and picking an map if they want.

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    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.

    I think you refers here to an alliance with the top guilds in it, if so i can tell you in the past happened the same the top guild stuck on an server all together and had problems to find others to fight, therefore some had to leave the server and pay a lot of gold/gems for it, now they would have the opportunity to change server after two weeks by joining another alliance and that´s for free. So i think if thy would be inserted in gvg they wont stuck up like the ppl fears of.
    At least that´s what i expired in my wvw Guild, and i believe it wont be different if you are playing in an wvw guild that is a progressive one.

    And even if you don´t refer to top players, ppl trends to play together with the ones speaking the same language so there wont be 500 ppl online 24/7.
    My experience is it´s 7pm to 10pm maybe 11pm the most playing and some in the morning before working (at least on my server the ppl are so)

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

    @Marcel.1857 said:
    E.g. you have 1k players but only 200 can join the wvw since of the map caps ( 50 ea map for e.g.). So there would be 2 positive affects first the map of the enemy could be filled the same way since 50 ppl is way lower then the actual one and also helps to reduce the lags occurring if 3 server smash each other e.g. in stone mist.

    That makes absolutely no sense. Whether you have two 500 man alliances or one 1000 man alliances, you still dumped the same amount of people into WvW. What you suggest only reduce the caps, letting less players play - which goes against the point you're trying to make, to get more people to play together.

    Will alliances make guilds to clean the rooster? Maybe. Is that so bad? If you have 15 active players in your 84 man guilds maybe it's about time. Lots of guilds have inactive players, that's fine. But it's not like you need someone that hasnt logged on for like 2 years. I'm sure you can loose some of those 69 players. Send them a mail, thank them for their time, encourage them to look you up if they ever start playing the game again cause you can always reinvite them.

    Or you could bypass the inactive "fat" completely simply by making a specific alliance guild. In theory, if it works like we suspect and if WvW rep is seperate from guild rep it should be incredibly simple.

    Create a new guild, invite the 15 active players. Set that guild as your WvW guild and/or join an alliance with that guild. Never rep it, only rep the old guild. Boom done deal. You now have an alliance guild that only take 15/500 slots.

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • Heibi.4251Heibi.4251 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 8, 2018

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @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.

    You keep forgetting the time zones. There's NA(Pacific to Eastern), EU time zone and SEA. Not all of them play during the same time. An alliance will be built across time zones not as a bulk of players. I gave the example of 50 players per guild as a sample of what might happen to actual guilds once the system is implemented in such a fashion as 500 max per alliance. My concern is that players will most surely be left out because of the low limit of players in an alliance system. Currently we can have way more than 500 spread across multiple time zones. Certain servers are stacked to cover all times(i.e. Black Gate), but others aren't. Those stacked servers have way more than two 500 guild-worth of guilds in them. Which is why they remain in the top tiers. Limiting them to two guild populations of 500 each in an alliance(1000 total) will actually limit the coverage to some degree. There's definitely more than 1000 players on the top tier servers who cover WvW time zones. I'm just trying to salvage some of the Server Comrade-re that already exists. ANeT seems to be overlooking that issue.

    Henge of Denravi Commander
    CA/CH/HOD/AIR

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

    @Heibi.4251 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @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.

    You keep forgetting the time zones. There's NA(Pacific to Eastern), EU time zone and SEA. Not all of them play during the same time. An alliance will be built across time zones not as a bulk of players. I gave the example of 50 players per guild as a sample of what might happen to actual guilds once the system is implemented in such a fashion as 500 max per alliance. My concern is that players will most surely be left out because of the low limit of players in an alliance system. Currently we can have way more than 500 spread across multiple time zones. Certain servers are stacked to cover all times(i.e. Black Gate), but others aren't. Those stacked servers have way more than two 500 guild-worth of guilds in them. Which is why they remain in the top tiers. Limiting them to two guild populations of 500 each in an alliance(1000 total) will actually limit the coverage to some degree. There's definitely more than 1000 players on the top tier servers who cover WvW time zones. I'm just trying to salvage some of the Server Comrade-re that already exists. ANeT seems to be overlooking that issue.

    And that is a perfect summary of the point of the alliance system. One alliance shouldn't be able to control a matchup. Alliances will need to work with other (likely one other) alliance and the non allied guilds and individuals to be successful.

    Non of the communities that are left are made up of what they started with. People will meet new players, work with or die beside other new players.

    Just like they had to do when they moved servers, or linked with servers, or welcomed new guilds and players onto their world.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 8, 2018

    The risk is timezone stacking alliance. I won't be surprise if some people decided to make a alliance solely consist of a single timezone. If is prime time, not a big deal since prime time is huge. But if is off hours, it will be extremely destructive since off hours is well, pretty small. 500 is more than enough for off hours to timezone stack and destroy the balance completely. When that kind of alliance do form, it makes you wonder whats the point of blowing up anyway.

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

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

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    The risk is timezone stacking alliance. I won't be surprise if some people decided to make a alliance solely consist of a single timezone. If is prime time, not a big deal since prime time is huge. But if is off hours, it will be extremely destructive since off hours is well, pretty small. 500 is more than enough for off hours to timezone stack and destroy the balance completely. When that kind of alliance do form, it makes you wonder whats the point of blowing up anyway.

    This^^

    Is why there should not be rewards for 'winning'. Any alliance that fields a large number of SEA or OCX guilds will merge into any other alliance with world forming and likely control any matchup.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 8, 2018

    @Heibi.4251 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @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.

    You keep forgetting the time zones. There's NA(Pacific to Eastern), EU time zone and SEA. Not all of them play during the same time. An alliance will be built across time zones not as a bulk of players. I gave the example of 50 players per guild as a sample of what might happen to actual guilds once the system is implemented in such a fashion as 500 max per alliance. My concern is that players will most surely be left out because of the low limit of players in an alliance system. Currently we can have way more than 500 spread across multiple time zones. Certain servers are stacked to cover all times(i.e. Black Gate), but others aren't. Those stacked servers have way more than two 500 guild-worth of guilds in them. Which is why they remain in the top tiers. Limiting them to two guild populations of 500 each in an alliance(1000 total) will actually limit the coverage to some degree. There's definitely more than 1000 players on the top tier servers who cover WvW time zones. I'm just trying to salvage some of the Server Comrade-re that already exists. ANeT seems to be overlooking that issue.

    No I dont. I give no regards to timezones, because a world is not an alliance. What you do is you keep forgetting that an alliance is not the entire world. A world is 2500+ players, or 5+ alliances/max capped guilds worth. There is plenty of room to spread out players playing at different times, just like how the servers work today.

    Again, the very point of limiting the alliance size is to not have a sizeable group of players that can cover everything, in order to better match total population averages of each world.

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • fewfield.7802fewfield.7802 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.

    You are not the majority as well.

  • @Redponey.8352 said:
    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.

    GW1 was great since you could have secondary classes of anything, but it was a huge balance nightmare for Arenanet. I actually run a regular guardian in WVW and do great, but it's more for roaming.

  • Nate.3927Nate.3927 Member ✭✭

    I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

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

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Dont really need Anet for that. Just look at your own server. How many 500 man WvW guilds do you see? Do any of them actually field more than 20-25 people? The answer might be yes... Maybe 1 guild. Probably the community guild. Might even be 2 if you got a link.

    And thats most likely representative of all servers.

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • Nate.3927Nate.3927 Member ✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Dont really need Anet for that. Just look at your own server. How many 500 man WvW guilds do you see? Do any of them actually field more than 20-25 people? The answer might be yes... Maybe 1 guild. Probably the community guild. Might even be 2 if you got a link.

    And thats most likely representative of all servers.

    what I meant is, we can all say that, and we're probably right, BUT it's more official and believable if actual statistics gets released.

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

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Dont really need Anet for that. Just look at your own server. How many 500 man WvW guilds do you see? Do any of them actually field more than 20-25 people? The answer might be yes... Maybe 1 guild. Probably the community guild. Might even be 2 if you got a link.

    And thats most likely representative of all servers.

    what I meant is, we can all say that, and we're probably right, BUT it's more official and believable if actual statistics gets released.

    The first world creation is going to be.... interesting.

    After that, it will be .. let's say fairly accurate. It will be able to be gamed but meh, the current system can and is being gamed so there is that.

    Guild sizes will matter for the initial creations. So if a guild has all 450 of the moments select them as their WvW guild, and the choose to be in an alliance, then there will only be able to be 50 more in the alliance.

    If they don't select them as their guild, they will be placed in another world. Which, if they then select the guild, it would force them to wait until the next world creation OR they could pay to transfer to the world, (if open) but it still won't let them in the 'alliances' unless the 500 alliance cap hasn't been met.

    At the next world creation, guilds may face a choice of whether to kick some of these players, or change alliances.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Tehologist.5841Tehologist.5841 Member ✭✭✭

    I wished it worked like competitive battles in guild wars, had 3 factions instead of server vs server. Have an area with 5, 5 man parties per side and actual matches instead of zergs with pugs.

    Kurzick 4 life.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    The risk is timezone stacking alliance. I won't be surprise if some people decided to make a alliance solely consist of a single timezone. If is prime time, not a big deal since prime time is huge. But if is off hours, it will be extremely destructive since off hours is well, pretty small. 500 is more than enough for off hours to timezone stack and destroy the balance completely. When that kind of alliance do form, it makes you wonder whats the point of blowing up anyway.

    This^^

    Is why there should not be rewards for 'winning'. Any alliance that fields a large number of SEA or OCX guilds will merge into any other alliance with world forming and likely control any matchup.

    Players will have to manage their groups in time zones or try to stack every ones time zones for mass manipulation.

    Slayers [XD] NSP Guild
    Yao Chen Herald/Ventari
    Ying Wuxian Renegade/Demon

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

    @Aeolus.3615 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    The risk is timezone stacking alliance. I won't be surprise if some people decided to make a alliance solely consist of a single timezone. If is prime time, not a big deal since prime time is huge. But if is off hours, it will be extremely destructive since off hours is well, pretty small. 500 is more than enough for off hours to timezone stack and destroy the balance completely. When that kind of alliance do form, it makes you wonder whats the point of blowing up anyway.

    This^^

    Is why there should not be rewards for 'winning'. Any alliance that fields a large number of SEA or OCX guilds will merge into any other alliance with world forming and likely control any matchup.

    Players will have to manage their groups in time zones or try to stack every ones time zones for mass manipulation.

    But let's think of an alliance of guilds of SEA players if 250, and an OCX of 250.

    That alliance will be full.

    But a WORLD will be made up of two alliances and other guilds.

    Likely that SEA and OCX alliance would be with an alliance of other time zones.. Ie NA or EU. Thus making any world that SEA/OCX alliance is on, fairly difficult to beat.....

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Aeolus.3615 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    The risk is timezone stacking alliance. I won't be surprise if some people decided to make a alliance solely consist of a single timezone. If is prime time, not a big deal since prime time is huge. But if is off hours, it will be extremely destructive since off hours is well, pretty small. 500 is more than enough for off hours to timezone stack and destroy the balance completely. When that kind of alliance do form, it makes you wonder whats the point of blowing up anyway.

    This^^

    Is why there should not be rewards for 'winning'. Any alliance that fields a large number of SEA or OCX guilds will merge into any other alliance with world forming and likely control any matchup.

    Players will have to manage their groups in time zones or try to stack every ones time zones for mass manipulation.

    But let's think of an alliance of guilds of SEA players if 250, and an OCX of 250.

    That alliance will be full.

    But a WORLD will be made up of two alliances and other guilds.

    Likely that SEA and OCX alliance would be with an alliance of other time zones.. Ie NA or EU. Thus making any world that SEA/OCX alliance is on, fairly difficult to beat.....

    For what was explained to me there would be something equivalent to links inside the alliance or like u said there actually will be several groups to make one world :\, so yeah that's what im waiting to happen :.
    Theres actually a way to design a game mode where the number of players wont matter, but the game wont be a ktrain based on high population vs lower population, wich somehow is what Anet wants.

    The truth is i fear that the alliances system is just a rebrand with what we have now with a options for guilds on the mega server stack at their own will....

    Slayers [XD] NSP Guild
    Yao Chen Herald/Ventari
    Ying Wuxian Renegade/Demon

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

    @Aeolus.3615 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Aeolus.3615 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    The risk is timezone stacking alliance. I won't be surprise if some people decided to make a alliance solely consist of a single timezone. If is prime time, not a big deal since prime time is huge. But if is off hours, it will be extremely destructive since off hours is well, pretty small. 500 is more than enough for off hours to timezone stack and destroy the balance completely. When that kind of alliance do form, it makes you wonder whats the point of blowing up anyway.

    This^^

    Is why there should not be rewards for 'winning'. Any alliance that fields a large number of SEA or OCX guilds will merge into any other alliance with world forming and likely control any matchup.

    Players will have to manage their groups in time zones or try to stack every ones time zones for mass manipulation.

    But let's think of an alliance of guilds of SEA players if 250, and an OCX of 250.

    That alliance will be full.

    But a WORLD will be made up of two alliances and other guilds.

    Likely that SEA and OCX alliance would be with an alliance of other time zones.. Ie NA or EU. Thus making any world that SEA/OCX alliance is on, fairly difficult to beat.....

    For what was explained to me there would be something equivalent to links inside the alliance or like u said there actually will be several groups to make one world :\, so yeah that's what im waiting to happen :.

    Sort of.... Most of what I have seen from the Deb's is no more than 2 alliances per world, and those alliances won't be able to pick each other.

    Also, the 'non alliance' guilds and players that will fill up the remaining 50-60% of the world population will also not be able to directly choose the alliance they play with.

    Theres actually a way to design a game mode where the number of players wont matter, but the game wont be a ktrain based on high population vs lower population, wich somehow is what Anet wants.

    The truth is i fear that the alliances system is just a rebrand with what we have now with a options for guilds on the mega server stack at their own will....

    There is some truth to that, but for those guilds that like to play on different worlds and servers, that will happen every 8 weeks.

    Communities, for better or worse, will be defined by your guild and possibly your alliance.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 10, 2018

    @Strider Pj.2193, in terms of communities i have talked with some players on TS and map chat "we" dont feel anything going to change about that, NSP will still be NSP :\ and i assume other servers will still be other servers, basicly what this comes to help is the recruitment of players and possible guilds to the alliance of that world.

    Slayers [XD] NSP Guild
    Yao Chen Herald/Ventari
    Ying Wuxian Renegade/Demon

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 10, 2018

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    Sort of.... Most of what I have seen from the Deb's is no more than 2 alliances per world, and those alliances won't be able to pick each other.

    I havent read anything about such a limit. Plus, it wouldnt actually work at all to limit it unless you hardcap the amount of alliances that exist (cant have more than worlds x2). Thats not really how alliances work, is it?

    Otherwise I pity the poor world that gets a 10 man alliance someone created to see how the alliance system works and a 20 man/3 guild roaming alliance (still recruiting!) combined with 2470+ random pugs to flesh it out because there can only be 2 alliances. Also most of those pugs will have to be Anet created bots cause we need to fill more than 1 world.

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • shiri.4257shiri.4257 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    Sort of.... Most of what I have seen from the Deb's is no more than 2 alliances per world, and those alliances won't be able to pick each other.

    I havent read anything about such a limit. Plus, it wouldnt actually work at all to limit it unless you hardcap the amount of alliances that exist (cant have more than worlds x2). Thats not really how alliances work, is it?

    Otherwise I pity the poor world that gets a 10 man alliance someone created to see how the alliance system works and a 20 man/3 guild roaming alliance (still recruiting!) combined with 2470+ random pugs to flesh it out because there can only be 2 alliances. Also most of those pugs will have to be Anet created bots cause we need to fill more than 1 world.

    I hope those ANet created bots are like the hylek. The KDR I get from havocing with the hylek far surpasses any pug comp.

    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.

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

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    Sort of.... Most of what I have seen from the Deb's is no more than 2 alliances per world, and those alliances won't be able to pick each other.

    I havent read anything about such a limit. Plus, it wouldnt actually work at all to limit it unless you hardcap the amount of alliances that exist (cant have more than worlds x2). Thats not really how alliances work, is it?

    Otherwise I pity the poor world that gets a 10 man alliance someone created to see how the alliance system works and a 20 man/3 guild roaming alliance (still recruiting!) combined with 2470+ random pugs to flesh it out because there can only be 2 alliances. Also most of those pugs will have to be Anet created bots cause we need to fill more than 1 world.

    That is true.

    Went back and was reference the initial diagram which I do not think it has more than 2.

    But in the update, it was noted that they are looking at how many alliances.

    So I think that is still being fleshed out.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 10, 2018

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    Sort of.... Most of what I have seen from the Deb's is no more than 2 alliances per world, and those alliances won't be able to pick each other.

    I havent read anything about such a limit. Plus, it wouldnt actually work at all to limit it unless you hardcap the amount of alliances that exist (cant have more than worlds x2). Thats not really how alliances work, is it?

    Otherwise I pity the poor world that gets a 10 man alliance someone created to see how the alliance system works and a 20 man/3 guild roaming alliance (still recruiting!) combined with 2470+ random pugs to flesh it out because there can only be 2 alliances. Also most of those pugs will have to be Anet created bots cause we need to fill more than 1 world.

    That is true.

    Went back and was reference the initial diagram which I do not think it has more than 2.

    But in the update, it was noted that they are looking at how many alliances.

    So I think that is still being fleshed out.

    The design theory assumed max sized alliances (at 500) and one alliance being roughly 20% of a current server (2500+), with alliances not forming a majority of the world (ie 2 max sized alliances or its a majority). It wasnt a nod at how many alliances a world would be limited to afaik, just theoretical maxes (its actually the lowest amount, assuming a "full" world).

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

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

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    Sort of.... Most of what I have seen from the Deb's is no more than 2 alliances per world, and those alliances won't be able to pick each other.

    I havent read anything about such a limit. Plus, it wouldnt actually work at all to limit it unless you hardcap the amount of alliances that exist (cant have more than worlds x2). Thats not really how alliances work, is it?

    Otherwise I pity the poor world that gets a 10 man alliance someone created to see how the alliance system works and a 20 man/3 guild roaming alliance (still recruiting!) combined with 2470+ random pugs to flesh it out because there can only be 2 alliances. Also most of those pugs will have to be Anet created bots cause we need to fill more than 1 world.

    That is true.

    Went back and was reference the initial diagram which I do not think it has more than 2.

    But in the update, it was noted that they are looking at how many alliances.

    So I think that is still being fleshed out.

    The design theory assumed max sized alliances (at 500) and one alliance being roughly 20% of a current server (2500+), with alliances not forming a majority of the world (ie 2 max sized alliances or its a majority). It wasnt a nod at how many alliances a world would be limited to afaik, just theoretical maxes (its actually the lowest amount, assuming a "full" world).

    That makes sense. I went on the (incorrect) assumption that the alliances would all be close to max.

    Thank you for helping to clarify that for me

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 11, 2018

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.
    WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

    However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

    Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

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

  • Nate.3927Nate.3927 Member ✭✭

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.
    WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

    However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

    Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

    bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.
    WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

    However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

    Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

    bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

    You clearly don't understand how small non-prime timezone is.

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

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

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.
    WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

    However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

    Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

    bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

    You clearly don't understand how small non-prime timezone is.

    Which, agreed, is the biggest potential 'exploit' of the new system.

    I really don't care unless they are going to attach rewards to winning matchups. If that happens, then we have the same problem, potentially worse, then we did with transfers for tournaments.

    If there is not attachment of rewards to winning, then those that stack one of those two time zones with only gain Karma... if they want to beat down doors, gl to them.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • The biggest issues we are facing in our player group is the fact some are americans and some are europeans meaning its difficult to play optimally.
    If you remove the NA/EU split or at least make the transfer free that would allow us to be automatically matched in the appropriate worlds if we wish to play together.
    Right now playing with international friends is either permanently suboptimal for either americans or europeans in the group or very expensive.

  • Turk.5460Turk.5460 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Henky.8426 said:
    The biggest issues we are facing in our player group is the fact some are americans and some are europeans meaning its difficult to play optimally.
    If you remove the NA/EU split or at least make the transfer free that would allow us to be automatically matched in the appropriate worlds if we wish to play together.
    Right now playing with international friends is either permanently suboptimal for either americans or europeans in the group or very expensive.

    Currently people who play in a region that is not where they live are choosing to risk having a higher ping or greater lag. It would probably be more detrimental to the game mode/population and cause loads of frustration if that type of interference were to be forced on players.

    Fort Aspenwood
    [ShW] Jekkies

  • Nate.3927Nate.3927 Member ✭✭
    edited August 14, 2018

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.
    WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

    However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

    Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

    bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

    You clearly don't understand how small non-prime timezone is.

    I play OCX and SEA. I live in Australia, I've tagged and roamed both against TIME and on the same side as TIME. I know exactly how small non-prime timezones are. We don't have 500 dedicated WvW players who all like each other enough to get into an alliance together long term in our timezone. And on the positive side we have enough people with brains across the different OCX/SEA guilds who can say "hey, let's not stack because it will be boring and then everyone will quit". At no point did I say "500 people who play WvW everyday won't make a difference". What I am saying is "500 people on paper is not 500 actual dedicated WvW players that play WvW everyday". The biggest OCX focused WvW guild I have ever been in had ~370 people on the roster at it's peak, of those ~300 were people who consider themselves as WvW players. The most we were ever able to pull into WvW concurrently is ~35 and of those only ~15 were people who spend 3-4+ hours in WvW each day, and not all at the same time. The rest drop in and drop out based on irl responsibilities or PvE interests.

  • Nate.3927Nate.3927 Member ✭✭

    @Henky.8426 said:
    The biggest issues we are facing in our player group is the fact some are americans and some are europeans meaning its difficult to play optimally.
    If you remove the NA/EU split or at least make the transfer free that would allow us to be automatically matched in the appropriate worlds if we wish to play together.
    Right now playing with international friends is either permanently suboptimal for either americans or europeans in the group or very expensive.

    unfortunately, there are also legal reasons why Arenanet would need to split up EU customers from the rest of the world. In more recent news, GDPR comes to mind, but even before GDPR there are other existing laws as well.

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

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @Henky.8426 said:
    The biggest issues we are facing in our player group is the fact some are americans and some are europeans meaning its difficult to play optimally.
    If you remove the NA/EU split or at least make the transfer free that would allow us to be automatically matched in the appropriate worlds if we wish to play together.
    Right now playing with international friends is either permanently suboptimal for either americans or europeans in the group or very expensive.

    unfortunately, there are also legal reasons why Arenanet would need to split up EU customers from the rest of the world. In more recent news, GDPR comes to mind, but even before GDPR there are other existing laws as well.

    Not sure how that would be an issue since you agree to the terms when creating an account and Anet presumably secures our data adequatly. Plus you can already play wherever for free? Just create a f2p NA or EU account?

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • Nate.3927Nate.3927 Member ✭✭
    edited August 14, 2018

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @Henky.8426 said:
    The biggest issues we are facing in our player group is the fact some are americans and some are europeans meaning its difficult to play optimally.
    If you remove the NA/EU split or at least make the transfer free that would allow us to be automatically matched in the appropriate worlds if we wish to play together.
    Right now playing with international friends is either permanently suboptimal for either americans or europeans in the group or very expensive.

    unfortunately, there are also legal reasons why Arenanet would need to split up EU customers from the rest of the world. In more recent news, GDPR comes to mind, but even before GDPR there are other existing laws as well.

    Not sure how that would be an issue since you agree to the terms when creating an account and Anet presumably secures our data adequatly. Plus you can already play wherever for free? Just create a f2p NA or EU account?

    A customer having an NA account and an EU account is fine. However, Arenanet as a company putting their NA customer details in the same database and data center as their EU customers may be an issue. I work for a global company and we are facing that issue right now. We wanted to create a global system to handle our marketing, which means we want to store all our customer details in a single system, that way marketers in Australia for example can access customer from Europe and potentially market to them. The legal advice we've obtained so far says that we should not do that because we could face serious fines and legal trouble. I'm not part of the legal department and I'm not personally working on any of the GDPR stuff, but from what I know the rules and regulations are not specific to our industry and is a more general rule that affects all industries. Running a global company is complicated because laws differ by region, country etc. At the moment the high level discussion is actually that we may have to maintain multiple copies of our system, hosted on multiple physical data center locations, at least one in the EU, I think we need one in Canada due to Canadian laws and then one in Hong Kong which is our current one.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves.

    Lol no. Entire servers are 2500+ people and they have nowhere near "full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play.

    Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works.

    There is nothing forcing people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap.

    Of which 2000+ are typically next to useless. A group of 100 capable players, especially with comms or willing to organise their entire alliance, is worth more than 500 casual pugs with the same playtime.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 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.

    PPT is mostly won based off smaller groups. If you're losing to big zergs despite using ACs and defenders advantage, you're bad @ game.

    Oh wait. That's exactly what almost all these "small scale" players are. Demanding blobs go away so they can't flip their objectives but too bad to actually outppt it.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Substance E.4852 said:

    @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.

    NA WvW and PvP are both far smaller than EU's scene. You say it's not possible... Yet EU has historically been bigger than NA on both. Population, activity, ... all of it except coverage wars 2.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 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...

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yeah sorry, I didn't see ANY alliances refuse players because they're women. I have seen huge zergs of male players following female commanders, where if it was a male commander instead most of them would have logged off.

    I don't even know the gender of many of the players I regularly play with and lead for. If they don't speak and tell me, then it doesn't matter to anyone. Most WvW elitists judge based on what you say / do / play / ... and not based on your gender. I'll be elitist and toxic, sure. And I give no kittens about carebears demanding babysitting them and hteir special snowflake builds should be my hobby, because improving at their hobby is too hard for them. But sexist or racist? Nope.

    The only ones anti-communication are thin skinned pugs crying fire as soon as someone says they're not super duper amazing and the bestest pact commander the game has ever seen. If you're actually good, nobody will call you out on anything. There are plenty of female high end GvG players both in EU and NA. Every single GvG guild i was in had several female players.

    If you want people to agree with you, I hear twitter has lovely kitten armies.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 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.

    500 "good" players is... the entire high end EU population. And most of them hate eachother.
    500 players is what... Everyone in plat + legendary in NA? xD

    500 players is more than enough to beat EVERY OTHER casual pug server in the game reliably, nearly 24/7. So how on earth you think 500 is too little for "competitive groups"... no clue.
    Besides, if all good players fit into ONE alliance... Who's going to fight it? ;) It won't be the thousands of casuals; they're too busy throwing a tantrum as to why it's unfair they're not getting rewards for awful gameplay.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @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.

    I agree with your point. There aren't even 10 guilds with 50 members actively raiding left on EU.

    That said, of course you can't name 5 guilds on your server. Every single guild except KALE left your server because of the amount of super-demanding overly casual pugs that would stalk them 24/7 but refuse to do anything that is asked of them. Sound familiar? Your pugs literally bullied the guilds they relied on to carry them out of the server, then cried and went back to PvE / moved out as soon as stuff imploded. Now your server might become a link server (soon tm, lul) instead of the stacked server it used to be.

    Your server had 5+ guilds that had 15+ members to guildraid for YEARS. It was literally the guild graveyard for GvG guilds for years too. I agree with your point, nobody has 10 guilds with 50+ members that actually raid WvW somewhat actively. But the idea that you can't name 5 guilds on your server is way too funny. You're a huge advocate of the gameplay these guilds dislike. You play on in the opposite style of what this server has been for years, until the guilds that made this server leave because it's literally an awful place for them to be, and then you state you can't name any guilds on your server...Probably shouldn't have created an environment in which no guild wants to play?

    Half a year ago you had RT, Kale, Kill, TS and AmP all actively raiding with 15+. All veteran guilds playing on your server with a pretty good quality too. It's not my fault the only guild left is Kale which is now 1/3rd kale and 2/3rd pugcloud chasing them.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.
    WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

    However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

    Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

    bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

    Bear in mind you can fully dominate a server even with 200-300 active players. If your alliance has 5 pugmanders and 200 players that will follow these 5 pugmanders, you already have more power than the 1.000 pugs. Because half the pugs will just follow and listen to those pugmanders, and the other half you can reliably kick because you don't even need them. You can literally control half the gameplay because you're the group that organises things. And most players in GW2 will not organise anything. They'll just scourge around looking for something to join, jump into.

    Even PPT wise, 200 active players are more than enough to dominate many pug-dominated servers. Sure, you lose coverage 600 vs 200 at first. But if you have 30 capable players online, you can farm virtually any pug blob and after hard-farming a server over the weekend they tend to magically all dissapear. By monday it's 300 vs 200 with one side having way more skill.

    And i'm talking about the 200 vs 600 scenario. In reality, it'll be 200+400 vs 600. A group with a strong, 200 man alliance is going to faceroll over ANY pug-based alliance without any issues. And most alliances will be nothing but that : pugs looking to jump in and leech. Because that's what WvW is nowadays.

  • Nate.3927Nate.3927 Member ✭✭

    @Etheri.5406 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.
    WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

    However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

    Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

    bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

    Bear in mind you can fully dominate a server even with 200-300 active players. If your alliance has 5 pugmanders and 200 players that will follow these 5 pugmanders, you already have more power than the 1.000 pugs. Because half the pugs will just follow and listen to those pugmanders, and the other half you can reliably kick because you don't even need them. You can literally control half the gameplay because you're the group that organises things. And most players in GW2 will not organise anything. They'll just scourge around looking for something to join, jump into.

    Even PPT wise, 200 active players are more than enough to dominate many pug-dominated servers. Sure, you lose coverage 600 vs 200 at first. But if you have 30 capable players online, you can farm virtually any pug blob and after hard-farming a server over the weekend they tend to magically all dissapear. By monday it's 300 vs 200 with one side having way more skill.

    And i'm talking about the 200 vs 600 scenario. In reality, it'll be 200+400 vs 600. A group with a strong, 200 man alliance is going to faceroll over ANY pug-based alliance without any issues. And most alliances will be nothing but that : pugs looking to jump in and leech. Because that's what WvW is nowadays.

    I don't disagree with what you're saying in theory, but that's just a L2P issue and pugs are not likely to be spending as much time in WvW as dedicated players so once they put in play hours into the algorithm/equation those will get balanced out. And my point still stands, a 500-player alliance won't have 500 dedicated players. And both sides will have multiple alliances, I seriously doubt there will be an alliance that is 100% random pug players, you might be looking at scenarios of 200 + 400 vs 100 + 500 sure, but your scenario above is unlikely to happen.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 14, 2018

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @Etheri.5406 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.
    WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

    However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

    Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

    bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

    Bear in mind you can fully dominate a server even with 200-300 active players. If your alliance has 5 pugmanders and 200 players that will follow these 5 pugmanders, you already have more power than the 1.000 pugs. Because half the pugs will just follow and listen to those pugmanders, and the other half you can reliably kick because you don't even need them. You can literally control half the gameplay because you're the group that organises things. And most players in GW2 will not organise anything. They'll just scourge around looking for something to join, jump into.

    Even PPT wise, 200 active players are more than enough to dominate many pug-dominated servers. Sure, you lose coverage 600 vs 200 at first. But if you have 30 capable players online, you can farm virtually any pug blob and after hard-farming a server over the weekend they tend to magically all dissapear. By monday it's 300 vs 200 with one side having way more skill.

    And i'm talking about the 200 vs 600 scenario. In reality, it'll be 200+400 vs 600. A group with a strong, 200 man alliance is going to faceroll over ANY pug-based alliance without any issues. And most alliances will be nothing but that : pugs looking to jump in and leech. Because that's what WvW is nowadays.

    I don't disagree with what you're saying in theory, but that's just a L2P issue and pugs are not likely to be spending as much time in WvW as dedicated players so once they put in play hours into the algorithm/equation those will get balanced out. And my point still stands, a 500-player alliance won't have 500 dedicated players. And both sides will have multiple alliances, I seriously doubt there will be an alliance that is 100% random pug players, you might be looking at scenarios of 200 + 400 vs 100 + 500 sure, but your scenario above is unlikely to happen.

    Maybe you disagree with my terminology. Maybe you consider different skill levels. If I look at EU WvW, I don't see many organised communities and guilds left. If you look at "stacked fight servers" like WSR and vabbi we're talking about a core with maybe 200 players. 500? hahaha. Yet this core is enough to hard-farm virtually any other EU server if they want to. The same is true for some other servers. The majority of their kills and progress comes from the guilds and players that carry the community. Against pug zergs you need 5 good players and you win by default.

    Because GW2 WvW relies on organisation. And almost all the players in this game are casual pugs refusing to organise. They need other players to do it for them. Hell even then half of them won't. You need other players, communities, ... to tag, tell everyone what to do, teach them, make them play and so forth. If nobody does, then most players don't even bother and you will lose a LOT of pug activity. If players do all this and make players want to play, then you gain pug activity.

    Let's ask it in terms redditors would understand : Would you rather have 1 ravya on your server, or 100 pugs who play as much as ravya? I'd rather have ravya than 100 times more players. Because truthfully, he's worth more than 100 players. And I assume that, after 2 months, the alliance with ravya will have higher pug activity. Because he'll lead them, teach them and make them have fun. They'll come into WvW MORE because they know it's nice. Meanwhile 100 players without someone leading them can roam and man siege at best. You'd be lucky if you have 10/100 players capable of being useful without them being told what to do. Anyone who isn't interested in solo play won't stay / play because they don't enjoy their alliance. They won't suddenly become commanders that can stand up to experienced players.

    So as always, an alliance with commanders and the players to follow those commanders will GAIN ACTIVITY because pugs LOVE TO WIN.
    An alliance WITHOUT commanders (or maybe not so good ones) will continue to get rolled over because they don't have anyone to teach them better; nor to carry them. And slowly but surely, their population / activity goes down.

    Spreading out the "population" is irrelevant. The population itself is mostly irrelevant. Population is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself. The population literally follows around "strong" servers and "high rated / PPT" servers... Yet you'll regularly see T1 "strong" servers lose their core only to bleed out within no time.

    Even now, the issue is not "population balance". The issue is a huge skill difference between players. Different expectations and playstyles which don't match. Population balance is only the result of the above mentioned issues; and will continue to exist even in alliances.

    PS. Pretty sure half the pipfarmers on my server spend as much time as dedicated players. There is literally 0 difference (in activity / play hours per week) between someone afk flipping camps and someone who's 7k rank playing throughout the weekend to reach their pips. And both are fairly common. But that veteran who's actively playing is obviously WAY more helpful than the pipfarmer, who's just taking up a spot and a lot of play hours for his alliance.

  • Nate.3927Nate.3927 Member ✭✭

    @Etheri.5406 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @Etheri.5406 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.
    WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

    However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

    Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

    bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

    Bear in mind you can fully dominate a server even with 200-300 active players. If your alliance has 5 pugmanders and 200 players that will follow these 5 pugmanders, you already have more power than the 1.000 pugs. Because half the pugs will just follow and listen to those pugmanders, and the other half you can reliably kick because you don't even need them. You can literally control half the gameplay because you're the group that organises things. And most players in GW2 will not organise anything. They'll just scourge around looking for something to join, jump into.

    Even PPT wise, 200 active players are more than enough to dominate many pug-dominated servers. Sure, you lose coverage 600 vs 200 at first. But if you have 30 capable players online, you can farm virtually any pug blob and after hard-farming a server over the weekend they tend to magically all dissapear. By monday it's 300 vs 200 with one side having way more skill.

    And i'm talking about the 200 vs 600 scenario. In reality, it'll be 200+400 vs 600. A group with a strong, 200 man alliance is going to faceroll over ANY pug-based alliance without any issues. And most alliances will be nothing but that : pugs looking to jump in and leech. Because that's what WvW is nowadays.

    I don't disagree with what you're saying in theory, but that's just a L2P issue and pugs are not likely to be spending as much time in WvW as dedicated players so once they put in play hours into the algorithm/equation those will get balanced out. And my point still stands, a 500-player alliance won't have 500 dedicated players. And both sides will have multiple alliances, I seriously doubt there will be an alliance that is 100% random pug players, you might be looking at scenarios of 200 + 400 vs 100 + 500 sure, but your scenario above is unlikely to happen.

    Maybe you disagree with my terminology. Maybe you consider different skill levels. If I look at EU WvW, I don't see many organised communities and guilds left. If you look at "stacked fight servers" like WSR and vabbi we're talking about a core with maybe 200 players. 500? hahaha. Yet this core is enough to hard-farm virtually any other EU server if they want to. The same is true for some other servers. The majority of their kills and progress comes from the guilds and players that carry the community. Against pug zergs you need 5 good players and you win by default.

    Because GW2 WvW relies on organisation. And almost all the players in this game are casual pugs refusing to organise. They need other players to do it for them. Hell even then half of them won't. You need other players, communities, ... to tag, tell everyone what to do, teach them, make them play and so forth. If nobody does, then most players don't even bother and you will lose a LOT of pug activity. If players do all this and make players want to play, then you gain pug activity.

    Let's ask it in terms redditors would understand : Would you rather have 1 ravya on your server, or 100 pugs who play as much as ravya? I'd rather have ravya than 100 times more players. Because truthfully, he's worth more than 100 players. And I assume that, after 2 months, the alliance with ravya will have higher pug activity. Because he'll lead them, teach them and make them have fun. They'll come into WvW MORE because they know it's nice. Meanwhile 100 players without someone leading them can roam and man siege at best. You'd be lucky if you have 10/100 players capable of being useful without them being told what to do. Anyone who isn't interested in solo play won't stay / play because they don't enjoy their alliance. They won't suddenly become commanders that can stand up to experienced players.

    So as always, an alliance with commanders and the players to follow those commanders will GAIN ACTIVITY because pugs LOVE TO WIN.
    An alliance WITHOUT commanders (or maybe not so good ones) will continue to get rolled over because they don't have anyone to teach them better; nor to carry them. And slowly but surely, their population / activity goes down.

    Spreading out the "population" is irrelevant. The population itself is mostly irrelevant. Population is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself. The population literally follows around "strong" servers and "high rated / PPT" servers... Yet you'll regularly see T1 "strong" servers lose their core only to bleed out within no time.

    Even now, the issue is not "population balance". The issue is a huge skill difference between players. Different expectations and playstyles which don't match. Population balance is only the result of the above mentioned issues; and will continue to exist even in alliances.

    PS. Pretty sure half the pipfarmers on my server spend as much time as dedicated players. There is literally 0 difference (in activity / play hours per week) between someone afk flipping camps and someone who's 7k rank playing throughout the weekend to reach their pips. And both are fairly common. But that veteran who's actively playing is obviously WAY more helpful than the pipfarmer, who's just taking up a spot and a lot of play hours for his alliance.

    ah you're talking EU, I'm talking NA, the situations are different.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 14, 2018

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @Etheri.5406 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @Etheri.5406 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.
    WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

    However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

    Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

    bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

    Bear in mind you can fully dominate a server even with 200-300 active players. If your alliance has 5 pugmanders and 200 players that will follow these 5 pugmanders, you already have more power than the 1.000 pugs. Because half the pugs will just follow and listen to those pugmanders, and the other half you can reliably kick because you don't even need them. You can literally control half the gameplay because you're the group that organises things. And most players in GW2 will not organise anything. They'll just scourge around looking for something to join, jump into.

    Even PPT wise, 200 active players are more than enough to dominate many pug-dominated servers. Sure, you lose coverage 600 vs 200 at first. But if you have 30 capable players online, you can farm virtually any pug blob and after hard-farming a server over the weekend they tend to magically all dissapear. By monday it's 300 vs 200 with one side having way more skill.

    And i'm talking about the 200 vs 600 scenario. In reality, it'll be 200+400 vs 600. A group with a strong, 200 man alliance is going to faceroll over ANY pug-based alliance without any issues. And most alliances will be nothing but that : pugs looking to jump in and leech. Because that's what WvW is nowadays.

    I don't disagree with what you're saying in theory, but that's just a L2P issue and pugs are not likely to be spending as much time in WvW as dedicated players so once they put in play hours into the algorithm/equation those will get balanced out. And my point still stands, a 500-player alliance won't have 500 dedicated players. And both sides will have multiple alliances, I seriously doubt there will be an alliance that is 100% random pug players, you might be looking at scenarios of 200 + 400 vs 100 + 500 sure, but your scenario above is unlikely to happen.

    Maybe you disagree with my terminology. Maybe you consider different skill levels. If I look at EU WvW, I don't see many organised communities and guilds left. If you look at "stacked fight servers" like WSR and vabbi we're talking about a core with maybe 200 players. 500? hahaha. Yet this core is enough to hard-farm virtually any other EU server if they want to. The same is true for some other servers. The majority of their kills and progress comes from the guilds and players that carry the community. Against pug zergs you need 5 good players and you win by default.

    Because GW2 WvW relies on organisation. And almost all the players in this game are casual pugs refusing to organise. They need other players to do it for them. Hell even then half of them won't. You need other players, communities, ... to tag, tell everyone what to do, teach them, make them play and so forth. If nobody does, then most players don't even bother and you will lose a LOT of pug activity. If players do all this and make players want to play, then you gain pug activity.

    Let's ask it in terms redditors would understand : Would you rather have 1 ravya on your server, or 100 pugs who play as much as ravya? I'd rather have ravya than 100 times more players. Because truthfully, he's worth more than 100 players. And I assume that, after 2 months, the alliance with ravya will have higher pug activity. Because he'll lead them, teach them and make them have fun. They'll come into WvW MORE because they know it's nice. Meanwhile 100 players without someone leading them can roam and man siege at best. You'd be lucky if you have 10/100 players capable of being useful without them being told what to do. Anyone who isn't interested in solo play won't stay / play because they don't enjoy their alliance. They won't suddenly become commanders that can stand up to experienced players.

    So as always, an alliance with commanders and the players to follow those commanders will GAIN ACTIVITY because pugs LOVE TO WIN.
    An alliance WITHOUT commanders (or maybe not so good ones) will continue to get rolled over because they don't have anyone to teach them better; nor to carry them. And slowly but surely, their population / activity goes down.

    Spreading out the "population" is irrelevant. The population itself is mostly irrelevant. Population is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself. The population literally follows around "strong" servers and "high rated / PPT" servers... Yet you'll regularly see T1 "strong" servers lose their core only to bleed out within no time.

    Even now, the issue is not "population balance". The issue is a huge skill difference between players. Different expectations and playstyles which don't match. Population balance is only the result of the above mentioned issues; and will continue to exist even in alliances.

    PS. Pretty sure half the pipfarmers on my server spend as much time as dedicated players. There is literally 0 difference (in activity / play hours per week) between someone afk flipping camps and someone who's 7k rank playing throughout the weekend to reach their pips. And both are fairly common. But that veteran who's actively playing is obviously WAY more helpful than the pipfarmer, who's just taking up a spot and a lot of play hours for his alliance.

    ah you're talking EU, I'm talking NA, the situations are different.

    It's almost like we need to design a system that works for both ;)
    But surely, the same sized groups can dominate NA if needed. Would you rather have an alliance with popular pugmanders and some of their following or secluded low-end PPT guilds?

    Replace ravya with some popular and active NA pugmander. I don't know. Sehoon? Cloudfly?

    Would you rather have 1 sehoon who tags, or 100 pugs as active as sehoon who won't. What do you think will be the most active after 2 months, the server with 1 sehoon regularly tagging for them or the server with 100 pugs who are usually active but have nothing to do other than roaming / PPT / small scale.

    I think 1 sehoon >> 100 equally active pugs. I also think after 2 months, the server with sehoon would have more active players than the server with 100 (!!) more pugs. Population inbalance creates itself : most pugs who don't auto-win log off or go back to PvE.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Nate.3927 said:
    I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

    I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

    Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.
    WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

    However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

    Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

    bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

    You clearly don't understand how small non-prime timezone is.

    I play OCX and SEA. I live in Australia, I've tagged and roamed both against TIME and on the same side as TIME. I know exactly how small non-prime timezones are. We don't have 500 dedicated WvW players who all like each other enough to get into an alliance together long term in our timezone. And on the positive side we have enough people with brains across the different OCX/SEA guilds who can say "hey, let's not stack because it will be boring and then everyone will quit". At no point did I say "500 people who play WvW everyday won't make a difference". What I am saying is "500 people on paper is not 500 actual dedicated WvW players that play WvW everyday". The biggest OCX focused WvW guild I have ever been in had ~370 people on the roster at it's peak, of those ~300 were people who consider themselves as WvW players. The most we were ever able to pull into WvW concurrently is ~35 and of those only ~15 were people who spend 3-4+ hours in WvW each day, and not all at the same time. The rest drop in and drop out based on irl responsibilities or PvE interests.

    Logic and emotion don't go hand in hand together, otherwise, we won't have servers with their generalized title. Now, sea people still stacking anyway and we have servers with ocx running a blob rolling over servers with little to no zerg.
    Just because the guilds you join doesn't run a highly active roster, doesn't means other guild would not run it.

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

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 14, 2018

    @Etheri.5406 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @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.

    I agree with your point. There aren't even 10 guilds with 50 members actively raiding left on EU.

    That said, of course you can't name 5 guilds on your server. Every single guild except KALE left your server because of the amount of super-demanding overly casual pugs that would stalk them 24/7 but refuse to do anything that is asked of them. Sound familiar? Your pugs literally bullied the guilds they relied on to carry them out of the server, then cried and went back to PvE / moved out as soon as stuff imploded. Now your server might become a link server (soon tm, lul) instead of the stacked server it used to be.

    Your server had 5+ guilds that had 15+ members to guildraid for YEARS. It was literally the guild graveyard for GvG guilds for years too. I agree with your point, nobody has 10 guilds with 50+ members that actually raid WvW somewhat actively. But the idea that you can't name 5 guilds on your server is way too funny. You're a huge advocate of the gameplay these guilds dislike. You play on in the opposite style of what this server has been for years, until the guilds that made this server leave because it's literally an awful place for them to be, and then you state you can't name any guilds on your server...Probably shouldn't have created an environment in which no guild wants to play?

    Half a year ago you had RT, Kale, Kill, TS and AmP all actively raiding with 15+. All veteran guilds playing on your server with a pretty good quality too. It's not my fault the only guild left is Kale which is now 1/3rd kale and 2/3rd pugcloud chasing them.

    You keep ranting about pugs in every single post. I grow weary of it.

    I dont have any idea what you even mean by "huge advocate of the gameplay these guilds dislike". I run as a 1-3 man party roamer primarily and has been that ever since my primary raiding guild pretty much dissolved years ago (the main commander we had back then started up TA, that was probably still on Piken). The guilds do their thing and we do ours and they most definetly created their own toxic enviroment, more often than not focused around their leaders. If 15+ guilds leave because there is a 3 man guild running around (the horror, the horror!) then yeah... right... hm.

    The point was that this is representative for all servers, yes. Alliances will neither help nor hinder guilds doing whatever they want. That's not the purpose of alliances.

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Etheri.5406 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @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.

    I agree with your point. There aren't even 10 guilds with 50 members actively raiding left on EU.

    That said, of course you can't name 5 guilds on your server. Every single guild except KALE left your server because of the amount of super-demanding overly casual pugs that would stalk them 24/7 but refuse to do anything that is asked of them. Sound familiar? Your pugs literally bullied the guilds they relied on to carry them out of the server, then cried and went back to PvE / moved out as soon as stuff imploded. Now your server might become a link server (soon tm, lul) instead of the stacked server it used to be.

    Your server had 5+ guilds that had 15+ members to guildraid for YEARS. It was literally the guild graveyard for GvG guilds for years too. I agree with your point, nobody has 10 guilds with 50+ members that actually raid WvW somewhat actively. But the idea that you can't name 5 guilds on your server is way too funny. You're a huge advocate of the gameplay these guilds dislike. You play on in the opposite style of what this server has been for years, until the guilds that made this server leave because it's literally an awful place for them to be, and then you state you can't name any guilds on your server...Probably shouldn't have created an environment in which no guild wants to play?

    Half a year ago you had RT, Kale, Kill, TS and AmP all actively raiding with 15+. All veteran guilds playing on your server with a pretty good quality too. It's not my fault the only guild left is Kale which is now 1/3rd kale and 2/3rd pugcloud chasing them.

    You keep ranting about pugs in every single post. I grow weary of it.

    I dont have any idea what you even mean by "huge advocate of the gameplay these guilds dislike". I run as a 1-3 man party roamer primarily and has been that ever since my primary raiding guild pretty much dissolved years ago (the main commander we had back then started up TA, that was probably still on Piken). The guilds do their thing and we do ours and they most definetly created their own toxic enviroment, more often than not focused around their leaders. If 15+ guilds leave because there is a 3 man guild running around (the horror, the horror!) then yeah... right... hm.

    The point was that this is representative for all servers, yes. Alliances will neither help nor hinder guilds doing whatever they want. That's not the purpose of alliances.

    Alliances won't balance servers, because they don't take the effect of guilds and organised groups on servers into account.

  • Hi red.5679Hi red.5679 Member
    edited August 17, 2018

    ah you're talking EU, I'm talking NA, the situations are different.

    It's almost like we need to design a system that works for both ;)
    But surely, the same sized groups can dominate NA if needed. Would you rather have an alliance with popular pugmanders and some of their following or secluded low-end PPT guilds?

    Replace ravya with some popular and active NA pugmander. I don't know. Sehoon? Cloudfly?

    Would you rather have 1 sehoon who tags, or 100 pugs as active as sehoon who won't. What do you think will be the most active after 2 months, the server with 1 sehoon regularly tagging for them or the server with 100 pugs who are usually active but have nothing to do other than roaming / PPT / small scale.

    I think 1 sehoon >> 100 equally active pugs. I also think after 2 months, the server with sehoon would have more active players than the server with 100 (!!) more pugs. Population inbalance creates itself : most pugs who don't auto-win log off or go back to PvE.

    Sehoon wants to go EU server again. more bags more farm. best pver;)

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    looking forward to the change. it will finally be guild wars. guild.vs guilds vs guilds.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.