World Restructuring FAQ - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

World Restructuring FAQ

2

Comments

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @Zionka.6897 said:
    I'm understanding most of what's happening, but one thing with it seems unclear. Example: A small guild currently based on server A marks itself as a WvW guild. All active members mark it as their WvW guild, because for all members, having just one guild is how they want to play. But some members are on server A, some are on server B, one on server C, and so on. Previously, they never got to go to WvW together, on the same team.
    This is where I'm confused. It seems the new matchups will not be servers, but randomized teams. (people will only chose NA or EU at account creation) Yet I still see server transfers mentioned, and somehow still factoring in about playing together under this proposed system. It's not making any sense. I just want to know if our multiserver guild will now be able to come to WvW together, if we have it set like I mentioned. Also, we would not be looking for someone to form an alliance with, if that matters at all.

    Yes, the new system will allow ALL of your guildmates, regardless of current server, to play together in an alliance once the new system hits. If you don't ally with other guilds, you will largely have different allies for each 8-week session, but everyone in your guild will always be together on the same side.

  • Zionka.6897Zionka.6897 Member ✭✭✭

    @Euryon.9248 said:

    @Zionka.6897 said:
    I'm understanding most of what's happening, but one thing with it seems unclear. Example: A small guild currently based on server A marks itself as a WvW guild. All active members mark it as their WvW guild, because for all members, having just one guild is how they want to play. But some members are on server A, some are on server B, one on server C, and so on. Previously, they never got to go to WvW together, on the same team.
    This is where I'm confused. It seems the new matchups will not be servers, but randomized teams. (people will only chose NA or EU at account creation) Yet I still see server transfers mentioned, and somehow still factoring in about playing together under this proposed system. It's not making any sense. I just want to know if our multiserver guild will now be able to come to WvW together, if we have it set like I mentioned. Also, we would not be looking for someone to form an alliance with, if that matters at all.

    Yes, the new system will allow ALL of your guildmates, regardless of current server, to play together in an alliance once the new system hits. If you don't ally with other guilds, you will largely have different allies for each 8-week session, but everyone in your guild will always be together on the same side.

    Thank you for answering that... And it does make this change appealing in at least this respect! The "transfering worlds mid season" in the main thread was throwing me off, but I'm not going to think about it anymore, since me and my guildies can finally go cause some trouble together, yay!

  • Q. Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance?

    Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full.

    So you are saying that active participants would limit the number of guilds for a 2-big-guild alliance because it would get full. Why wouldn't this be the case for small guild alliances? I may be wrong, but when I think of small guilds, I think of about 5-15 active player guilds, which wouldn't come close to the 500 member cap if the guild cap was set at 5. I think the cap should be more like 50, if there is any cap to be had at all.

    And before anybody responds with "just join a bigger guild," know that there is guild pride in Guild Wars, no matter the size.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2018

    @Oogabooga.3812 said:

    Q. Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance?

    Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full.

    So you are saying that active participants would limit the number of guilds for a 2-big-guild alliance because it would get full. Why wouldn't this be the case for small guild alliances? I may be wrong, but when I think of small guilds, I think of about 5-15 active player guilds, which wouldn't come close to the 500 member cap if the guild cap was set at 5. I think the cap should be more like 50, if there is any cap to be had at all.

    And before anybody responds with "just join a bigger guild," know that there is guild pride in Guild Wars, no matter the size.

    If you look at the restructuring system top down, the guild cap is clearly there to handle smaller chunks of the player base better. Having 50 guilds in one alliance would be counterproductive to this purpose - you could never match those guilds against each other.

    The point of the alliance isnt that all are are max and equal size - it's just a group of guilds. They will no doubt come in every shape or form. If one alliance is big, that's matched up against multiple smaller alliances (unless of course you can match it against equal size alliance). Like an alliance of 2 guilds (1000 peeps) being matched up against 5 alliances (~1000 peeps of similar activity, but spread out over ~20 guilds). Again, a cap smaller than guild cap is meaningless. Alliance player cap has to be 500 or more. 1 max sized guild on the current system is the lowest common denominator. The only reasonable way to go lower is to lower the guild cap itself. I dont mind - got like 5 guild masters and ~5 active players in my WvW guild, lol. But I am fairly sure that 500 man guilds would find it unacceptable.

  • So is this means larger map for containing more ppl? we gonna run like ants in wvw if we gunna try this , i mean like when the 1st time you guys launch the feature
    and also if this feature gunna be added , then we will deal with overwhelming lag right? (My Internet is a potatonet) i cant handle big zerg fight which means a total back off from wvw forever?

  • @Euryon.9248 said:

    @SugarCayne.3098 said:
    You do realize that by saying guilds will be used for population metrics it will increase the “must represent 100% of the time” factor for most big guilds?

    And if they don’t like their pairings? Do not represent.

    You are creating a massive problem with that. It will be exploited.

    Repping has nothing to do with the metrics and no effect on alliances. It hinges entirely on which guild you set as your "wvw guild", which you can rep 100% of the time or 0%. There is nothing to exploit here that isn't already in the system.

    Yes.

    And it can be manipulated.

    Matches are determined by the participation activity of members of any given guild.

    Don’t like a match? Switch your chosen WvW Guild and play in another.

    And so on....

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @Spurnshadow.3678 said:
    QUESTION:

    It has been stated that one of the factors in world creation will be to try to group together "friends" or people you play with. I'm sure this will be weighted against over all population of your world with your friends and the population of the other servers. My question: does the "friend factor" work across alliances? For example, what if there are 2 alliances formed and all the players play with each other. Are the odds good that both alliances will be on the same world? Some practical aspects: a current server, Awesomesause, has a healthy NA and EU population. The NA guilds form an alliance and the EU guilds form an alliance. Is there a high probability that these two alliances will be on the same world when this system is implemented?

    I don't think anyone has answered this directly, but the answer should be no. There would be alliance or not-alliance; alliance would be guaranteed to stay together, not-alliance would be more or less random as to whether it ends up on the same server. If you're talking about an alliance on the NA servers and a "sister" alliance on the EU servers -- I have seen no indication that the wvw worlds will ever cross the NA-EU server gap. They will still be completely separate pools of players.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @GrimReaper.3865 said:
    So is this means larger map for containing more ppl? we gonna run like ants in wvw if we gunna try this , i mean like when the 1st time you guys launch the feature
    and also if this feature gunna be added , then we will deal with overwhelming lag right? (My Internet is a potatonet) i cant handle big zerg fight which means a total back off from wvw forever?

    No one has said or suggested that map caps will be any larger than they are currently, afaik. It appears that the various worlds will be approximately the same size as a mediuim or large server currently is, and any given alliance will comprise no more than 20-25% of that world's population, which is why "stacking" alliances would be far less effective than stacking servers currently is, and probably hardly worth the effort to game. I'm sure people will try because, well, people, but I doubt they will ever succeed in creating anything like the BG megalith we currently have.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2018

    @GrimReaper.3865 said:
    So is this means larger map for containing more ppl? we gonna run like ants in wvw if we gunna try this , i mean like when the 1st time you guys launch the feature
    and also if this feature gunna be added , then we will deal with overwhelming lag right? (My Internet is a potatonet) i cant handle big zerg fight which means a total back off from wvw forever?

    Why on earth do you even think that? The new system cant just create players out of thin air. That's physically impossible and beyond even Anets programming magic. There will be just as many players now as after it's implemented on about as many matchups with sides that will probably roughly equal T2-T3 servers (since chunks of players in what is now high pop servers will be allocated to what is now low pop servers the curve will be flatter with more even matchup populations). Cripes this thread was supposed to be devs answering questions, lol.

    And as Anet has said, this system will also allow for dynamic matchup sizes. You could have 3 matchups (ie EoTM). Or 6 matchups. Or 9. Or 12. 15. 18. Etc. How many you want depending on the total population of WvW, with 8 weeks refresh between changes. It's MUCH more flexible for just the thing you want - not overloading matchups with too many players, or not allowing too low population in empty tiers.

  • Ben K.6238Ben K.6238 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    If you look at the restructuring system top down, the guild cap is clearly there to handle smaller chunks of the player base better. Having 50 guilds in one alliance would be counterproductive to this purpose - you could never match those guilds against each other.

    That's somewhat irrelevant though. If you have 10-20 guilds that want to ally, there's nothing stopping them from forming conglomerate guilds whose only purpose is to dodge the alliance guild cap.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ben K.6238 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    If you look at the restructuring system top down, the guild cap is clearly there to handle smaller chunks of the player base better. Having 50 guilds in one alliance would be counterproductive to this purpose - you could never match those guilds against each other.

    That's somewhat irrelevant though. If you have 10-20 guilds that want to ally, there's nothing stopping them from forming conglomerate guilds whose only purpose is to dodge the alliance guild cap.

    As long as they don't exceed the alliance population, what difference does it make? Whether an alliance consists of people in 1 or 20 guilds isn't going to affect their abilities or the world population.

  • Ben K.6238Ben K.6238 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2018

    None whatsoever, but it proves that limiting the number of guilds in an alliance is pointless for any reason other than ease of implementation.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @SugarCayne.3098 said:

    @Euryon.9248 said:

    @SugarCayne.3098 said:
    You do realize that by saying guilds will be used for population metrics it will increase the “must represent 100% of the time” factor for most big guilds?

    And if they don’t like their pairings? Do not represent.

    You are creating a massive problem with that. It will be exploited.

    Repping has nothing to do with the metrics and no effect on alliances. It hinges entirely on which guild you set as your "wvw guild", which you can rep 100% of the time or 0%. There is nothing to exploit here that isn't already in the system.

    Yes.

    And it can be manipulated.

    Matches are determined by the participation activity of members of any given guild.

    Don’t like a match? Switch your chosen WvW Guild and play in another.

    And so on....

    No, repping has NO effect, which is what your original contention was. Activity levels will be analyzed in and of themselves, without regards to who you rep x% of the time. I don't know where you are pulling this nonsense from. Repping and setting your wvw guild have no relationship.

    Of course you will be able to switch your selected wvw guild and potentially play with another alliance in the next session, assuming that alliance isn't full. You can't alliance-hop willy nilly in the middle of the season, although they may provide for gem-cost transfers to non-full worlds. People will obviously move and change guilds as this progresses. The alliance cap itself is going to heavily dampen any real effects of stacking or gaming. The current system is far more subject to manipulation than the one they're working on, and I really don't understand the strident opposition to the change on the basis of sky-is-falling fears of gaming.

  • Suggestion: Allow guild ranks with member editing permissions (kick/role moving/etc) to manually toggle somebody's "wvw flag" off. So if a guild wants to use a slot for a new player, and has a quit/less than wonderful current player they would want to trade out, it's possible without kicking the old member or trying to talk/force them into de-flagging themselves.

    You rephrased it to appear considered about your guildees but only succeeded it verifying that elitist will find a way to game the system. Let me guess you run closed squads or tag less squads? Having an alliance with you would mean watching for the dagger in the back.

  • SugarCayne.3098SugarCayne.3098 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2018

    @Euryon.9248 said:

    @SugarCayne.3098 said:

    @Euryon.9248 said:

    @SugarCayne.3098 said:
    You do realize that by saying guilds will be used for population metrics it will increase the “must represent 100% of the time” factor for most big guilds?

    And if they don’t like their pairings? Do not represent.

    You are creating a massive problem with that. It will be exploited.

    Repping has nothing to do with the metrics and no effect on alliances. It hinges entirely on which guild you set as your "wvw guild", which you can rep 100% of the time or 0%. There is nothing to exploit here that isn't already in the system.

    Yes.

    And it can be manipulated.

    Matches are determined by the participation activity of members of any given guild.

    Don’t like a match? Switch your chosen WvW Guild and play in another.

    And so on....

    No, repping has NO effect, which is what your original contention was. Activity levels will be analyzed in and of themselves, without regards to who you rep x% of the time. I don't know where you are pulling this nonsense from. Repping and setting your wvw guild have no relationship.

    Of course you will be able to switch your selected wvw guild and potentially play with another alliance in the next session, assuming that alliance isn't full. You can't alliance-hop willy nilly in the middle of the season, although they may provide for gem-cost transfers to non-full worlds. People will obviously move and change guilds as this progresses. The alliance cap itself is going to heavily dampen any real effects of stacking or gaming. The current system is far more subject to manipulation than the one they're working on, and I really don't understand the strident opposition to the change on the basis of sky-is-falling fears of gaming.

    You switch alliance guild for next matchup. You say you can do that above. Even suggest you can do this mid game for a fee. Remove the word rep. It seems to create confusion.

    Extrapolate. How will Anet determine matchmaking?

    Don’t look at it as a single player moving, think an entire guild. And because these alliances will be much smaller, the greater the impact.

    Anything that lets a player impact metrics will be exploited.

    Some will do it to ensure their rivals have nobody to fight for eight weeks. Others will do it to surge an alliance and give false metrics for next matchmaking.

    Just because I can already see the exploits is not a sky is falling reaction. I think some folks are refusing to consider these issues because it negates the proposal. Or they just haven’t considered how it will be exploited.

    The point is that if players have the option to choose guild A B or C as their WvW Guild, and can arbitrarily change that, it will be exploited.

  • Lemoncurry.2345Lemoncurry.2345 Member ✭✭
    edited February 5, 2018

    Q: Will recruitment for a designated WvW-guild be disabled when it's alliance's player cap is reached?

    One extreme example of exploiting the system: Create 4 small designated WvW guilds, the system allows them to form one alliance (because they fall well below the 500 alliance cap). After that, start binge-recruiting members in each of the guilds. With a guild cap of 500 people you could end up with 2000 players (so nearly a whole server by your metrics) in these guilds and thus in their alliance, well above the normal limit.
    Needless to say, that would give this inflated alliance organizational advantages to more smaller and heterogeneous groups. It would also make it harder for you to balance out MUs because smaller chunks of player-groups is what you want after all.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @Lemoncurry.2345 said:
    Q: Will recruitment for a designated WvW-guild be disabled when it's alliance's player cap is reached?

    One extreme example of exploiting the system: Create 4 small designated WvW guilds, the system allows them to form one alliance (because they fall well below the 500 alliance cap). After that, start binge-recruiting members in each of the guilds. With a guild cap of 500 people you could end up with 2000 players (so nearly a whole server by your metrics) in these guilds and thus in their alliance, well above the normal limit.
    Needless to say, that would give this inflated alliance organizational advantages to more smaller and heterogeneous groups. It would also make it harder for you to balance out MUs because smaller chunks of player-groups is what you want after all.

    They've already said that you can't exceed the alliance cap by adding new members to a guild in a capped alliance. So this won't be possible. Once that alliance hits 500 (e.g.) people, any guild in it will not be able to add new members (for wvw purposes) without removing an existing wvw member. Has no effect on guildies who haven't chosen the guild as their wvw guild, but any new guild members will have to play on a non-full world until the alliance makes room for them.

  • @Euryon.9248 said:
    They've already said that you can't exceed the alliance cap by adding new members to a guild in a capped alliance. So this won't be possible. Once that alliance hits 500 (e.g.) people, any guild in it will not be able to add new members (for wvw purposes) without removing an existing wvw member. Has no effect on guildies who haven't chosen the guild as their wvw guild, but any new guild members will have to play on a non-full world until the alliance makes room for them.

    Ah, tyvm , I must have overlooked that bit of information!

  • No One.3716No One.3716 Member ✭✭
    edited February 5, 2018

    @Lemoncurry.2345 said:

    @Euryon.9248 said:
    They've already said that you can't exceed the alliance cap by adding new members to a guild in a capped alliance. So this won't be possible. Once that alliance hits 500 (e.g.) people, any guild in it will not be able to add new members (for wvw purposes) without removing an existing wvw member. Has no effect on guildies who haven't chosen the guild as their wvw guild, but any new guild members will have to play on a non-full world until the alliance makes room for them.

    Ah, tyvm , I must have overlooked that bit of information!

    Except they would be able to transfer to the same world, providing it wasn't full. Full alliance =/= Full world.

  • There's allot of good info here that you can keep adding to until this goes live, can we get this stickied?
    @Raymond Lukes.6305

    #nornmodeisbestmode

  • @Euryon.9248 said:

    @Lemoncurry.2345 said:
    Q: Will recruitment for a designated WvW-guild be disabled when it's alliance's player cap is reached?

    One extreme example of exploiting the system: Create 4 small designated WvW guilds, the system allows them to form one alliance (because they fall well below the 500 alliance cap). After that, start binge-recruiting members in each of the guilds. With a guild cap of 500 people you could end up with 2000 players (so nearly a whole server by your metrics) in these guilds and thus in their alliance, well above the normal limit.
    Needless to say, that would give this inflated alliance organizational advantages to more smaller and heterogeneous groups. It would also make it harder for you to balance out MUs because smaller chunks of player-groups is what you want after all.

    They've already said that you can't exceed the alliance cap by adding new members to a guild in a capped alliance. So this won't be possible. Once that alliance hits 500 (e.g.) people, any guild in it will not be able to add new members (for wvw purposes) without removing an existing wvw member. Has no effect on guildies who haven't chosen the guild as their wvw guild, but any new guild members will have to play on a non-full world until the alliance makes room for them.

    Agreed, this guilds probably won’t be able to recruit period until their alliance sheds a guild or they cull their ranks of inactives etc.

    Even if a friend wasn’t in the wvw guild, as long as their friends were in that wvw guild, they’d probably be auto-sorted to that world upon creation at the season beginning anyways.

    CD-FA-TC-HoD-SoS-TC-FA-SBI-SoS-JQ-ET-SFR-FA-DR-SF- Mag
    Darth

  • Menzo.2185Menzo.2185 Member ✭✭✭

    How can I be recruited by a blackgate guild, that will did a OP alliance, being a member of other server right now? They wont recruit me.
    And... if they probably make an alliance with all already existed guilds of theirs server, NOTHING will change, right?

  • Real issue that has not been tackled in most WvW changes is: Scouting + Roaming. There's no system to reward or incentivise doing said actions. What could change to do such things is a few things I thought as additions: Giving WXP for Disabling siege, a system that "upgrades" the already available tatics system in objectives (i.e: Could be so that if a Ranger that stays ACTIVELY [aka not afk; moving around] scouting a objetive for X ammount of time (30 minutes?) and that Tower has a Watchtower upgrade on it, the Ranger would increase the range of it; Or a Engineer that does the same, could make the Auto-Turrets in a Keep or SMC to fire more quickly; That would improve the usage of said classes in WvW and also give a reason or meaning for scouting), make a system for quick world-wide callouts (i.e: There could be a lever [like the current Tactivators] that would be only able to be used if the objetive [probably not camps] is under attack by siege, which would reward the player with WXP or Participation, and would do a Map callout (either just link the tower in map chat, or do a "on-top-of-screen" announcement like the ones of when you claim or cap a objetive, or a siren that would ring for nearby players [aka, in the nearby territories] (?).
    In doing so, there would be more reason to sit in tower and defend it (even if it's "paper", Tier 0) since it would reward you in someway, since the current rewards is wishing someone will give you squad participation for doing so or mailing gold/items. As for roaming, the main issue is the current ammount of roamers which is very low.

    TL;DR: What's the proposal for changes in roaming and scouting aspects? As both dont reward as much as just running around with the zerg, and are just as important for the PPT of the "server".

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @danserafim.7051 said:
    How can I be recruited by a blackgate guild, that will did a OP alliance, being a member of other server right now? They wont recruit me.
    And... if they probably make an alliance with all already existed guilds of theirs server, NOTHING will change, right?

    If you read the changes more carefully, you'll realize that making an alliance with every other guild on the server will be impossible. An alliance will be at most 20-30% of a server, and will almost certain eventually face off against another alliance that used to be part of the same server. Stacking an entire world won't be possible.

  • erKo.9586erKo.9586 Member ✭✭

    Thanks for this FAQ, it answered alot of my questions :)

  • @Raymond Lukes.6305 If you can add additional weights for roamers to be grouped, you could add opt-in flags for the old servers people could use to be placed somewhat together without being forced into a guild/alliance. Could also help ease the plague of RPers that have invaded WvW evidently.

  • Questions:
    1. Will the Matchmaker attempt (NOT GUARANTEE) to place players with their guilds if none is set as a 'personal-wvw-guild'?
    2. Is it possible to have 1 guild be a GUARANTEE placement (already stated to be coming), with a second being a PREFERRED placement.
    If i am correct, this would not make too much a difference to the matchmaker, due to the 2nd guild NOT being guaranteed.

    This is due to seeing multiple posts in the main 35page (at time of writing) thread from people saying they are in multiple guilds that WILL NOT form an alliance due to one being a WvW community/raid guild, and the other being a roamer guild, or a PvX/casual guild full of friends who sometimes jump to WvW with their less-casual WvW buddy.

    Any response would be greatly appreciated, either conformation that this could POSSIBLY be done, or some explanation as to why this is not possible.

    Thanks for your hard work, and the increased communication regarding a great game-mode.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @pombear.1058 said:
    Questions:
    1. Will the Matchmaker attempt (NOT GUARANTEE) to place players with their guilds if none is set as a 'personal-wvw-guild'?
    2. Is it possible to have 1 guild be a GUARANTEE placement (already stated to be coming), with a second being a PREFERRED placement.
    If i am correct, this would not make too much a difference to the matchmaker, due to the 2nd guild NOT being guaranteed.

    This is due to seeing multiple posts in the main 35page (at time of writing) thread from people saying they are in multiple guilds that WILL NOT form an alliance due to one being a WvW community/raid guild, and the other being a roamer guild, or a PvX/casual guild full of friends who sometimes jump to WvW with their less-casual WvW buddy.

    Any response would be greatly appreciated, either conformation that this could POSSIBLY be done, or some explanation as to why this is not possible.

    Thanks for your hard work, and the increased communication regarding a great game-mode.

    Just my thoughts:

    1) I would say no, because that opens up a potential loophole/exploit for loading a world
    2) If the first guild is a guarantee (100%) then the 2nd guild would be completely irrelevant because it would never come into play, at least not for the person doing the selecting. Unless you mean this as a mechanism for getting OTHER people in the 2nd guild into the world where the first guild's alliance is set? I would have the same objection to that as to the first argument, i.e. potential exploiting to stack a world.

  • pombear.1058pombear.1058 Member ✭✭
    edited February 5, 2018

    @Euryon.9248 said:

    @pombear.1058 said:
    Questions:
    1. Will the Matchmaker attempt (NOT GUARANTEE) to place players with their guilds if none is set as a 'personal-wvw-guild'?
    2. Is it possible to have 1 guild be a GUARANTEE placement (already stated to be coming), with a second being a PREFERRED placement.
    If i am correct, this would not make too much a difference to the matchmaker, due to the 2nd guild NOT being guaranteed.

    This is due to seeing multiple posts in the main 35page (at time of writing) thread from people saying they are in multiple guilds that WILL NOT form an alliance due to one being a WvW community/raid guild, and the other being a roamer guild, or a PvX/casual guild full of friends who sometimes jump to WvW with their less-casual WvW buddy.

    Any response would be greatly appreciated, either conformation that this could POSSIBLY be done, or some explanation as to why this is not possible.

    Thanks for your hard work, and the increased communication regarding a great game-mode.

    Just my thoughts:

    1) I would say no, because that opens up a potential loophole/exploit for loading a world
    2) If the first guild is a guarantee (100%) then the 2nd guild would be completely irrelevant because it would never come into play, at least not for the person doing the selecting. Unless you mean this as a mechanism for getting OTHER people in the 2nd guild into the world where the first guild's alliance is set? I would have the same objection to that as to the first argument, i.e. potential exploiting to stack a world.

    I understand the issues around stacking, and agree that this sort of thing could be used for it, hence some clarification:
    What i am suggesting is similar to the current PvE maps, where it prioritizes guilds, but if you cannot fit (in this case if it would skew matchmaking), then you don't get in.
    This is further reduced by 2) where only 1 guild is 'preferred'.

    Or even being able to select a LIMITED number of friends who would be 'prefered', if a guild has too much potential to be used for stacking.
    This could further be secured by having it so that both players must select eachother for the prefered status to be active...
    Remember an alliance could be ~20-50% (based on 500 being 20-25% and 500-1000 limit in alliance) of a world size, plenty of room for more guilds/alliances/players.

    IMO, GW2 has always been about allowing friends to play together, Mega-servers, Region-based SPvP, the only (slight) outlier has been WvW, which could be fixed by switching server (my small guild have collectively gathered gold to get guildies onto our server). With this change (as it is currently described), people in multiple guilds who currently play WvW together on the server will get screwed.

    Those in multiple WvW guilds would likely make alliances and stay together, but it is highly doubtful that they will accept PvX/casual guilds due to the guild cap, and wanting spaces for those more WvW focused.

  • Nebilim.5127Nebilim.5127 Member ✭✭✭

    @Islwynn.6527 said:
    RE Roleplayers

    Why not make a ROTM map for those who are into it? I imagine they find us non-roleplayers as annoying as we do them in a map meant for fighting.

    Could be an easy fix. Just let people mark their account as roleplayer, and then the server will prioritize those people together before filling with others

  • Shadowfall.7148Shadowfall.7148 Member
    edited February 6, 2018

    If you want to guarantee playing with other roamers that you are friends with, then you can make a guild. If you do not want to do that, then there should still be plenty of roamers on the new worlds.

    If only just 'making a guild' was that easy. :/
    Does this sort of thing mean that the number of guilds you can be a part of will be expanded, either for free or for a cost?
    Because I know I don't have any guild slots free to be able to make or join a more WvW focused guild, and I don't like that this seems like I'm going to be forced to drop one of those, just to join said WvW guild.

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

    As far as i understand.

    There is a 1000 pop world of active population composed of wvw guilds and non guilds (individuals).

    they will be assigned in a random world.

    guild members can play together.

    allied guilds can play on the same side by choice on the same world.

    as long as that world is not full, others can join whether in the alliance or not. or assigned there if no choice is made and moved every 8 weeks.

    is this correct?

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 6, 2018

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    As far as i understand.

    There is a 1000 pop world of active population composed of wvw guilds and non guilds (individuals).

    Unknown at this time. That number is an estimate. That would likely be the max for an Alliance. An alliance would be at max 30ish% of a world's population.

    they will be assigned in a random world.

    What has been said says this is true

    guild members can play together.

    If they all have the same WvW guild selected at the start of a matchup.

    allied guilds can play on the same side by choice on the same world.

    As long as their is room in the alliance.

    as long as that world is not full, others can join whether in the alliance or not. or assigned there if no choice is made and moved every 8 weeks.

    As of what we have been told, yes. But likely would be a transfer fee. And no promise when next season hits.

    is this correct?

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 6, 2018

    in visual form.

    {world (alliance [guilds]) (individuals)} > 1000?

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • "We would use commander time and squad sizes to determine a scaler to that commander players play time. For example, these are not the real values but I am not even a full cup of coffee in so for my sake I am going to make the math easy, PlayerA, PlayerB and PlayerC all play for roughly 100 hours a week. PlayerA commands smaller havoc squads, PlayerB is a PUG zerg commander, and PlayerC does not command. "

    I would like to touch on something from this snippet.
    You talk about Commanders that command small Havoc Squads....
    The problem with that wording is that you CAN'T Command a small Havoc Squad, because in your terms a Commander is "Pinned Up". When you pin up you gather unwanted numbers which makes your Havoc Squad no longer a Havoc Squad, but a Zerg/Blob.
    My Guild runs Havoc 99% of the time, and now and then 1 of us might pin to pull numbers.
    We run un-pinned and we do a LOT of work for the server we are on and/or linked with. But get no recognition for this, because we cannot do what we do, IF we were to pin, and be recognized by Anet as a Squad.
    Unless I am wrong and Anet has a way to count Squads that are not pinned?
    Havoc Squads are very important to any type of "war", and should be SEEN as viable without having to "Command/Pin Up".

    Thanks for reading!

    And thanks for making these changes, Anet. Long overdue!

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 6, 2018

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    in visual form.

    {world (alliance [guilds]) (individuals)} > 1000?

    "World" likely more than 1000 yes. "Could" be each alliance has up to 500 in it, and up to 2 alliances in a world. Non allied guilds could also be in that world, with individuals also as long as the total does go over (let's just use an arbitrary number) 2000 people.

    So... guild size for this purpose 'might' be different than current cap. But, even now, most guilds (and I'd argue likely all) that are at the current cap, don't have all of them playing WvW

  • Darlgon.9273Darlgon.9273 Member ✭✭✭

    RE Roamers.. Since you asked here..

    How will it work for people that dont have a real WvW guild, or are only in a PVX guild, or, even the few that are .. gasp.. guildless? Those players cannot select NA/EU or a primary language, from the way the system is described.

    Some of us roamers ARE in WvW guilds, so we wont have to worry about that so much. However, since we cant play at the main times our guild fights, how much do we skew the numbers? Is that a concern, since you are looking at a granular player level, as well as a guild level? What about those of us who have commander tags but, use them to troll the enemy with a tag to distract from the real commander on the map?

    What if our participation is high one week, then low the next? Are you using an average or a peak to peak?

  • Norbe.7630Norbe.7630 Member ✭✭✭

    @TheWolf.1602 said:
    What is missing in this FAQ is the outnumbered bonus, assuming the ideal situation of (near) equal population balance and time coverage would mean that the outnumbered bonus would be gone. Are those pips going to be moved to other criteria (multiple tiers of commitment) or will they be a thing of the past?

    That's the million dollar question. =)

    Why So Serious?

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

    @Norbe.7630 said:

    @TheWolf.1602 said:
    What is missing in this FAQ is the outnumbered bonus, assuming the ideal situation of (near) equal population balance and time coverage would mean that the outnumbered bonus would be gone. Are those pips going to be moved to other criteria (multiple tiers of commitment) or will they be a thing of the past?

    That's the million dollar question. =)

    Thats overthinking the change. Why would the outnumbered buff even need touching? WvW will still play the same in matchups as it does now, even if some fancy MMR with guilds and alliances was done in the background when the world was formed. And right now, how the sides are balanced doesnt matter for outmanned. You can be leading a matchup and still be outmanned on DBL cause you got 10 people against a 50 man that just descended on the border.

    Ideal world populations in balanced matchups doesnt suddenly mean permanent 1:1 fights.

    This is WvW.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 6, 2018

    @Raymond Lukes.6305

    QUESTION:
    Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

    Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

    Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

    My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

  • Will there a poll for us to vote for server or alliances system after the alliance beta test? Never forget the big wvw population drop after the instroduction of dersert bl.

  • Swamurabi.7890Swamurabi.7890 Member ✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    @Raymond Lukes.6305

    QUESTION:
    Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

    Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

    Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

    My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

    Players make guilds, guilds make alliances

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

    @Swamurabi.7890 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    @Raymond Lukes.6305

    QUESTION:
    Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

    Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

    Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

    My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

    Players make guilds, guilds make alliances

    I get that. That wasn't the question.

  • Swamurabi.7890Swamurabi.7890 Member ✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Swamurabi.7890 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    @Raymond Lukes.6305

    QUESTION:
    Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

    Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

    Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

    My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

    Players make guilds, guilds make alliances

    I get that. That wasn't the question.

    How about this then.

    Players make guilds with a limit of players per guild.
    Guilds make alliances with a limit of guilds per alliance and a limit of players per alliance.
    Players and guilds and alliances make worlds, with a limit on alliances per world and a limit of play hours compared to other worlds.

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

    @Swamurabi.7890 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Swamurabi.7890 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    @Raymond Lukes.6305

    QUESTION:
    Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

    Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

    Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

    My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

    Players make guilds, guilds make alliances

    I get that. That wasn't the question.

    How about this then.

    Players make guilds with a limit of players per guild.
    Guilds make alliances with a limit of guilds per alliance and a limit of players per alliance.
    Players and guilds and alliances make worlds, with a limit on alliances per world and a limit of play hours compared to other worlds.

    Still not an answer to my question. Will an alliance be allowed to functionally accept individual players not in a guild.

  • Swamurabi.7890Swamurabi.7890 Member ✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Swamurabi.7890 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Swamurabi.7890 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    @Raymond Lukes.6305

    QUESTION:
    Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

    Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

    Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

    My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

    Players make guilds, guilds make alliances

    I get that. That wasn't the question.

    How about this then.

    Players make guilds with a limit of players per guild.
    Guilds make alliances with a limit of guilds per alliance and a limit of players per alliance.
    Players and guilds and alliances make worlds, with a limit on alliances per world and a limit of play hours compared to other worlds.

    Still not an answer to my question. Will an alliance be allowed to functionally accept individual players not in a guild.

    alliances are made of guilds, not individual players.

  • @Zolazie Grengche.3051 said:
    "We would use commander time and squad sizes to determine a scaler to that commander players play time. For example, these are not the real values but I am not even a full cup of coffee in so for my sake I am going to make the math easy, PlayerA, PlayerB and PlayerC all play for roughly 100 hours a week. PlayerA commands smaller havoc squads, PlayerB is a PUG zerg commander, and PlayerC does not command. "

    I would like to touch on something from this snippet.
    You talk about Commanders that command small Havoc Squads....
    The problem with that wording is that you CAN'T Command a small Havoc Squad, because in your terms a Commander is "Pinned Up". When you pin up you gather unwanted numbers which makes your Havoc Squad no longer a Havoc Squad, but a Zerg/Blob.
    My Guild runs Havoc 99% of the time, and now and then 1 of us might pin to pull numbers.
    We run un-pinned and we do a LOT of work for the server we are on and/or linked with. But get no recognition for this, because we cannot do what we do, IF we were to pin, and be recognized by Anet as a Squad.
    Unless I am wrong and Anet has a way to count Squads that are not pinned?
    Havoc Squads are very important to any type of "war", and should be SEEN as viable without having to "Command/Pin Up".

    Thanks for reading!

    And thanks for making these changes, Anet. Long overdue!

    My guild does the same thing @Zolazie Grengche.3051. We've actually gotten in the habit of running tagged in recent months. We just set the squad to closed (nobody can join) and sometimes to semi-open (can join with approval). We mostly run closed since we're all in the same voice chat. Yes, we've gotten some flack from others on the map who have a differing opinion on what a commander tag should be and do and when to fly one. We simply say we're havocing/roaming and proceed with our fun, ignoring the comments. You could try that for the next few months, in order to make sure Anet's new system gets more counting in.

    That said, I 100% agree with you that Anet should also watch tagless squads and count those in the new system metrics as well. We still do that alot ourselve.

    Better yet --- Anet: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE introduce a "private" or "hidden tag" squad option. This has been a need/problem/annoyance for a LONG time now. This will allow squads like mine and Zolazie's to run a tag -- which our group can see for following and orienting -- and which we need for the squad features -- like /squadinfo and subgroup control -- but no one else on the map can see our tag. And no, turning off the current "Show All Commander Tags" option doesn't solve this problem. This would be a huge benefit to roaming/havoc/small teams that want to NOT attract random followers, but still benefit from the squad features!

  • @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Swamurabi.7890 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Swamurabi.7890 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    @Raymond Lukes.6305

    QUESTION:
    Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

    Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

    Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

    My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

    Players make guilds, guilds make alliances

    I get that. That wasn't the question.

    How about this then.

    Players make guilds with a limit of players per guild.
    Guilds make alliances with a limit of guilds per alliance and a limit of players per alliance.
    Players and guilds and alliances make worlds, with a limit on alliances per world and a limit of play hours compared to other worlds.

    Still not an answer to my question. Will an alliance be allowed to functionally accept individual players not in a guild.

    Anet has not stated that will be the case. However, you make a good point. Random, individual "roamers" should be allowed to join an alliance. Especially if it's a group of people they like to play with or around. It's important to respect different players preferences when it comes to flying solo or being associated with a guild.

  • SugarCayne.3098SugarCayne.3098 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 10, 2018

    @Euryon.9248 said:

    @SugarCayne.3098 said:

    @Euryon.9248 said:

    @SugarCayne.3098 said:
    You do realize that by saying guilds will be used for population metrics it will increase the “must represent 100% of the time” factor for most big guilds?

    And if they don’t like their pairings? Do not represent.

    You are creating a massive problem with that. It will be exploited.

    Repping has nothing to do with the metrics and no effect on alliances. It hinges entirely on which guild you set as your "wvw guild", which you can rep 100% of the time or 0%. There is nothing to exploit here that isn't already in the system.

    Yes.

    And it can be manipulated.

    Matches are determined by the participation activity of members of any given guild.

    Don’t like a match? Switch your chosen WvW Guild and play in another.

    And so on....

    No, repping has NO effect, which is what your original contention was. Activity levels will be analyzed in and of themselves, without regards to who you rep x% of the time. I don't know where you are pulling this nonsense from. Repping and setting your wvw guild have no relationship.

    Of course you will be able to switch your selected wvw guild and potentially play with another alliance in the next session, assuming that alliance isn't full. You can't alliance-hop willy nilly in the middle of the season, although they may provide for gem-cost transfers to non-full worlds. People will obviously move and change guilds as this progresses. The alliance cap itself is going to heavily dampen any real effects of stacking or gaming. The current system is far more subject to manipulation than the one they're working on, and I really don't understand the strident opposition to the change on the basis of sky-is-falling fears of gaming.

    //

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    McKenna wrote:

    "We plan to track stats like play hours in WvW, commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels. "

    Given that players will only be able to choose one WvW guild per account, the statistics will be skewed for a bit for players with multiple WvW guilds. It is very likely you will need to take current guild membership into account when looking at play hours and make some adjustments to account for guild splits, subtracting hours.

    For example, I have one main WvW account and two main WvW guilds that rally at different times. I use a single WvW account for both guilds. But it is very likely that the two guilds will end up on different teams and thus halve the total play hours on the main WvW account. I know I'm not the only player who rallies with more than one WvW guild and will be affected like this.

    Your play time will only apply to the guild you select as your WvW guild. You can only select one guild per account. If you play with multiple account then the play time of each account would be applied to the guild that was selected on that account.

    This would in effect mean if you have one account and play with two different guilds the total play time for the account will be applied to the guild that you pick. If you are saying that your play time will change as a result of not being able to join your other rally then it will take some time to adjust to your new play hours.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @SugarCayne.3098 said:

    @Euryon.9248 said:

    @SugarCayne.3098 said:

    @Euryon.9248 said:

    @SugarCayne.3098 said:
    You do realize that by saying guilds will be used for population metrics it will increase the “must represent 100% of the time” factor for most big guilds?

    And if they don’t like their pairings? Do not represent.

    You are creating a massive problem with that. It will be exploited.

    Repping has nothing to do with the metrics and no effect on alliances. It hinges entirely on which guild you set as your "wvw guild", which you can rep 100% of the time or 0%. There is nothing to exploit here that isn't already in the system.

    Yes.

    And it can be manipulated.

    Matches are determined by the participation activity of members of any given guild.

    Don’t like a match? Switch your chosen WvW Guild and play in another.

    And so on....

    No, repping has NO effect, which is what your original contention was. Activity levels will be analyzed in and of themselves, without regards to who you rep x% of the time. I don't know where you are pulling this nonsense from. Repping and setting your wvw guild have no relationship.

    Of course you will be able to switch your selected wvw guild and potentially play with another alliance in the next session, assuming that alliance isn't full. You can't alliance-hop willy nilly in the middle of the season, although they may provide for gem-cost transfers to non-full worlds. People will obviously move and change guilds as this progresses. The alliance cap itself is going to heavily dampen any real effects of stacking or gaming. The current system is far more subject to manipulation than the one they're working on, and I really don't understand the strident opposition to the change on the basis of sky-is-falling fears of gaming.

    //

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    McKenna wrote:

    "We plan to track stats like play hours in WvW, commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels. "

    Given that players will only be able to choose one WvW guild per account, the statistics will be skewed for a bit for players with multiple WvW guilds. It is very likely you will need to take current guild membership into account when looking at play hours and make some adjustments to account for guild splits, subtracting hours.

    For example, I have one main WvW account and two main WvW guilds that rally at different times. I use a single WvW account for both guilds. But it is very likely that the two guilds will end up on different teams and thus halve the total play hours on the main WvW account. I know I'm not the only player who rallies with more than one WvW guild and will be affected like this.

    Your play time will only apply to the guild you select as your WvW guild. You can only select one guild per account. If you play with multiple account then the play time of each account would be applied to the guild that was selected on that account.

    This would in effect mean if you have one account and play with two different guilds the total play time for the account will be applied to the guild that you pick. If you are saying that your play time will change as a result of not being able to join your other rally then it will take some time to adjust to your new play hours.

    Not sure what the point of this is, the 2 posts you've linked have nothing to do with each other. One is about repping, the other is about computing play hours to be used to balance the first (and only the first) session in the new system.

2
©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.