World Restructuring FAQ - Page 3 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

World Restructuring FAQ

13>

Comments

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

    @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.

    Lol why should individual players even be needed? Just join one of the guilds in the alliance. Thats how an alliance accept a new player.

    If there are no more guild slots, you dont want to join one of the guilds or no one want you in their guild then why the hell should you be in the alliance?

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

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @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.

    Lol why should individual players even be needed? Just join one of the guilds in the alliance. Thats how an alliance accept a new player.

    If there are no more guild slots, you dont want to join one of the guilds or no one want you in their guild then why the hell should you be in the alliance?

    Functionally, you are correct. I haven't seen the answer though. Whether we can see why it would be desired or not, there are some who would want this option.

    The question is whether it is an option nor not. Not whether it SHOULD BE or not.

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

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @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.

    Lol why should individual players even be needed? Just join one of the guilds in the alliance. Thats how an alliance accept a new player.

    If there are no more guild slots, you dont want to join one of the guilds or no one want you in their guild then why the hell should you be in the alliance?

    Functionally, you are correct. I haven't seen the answer though. Whether we can see why it would be desired or not, there are some who would want this option.

    The question is whether it is an option nor not. Not whether it SHOULD BE or not.

    Alright I can tell you it's not an option.

    I am 100% certain of that because alliances does not contain players. They contain guilds, which in turn contain the players. Alliances are for administering the guilds. Guilds are for administering the players. Thus, players join guilds, not alliances.

    I am sure Anet can correct me if wrong (fairly sure they wont say anything though no matter the case :p). If alliances contain individual players the system would actually break since you set one guild as WvW. Being in an alliance outside the guild would be impossible, as it could be on another world than the guild you have have set as WvW - which in turn could be part of another alliance, which has players in other guilds which are part of other alliances. Not currently being in an guild doesnt remove the possibility of being part of one. It'd be a meltdown.

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

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @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.

    Lol why should individual players even be needed? Just join one of the guilds in the alliance. Thats how an alliance accept a new player.

    If there are no more guild slots, you dont want to join one of the guilds or no one want you in their guild then why the hell should you be in the alliance?

    Functionally, you are correct. I haven't seen the answer though. Whether we can see why it would be desired or not, there are some who would want this option.

    The question is whether it is an option nor not. Not whether it SHOULD BE or not.

    Alright I can tell you it's not an option.

    I am 100% certain of that because alliances does not contain players. They contain guilds, which in turn contain the players. Alliances are for administering the guilds. Guilds are for administering the players. Thus, players join guilds, not alliances.

    I am sure Anet can correct me if wrong (fairly sure they wont say anything though no matter the case :p). If alliances contain individual players the system would actually break since you set one guild as WvW. Being in an alliance outside the guild would be impossible, as it could be on another world than the guild you have have set as WvW - which in turn could be part of another alliance, which has players in other guilds which are part of other alliances. Not currently being in an guild doesnt remove the possibility of being part of one. It'd be a meltdown.

    You are very likely correct.

    The only reason I asked is in the diagram they posted back on page one, listed individuals on worlds. Along with guilds and along with alliances. So, if you did not flag one of your guilds as a WvW guild, could you enter an alliance. Wouldn't create the guild conflict, but it's probability just assumed based on the design that you can't.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @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.

    Lol why should individual players even be needed? Just join one of the guilds in the alliance. Thats how an alliance accept a new player.

    If there are no more guild slots, you dont want to join one of the guilds or no one want you in their guild then why the hell should you be in the alliance?

    Functionally, you are correct. I haven't seen the answer though. Whether we can see why it would be desired or not, there are some who would want this option.

    The question is whether it is an option nor not. Not whether it SHOULD BE or not.

    Alright I can tell you it's not an option.

    I am 100% certain of that because alliances does not contain players. They contain guilds, which in turn contain the players. Alliances are for administering the guilds. Guilds are for administering the players. Thus, players join guilds, not alliances.

    I am sure Anet can correct me if wrong (fairly sure they wont say anything though no matter the case :p). If alliances contain individual players the system would actually break since you set one guild as WvW. Being in an alliance outside the guild would be impossible, as it could be on another world than the guild you have have set as WvW - which in turn could be part of another alliance, which has players in other guilds which are part of other alliances. Not currently being in an guild doesnt remove the possibility of being part of one. It'd be a meltdown.

    You are very likely correct.

    The only reason I asked is in the diagram they posted back on page one, listed individuals on worlds. Along with guilds and along with alliances. So, if you did not flag one of your guilds as a WvW guild, could you enter an alliance. Wouldn't create the guild conflict, but it's probability just assumed based on the design that you can't.

    i think the answer is probably no, as guilds, not individuals, appear to be the components of an alliance. As noted, it could cause issues if individuals were allowed to join an alliance directly, and then after they were in one, checked that box on the guild panel that sets that guild as their wvw guild, when said guild is in a different alliance than the one they individually joined. I suspect this is not something that they plan to allow.

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

    @Euryon.9248 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @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.

    Lol why should individual players even be needed? Just join one of the guilds in the alliance. Thats how an alliance accept a new player.

    If there are no more guild slots, you dont want to join one of the guilds or no one want you in their guild then why the hell should you be in the alliance?

    Functionally, you are correct. I haven't seen the answer though. Whether we can see why it would be desired or not, there are some who would want this option.

    The question is whether it is an option nor not. Not whether it SHOULD BE or not.

    Alright I can tell you it's not an option.

    I am 100% certain of that because alliances does not contain players. They contain guilds, which in turn contain the players. Alliances are for administering the guilds. Guilds are for administering the players. Thus, players join guilds, not alliances.

    I am sure Anet can correct me if wrong (fairly sure they wont say anything though no matter the case :p). If alliances contain individual players the system would actually break since you set one guild as WvW. Being in an alliance outside the guild would be impossible, as it could be on another world than the guild you have have set as WvW - which in turn could be part of another alliance, which has players in other guilds which are part of other alliances. Not currently being in an guild doesnt remove the possibility of being part of one. It'd be a meltdown.

    You are very likely correct.

    The only reason I asked is in the diagram they posted back on page one, listed individuals on worlds. Along with guilds and along with alliances. So, if you did not flag one of your guilds as a WvW guild, could you enter an alliance. Wouldn't create the guild conflict, but it's probability just assumed based on the design that you can't.

    i think the answer is probably no, as guilds, not individuals, appear to be the components of an alliance. As noted, it could cause issues if individuals were allowed to join an alliance directly, and then after they were in one, checked that box on the guild panel that sets that guild as their wvw guild, when said guild is in a different alliance than the one they individually joined. I suspect this is not something that they plan to allow.

    That same problem theoretically would exist with a guild both in and out of the alliance that the person belongs to.

    Selecting the guild at the start of a match and entering a different guild would be handled the same way. Not allowing it unless there is room, available based on world assignment and dependent on transfers.

    But yeah, I don't think it would be OK, and looking at the diagram, I think they assumed it is inherent in the design.

  • @Raymond Lukes.6305 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.

    If it depends on guild size, why set a guild limit at all?

  • Tyger.1637Tyger.1637 Member ✭✭✭

    QUESTION: Will Alliances be able to pool resources or will it still be guild-based?
    Say 1 guild has been PvE and another has been WvW or 1 is still building scribing upgrades to get WvW consumables; would the Alliance be able to claim camps/towers/keeps and use the WvW consumables from all member guilds or would it still be defaulted to guild only

    So the refined question would be 'Can Alliances pool WvW resources?'

    As for Roleplayers; if Alliances means we can visit others' guild halls without needing an escort; you will have utterly sold us on Alliances, WvW or not.

  • Klipso.8653Klipso.8653 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Tyger.1637 said:
    QUESTION: Will Alliances be able to pool resources or will it still be guild-based?
    Say 1 guild has been PvE and another has been WvW or 1 is still building scribing upgrades to get WvW consumables; would the Alliance be able to claim camps/towers/keeps and use the WvW consumables from all member guilds or would it still be defaulted to guild only

    So the refined question would be 'Can Alliances pool WvW resources?'

    As for Roleplayers; if Alliances means we can visit others' guild halls without needing an escort; you will have utterly sold us on Alliances, WvW or not.

    Alliances won't be able to claim, it's still going to be guild based so it requires the guild to have those upgrades.
    Alliances only let a tiny group of people get a guarantee that they will be able to play together

    -Balwarc [ICoa]

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

    Is there a reason this is not stickied at least until the decision is made to switch?

    @McKenna Berdrow.2759
    @Raymond Lukes.6305

    I think it has some really vital answers that makes it easier for guild members to come and have a solid understanding of the upcoming changes.

    Thanks!

  • Fuel.3285Fuel.3285 Member ✭✭
    edited February 21, 2018

    Quoted from above:
    "Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world."

    This statement is entirely false. Let me explain:

    As someone who primarily roams/scouts; this couldn't be further from the truth. A key part of roaming/scouting is knowing who the Commander is. If I know the Commander, his/her behaviors and general playstyle; I can figure out where I should go next. I can't do this every 8 weeks as it takes time to learn a specific Commander's behavior, let alone multiple Commanders. The decisions I make are rarely based on the opposition, and almost entirely based on who is Commanding on the map I'm currently in.

    A camp flip, is still a camp flip; regardless of the matchup. Unless they magically become worth more based on opposition and place, their meaning doesn't change.

    ** OFF TOPIC **

    If it wasn't obvious; I'm against this in the first place. I've seen this "solution" before, and I can anticipate the outcome. WvW was messed up initially when "Free" transfers happened about 2 weeks after launch. The damage can be seen by anyone who plays WvW, even those that weren't there for that initial debacle which killed the guild I was in at the time, and broke the Titan Alliance. Yes, I was in it.

    Some History:
    The Titan Alliance was formed for the purposes of getting all like minded individuals on servers pre-launch. Guilds were assigned to servers via size and dedication to the game mode. When the game launched everything was going well. We got the match ups we wanted and expected. Then the "free" server transfers were announced. Why? Well, one of the main reasons was opposition to any server a Titan Alliance member was on. None of the other servers could compete with us mainly do to coverage. Sound familiar? This same debate has been had, discussed, and promptly beaten into the ground before. Anet intends to repeat a past mistake that did immense damage to the game mode, again.

    Conclusion:
    The golden rule of any WvW game is and will always be: "Servers need to be locked at all times". IF changes in population are to occur, you start at the bottom and merge up, or create a new server using the low population servers. The proposed solution is a haphazard one for an immensely complex problem.

    And to the people who want this change to spite Blackgate: Wanting a change for no other reason than spite is not a good for anyone, the game mode, or the game. Blackgate is not responsible for the way things are now. Anet broke the rule stated above, and are going to do so again. And despite what larger guilds want you to think, they are the minority and PUGS are the majority. You mess with the PUGS, you mess with the mode. I should know, I've seen the gamut. I been in large guilds in multiple RvR type games, and I've pugged. (7+ years of DAoC, 4+ years of WAR, 3+ years of WoW, 2+ years of Aion, 7+ years of GW2) I know what I'm talking about.

    I apologize if the above statement(s) sound harsh or hateful, but it is the truth. And no, I'm not from Blackgate - SBI for life here.

    Anet, if you read this, I implore you; don't do this. You will regret it.

  • @Fuel.3285 said:
    Quoted from above:
    "Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world."

    This statement is entirely false. Let me explain:

    As someone who primarily roams/scouts; this couldn't be further from the truth. A key part of roaming/scouting is knowing who the Commander is. If I know the Commander, his/her behaviors and general playstyle; I can figure out where I should go next. I can't do this every 8 weeks as it takes time to learn a specific Commander's behavior, let alone multiple Commanders. The decisions I make are rarely based on the opposition, and almost entirely based on who is Commanding on the map I'm currently in.

    A camp flip, is still a camp flip; regardless of the matchup. Unless they magically become worth more based on opposition and place, their meaning doesn't change.

    ** OFF TOPIC **

    If it wasn't obvious; I'm against this in the first place. I've seen this "solution" before, and I can anticipate the outcome. WvW was messed up initially when "Free" transfers happened about 2 weeks after launch. The damage can be seen by anyone who plays WvW, even those that weren't there for that initial debacle which killed the guild I was in at the time, and broke the Titan Alliance. Yes, I was in it.

    Some History:
    The Titan Alliance was formed for the purposes of getting all like minded individuals on servers pre-launch. Guilds were assigned to servers via size and dedication to the game mode. When the game launched everything was going well. We got the match ups we wanted and expected. Then the "free" server transfers were announced. Why? Well, one of the main reasons was opposition to any server a Titan Alliance member was on. None of the other servers could compete with us mainly do to coverage. Sound familiar? This same debate has been had, discussed, and promptly beaten into the ground before. Anet intends to repeat a past mistake that did immense damage to the game mode, again.

    Conclusion:
    The golden rule of any WvW game is and will always be: "Servers need to be locked at all times". IF changes in population are to occur, you start at the bottom and merge up, or create a new server using the low population servers. The proposed solution is a haphazard one for an immensely complex problem.

    And to the people who want this change to spite Blackgate: Wanting a change for no other reason than spite is not a good for anyone, the game mode, or the game. Blackgate is not responsible for the way things are now. Anet broke the rule stated above, and are going to do so again. And despite what larger guilds want you to think, they are the minority and PUGS are the majority. You mess with the PUGS, you mess with the mode. I should know, I've seen the gamut. I been in large guilds in multiple RvR type games, and I've pugged. (7+ years of DAoC, 4+ years of WAR, 3+ years of WoW, 2+ years of Aion, 7+ years of GW2) I know what I'm talking about.

    I apologize if the above statement(s) sound harsh or hateful, but it is the truth. And no, I'm not from Blackgate - SBI for life here.

    Anet, if you read this, I implore you; don't do this. You will regret it.

    The golden rule should read, Servers should be EQUAL, then locked. That is and always has been the primary issue with WvW. There's a reason why sPvP matches are 5v5 and not 5v4, 5v3, 5v2, 5v1 or even 5v0. The equivalent of which happens in WvW.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @Fuel.3285 said:
    Quoted from above:
    "Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world."

    This statement is entirely false. Let me explain:

    As someone who primarily roams/scouts; this couldn't be further from the truth. A key part of roaming/scouting is knowing who the Commander is. If I know the Commander, his/her behaviors and general playstyle; I can figure out where I should go next. I can't do this every 8 weeks as it takes time to learn a specific Commander's behavior, let alone multiple Commanders. The decisions I make are rarely based on the opposition, and almost entirely based on who is Commanding on the map I'm currently in.

    A camp flip, is still a camp flip; regardless of the matchup. Unless they magically become worth more based on opposition and place, their meaning doesn't change.

    ** OFF TOPIC **

    If it wasn't obvious; I'm against this in the first place. I've seen this "solution" before, and I can anticipate the outcome. WvW was messed up initially when "Free" transfers happened about 2 weeks after launch. The damage can be seen by anyone who plays WvW, even those that weren't there for that initial debacle which killed the guild I was in at the time, and broke the Titan Alliance. Yes, I was in it.

    Some History:
    The Titan Alliance was formed for the purposes of getting all like minded individuals on servers pre-launch. Guilds were assigned to servers via size and dedication to the game mode. When the game launched everything was going well. We got the match ups we wanted and expected. Then the "free" server transfers were announced. Why? Well, one of the main reasons was opposition to any server a Titan Alliance member was on. None of the other servers could compete with us mainly do to coverage. Sound familiar? This same debate has been had, discussed, and promptly beaten into the ground before. Anet intends to repeat a past mistake that did immense damage to the game mode, again.

    Conclusion:
    The golden rule of any WvW game is and will always be: "Servers need to be locked at all times". IF changes in population are to occur, you start at the bottom and merge up, or create a new server using the low population servers. The proposed solution is a haphazard one for an immensely complex problem.

    And to the people who want this change to spite Blackgate: Wanting a change for no other reason than spite is not a good for anyone, the game mode, or the game. Blackgate is not responsible for the way things are now. Anet broke the rule stated above, and are going to do so again. And despite what larger guilds want you to think, they are the minority and PUGS are the majority. You mess with the PUGS, you mess with the mode. I should know, I've seen the gamut. I been in large guilds in multiple RvR type games, and I've pugged. (7+ years of DAoC, 4+ years of WAR, 3+ years of WoW, 2+ years of Aion, 7+ years of GW2) I know what I'm talking about.

    I apologize if the above statement(s) sound harsh or hateful, but it is the truth. And no, I'm not from Blackgate - SBI for life here.

    Anet, if you read this, I implore you; don't do this. You will regret it.

    I really get tired of posts that amount to "people gamed/stacked servers before, this will just be more of the same". Do you really understand how this will work? Nothing you said in your statement directly indicates how people are going to accomplish the same thing again, other than asserting that "history will repeat itself". How are we going to get the same scenario when you can at most lock in 20-25% of a single world's population? The entire problem with the current system is that the unit of permanence -- the server -- is the same as the unit used for matchups -- the world. In the new system those 2 things are decoupled, so there is no permanent stacking of a world.

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

    @Swamurabi.7890 said:

    @Fuel.3285 said:
    Quoted from above:
    "Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world."

    This statement is entirely false. Let me explain:

    As someone who primarily roams/scouts; this couldn't be further from the truth. A key part of roaming/scouting is knowing who the Commander is. If I know the Commander, his/her behaviors and general playstyle; I can figure out where I should go next. I can't do this every 8 weeks as it takes time to learn a specific Commander's behavior, let alone multiple Commanders. The decisions I make are rarely based on the opposition, and almost entirely based on who is Commanding on the map I'm currently in.

    A camp flip, is still a camp flip; regardless of the matchup. Unless they magically become worth more based on opposition and place, their meaning doesn't change.

    ** OFF TOPIC **

    If it wasn't obvious; I'm against this in the first place. I've seen this "solution" before, and I can anticipate the outcome. WvW was messed up initially when "Free" transfers happened about 2 weeks after launch. The damage can be seen by anyone who plays WvW, even those that weren't there for that initial debacle which killed the guild I was in at the time, and broke the Titan Alliance. Yes, I was in it.

    Some History:
    The Titan Alliance was formed for the purposes of getting all like minded individuals on servers pre-launch. Guilds were assigned to servers via size and dedication to the game mode. When the game launched everything was going well. We got the match ups we wanted and expected. Then the "free" server transfers were announced. Why? Well, one of the main reasons was opposition to any server a Titan Alliance member was on. None of the other servers could compete with us mainly do to coverage. Sound familiar? This same debate has been had, discussed, and promptly beaten into the ground before. Anet intends to repeat a past mistake that did immense damage to the game mode, again.

    Conclusion:
    The golden rule of any WvW game is and will always be: "Servers need to be locked at all times". IF changes in population are to occur, you start at the bottom and merge up, or create a new server using the low population servers. The proposed solution is a haphazard one for an immensely complex problem.

    And to the people who want this change to spite Blackgate: Wanting a change for no other reason than spite is not a good for anyone, the game mode, or the game. Blackgate is not responsible for the way things are now. Anet broke the rule stated above, and are going to do so again. And despite what larger guilds want you to think, they are the minority and PUGS are the majority. You mess with the PUGS, you mess with the mode. I should know, I've seen the gamut. I been in large guilds in multiple RvR type games, and I've pugged. (7+ years of DAoC, 4+ years of WAR, 3+ years of WoW, 2+ years of Aion, 7+ years of GW2) I know what I'm talking about.

    I apologize if the above statement(s) sound harsh or hateful, but it is the truth. And no, I'm not from Blackgate - SBI for life here.

    Anet, if you read this, I implore you; don't do this. You will regret it.

    The golden rule should read, Servers should be EQUAL, then locked. That is and always has been the primary issue with WvW. There's a reason why sPvP matches are 5v5 and not 5v4, 5v3, 5v2, 5v1 or even 5v0. The equivalent of which happens in WvW.

    Locking them actually will only create more dysfunction. Unless you mean for 8 weeks. Alliances will cause population shifts and people will stop playing if they dislike the matchup: see JQ, MAG, all of T-2 NA.

    That being said, with the next 8 weeks, people have the ability to change, or BE changed depending on the size and activity.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 21, 2018

    @Fuel.3285 said:
    As someone who primarily roams/scouts; this couldn't be further from the truth. A key part of roaming/scouting is knowing who the Commander is. If I know the Commander, his/her behaviors and general playstyle; I can figure out where I should go next. I can't do this every 8 weeks as it takes time to learn a specific Commander's behavior, let alone multiple Commanders. The decisions I make are rarely based on the opposition, and almost entirely based on who is Commanding on the map I'm currently in.

    I both roam and command. There is nothing wrong with getting introduced to new people. It is what you did at the beginning before you knew anyone. When server links started, I added new people to my contacts list who were making callouts and marked them as scouts. I'd pm them and ask them to keep me updated so they feel supported. When I saw someone new tagged up, I would do the same and mark them as tag and help scout for them. The primary reason for doing this is because people come and go. Long time celebrity commander leaves for a break for a few months or quits the game and you'd be completely lost without having built up your knowledge and made connections with others. With restructuring, same as with server links, over time you'll have a larger pool of contacts for that in-game stability you are seeking as teams change.

  • Kovu.7560Kovu.7560 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Eh. In all honesty tags are pretty predictable from a roamer's standpoint.
    You don't need to know a tag that well to know that they'll generally target keeps & towers and will generally only snag camps if they're conveniently in their path. Semi-fight oriented commanders will generally defend and recapture paper keeps but will often ignore the south towers on home bl to return to their fight or w/e they were doing, and will generally prefer to avoid prolonged sieges. (They're boring.) I say "semi" because there are hardcore fight-oriented tags that'll ignore stuff just about entirely, unless there's a potential fight involved, a convenient EWP and no map que either on the map they're going to or the map they're leaving.
    Of course every player is different, but I have at least a couple thousand hours of roaming & scouting under my belt and the patterns are apparent.

    If you want to roam effectively, flip camps ahead of the tag so they're not on enemy RI when the tag gets there and scout in areas of the map the tag is not heading in the direction of (again, not hard to discern).

    There's also this whacky thing called communication. You could talk to the player currently tagged.

    ~ Kovu

    Ranger main before it was viable.
    Fort Aspenwood.

  • Quoted:
    "The golden rule should read, Servers should be EQUAL, then locked. That is and always has been the primary issue with WvW. There's a reason why sPvP matches are 5v5 and not 5v4, 5v3, 5v2, 5v1 or even 5v0. The equivalent of which happens in WvW."

    You're one of those people who thinks 50/50 balance with a human element is an achievable goal aren't you? Here's the truth: it is NOT an achievable goal. You can only ever get close enough. This isn't PvE where A.I. can be tailor made for specific skill sets. You chance of winning in WvW is proportional to your effort. It is not Arena Nets job to hand you wins, or scenarios you might win in. Earn them; like everybody else.

    To another point, the scenario can and WILL repeat. I've seen it before. A server's population isn't what's needed for this to happen, only the most dedicated players are required. In WvW you only every see about 20-25% of the population consistently. All this is doing is removing the random PUGS who filter in and help on occasion or add to the extra body to the Zerg. To summarize: 20-25% is more than enough.

    To your last point. No, they are not decoupled. In the current system your server's performance is based on the players with in it, unless there is some serious botting going on the needs Anets attention, your server doesn't play for you. Active players/guilds are on the higher tier servers. This doesn't change. If you play once a week for 3 hours, you get a world and opponents who do the same. Think of it as a mirror. What you do personally, as opposed to a group, is what you're going to be facing. Its just being applied at a lower level than before with more variables, hence the 'granular' terminology Anet used. This can be better or worse depending on who is in question. This also introduces the problem of player's caring about their individual metrics rather than that of the teams. So, expect people to leave guilds/alliances for underperformance based on that basis. This applies to guilds in relation to alliances too. While applicable now, the impact will be far more severe in the 'purposed' system.

    Quoted:
    "I really get tired of posts that amount to "people gamed/stacked servers before, this will just be more of the same.".

    And do you reasonably believe this 'new' mode can't? It's far easier to stack what is coming, than what is.

    Yes, the Titan Alliance did stack, but not in the context you supplied. The guild I was in at the time could not be placed on a server with another guild for various competitive reasons. This rule was honored through out to make sure fairness. We ensured that competition was to be had, as we also, like everybody else, wanted fair match ups. The server transfers are what allow bandwagoning to happen. This nullified the very thing the Alliance set out to avoid in the first place. The bandwagaoners were all the people/guilds who wanted easy wins, or hated losing. This was also in the tiering month after launch to determine what servers would end up where in a tier list. A tier list made with data; rendered inaccurate by Anet's own hands, and still in effect to this very day. SBI in particular at the end of this was placed in T1 shortly after a mass exodus from SBI and paid transfers being reinstated. We eventually settled in T4 before we could start winning again. All at the same pace it is now and without linking. For all the hate linking gets, it did save WvW for many servers.

    You probably don't know this, but once, Henge was in Blackgate's position, JQ was as well. Henge still hasn't recovered from the bandwagoners to this day. I doubt there are even players on Henge who even know this about their own server anymore. Most of the bottom tier servers, at launch, were not there. They were victimized by the bandwagoner's just as SBI, JQ, IOJ, and HoD were. This resulted in mass exodus' on those servers; resulting in a population imbalance to big to fix without merges. (See megaservers and linking).

    I understand people's frustration at what has happened. I truly do. But, there is a right way, and wrong way, to fix these things. Granted, no fix can ever restore what has been lost. The mode that Anet is making is akin to Battlefield, not a WvW game. If that is what people want, then so be it. But myself and others, will likely show ourselves the door when that time comes as it is not what we bought this game for in the first place.

    @Strider Pj.2193
    The point of locking servers is to prevent bandwagons/stacking from occurring in the first place. That is the point. Once the door is opened, in can't be shut. A "Pandora's Box" scenario if you will.

    The best solution will remain to merge the bottom tiers into new servers. If those servers were reconstructed based on the their WvW needs (PvE uses megaservers so it won't affect them), Reduces their issues in all areas, their guilds and communities take less of an blow, and it removes linking at the same time.

    Finally, shame on you Anet.

    This system is not 'purposed', you're looking to us to fill any gaps you missed before installing this mess. The fact it's posted in the forums means, likely, an Alpha version is already built or close to it. You know this could blow up and are looking to the players to minimize the risk and potential blame deflection in case it does. This FAQ is even further evidence of this. Call me a cynic, but something stinks.

  • Korgov.7645Korgov.7645 Member ✭✭✭

    Q: Will there be any record at all to prove that I/my guild/my alliance won a season?

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 22, 2018

    @Fuel.3285 said:
    To another point, the scenario can and WILL repeat.

    True, but here's the truth about balance: maybe it'll get close enough.

  • @Fuel.3285 said:
    Quoted:

    You're one of those people who thinks 50/50 balance with a human element is an achievable goal aren't you? Here's the truth: it is NOT an achievable goal. You can only ever get close enough. This isn't PvE where A.I. can be tailor made for specific skill sets. You chance of winning in WvW is proportional to your effort. It is not Arena Nets job to hand you wins, or scenarios you might win in. Earn them; like everybody else.
    To another point, the scenario can and WILL repeat. I've seen it before. A server's population isn't what's needed for this to happen, only the most dedicated players are required. In WvW you only every see about 20-25% of the population consistently. All this is doing is removing the random PUGS who filter in and help on occasion or add to the extra body to the Zerg. To summarize: 20-25% is more than enough.

    I don't think balance for WvW is achievable, but I do think that it is a goal that should always be worked towards. We've seen in NA how fitting 21 chunks into 7 matches with no restrictions on chunk size didn't work. We've also seen how fitting 21 chunks into 4 matches with partial limitation of chunk size hasn't worked. But I do know that as the number of chunks increases and the limitation of the size of those chunks decreases, you will eventually get to a point that's GOOD ENOUGH.

    And do you reasonably believe this 'new' mode can't? It's far easier to stack what is coming, than what is.

    By changing the number of chunks and the size of the chunks it's easier to destack what is coming than what it currently is. If alliance max is 1000 and guild is 500 I can see them changing alliance max to 500 and guild to 200, or alliance to 300 and guild to 80, JUST FOR WVW, to eliminate stacking and creating more chunks. All of this would get WvW closer and closer to balance than anything before. It's obvious from past behavior that the players actions are self centered and are destructive to the game. It's Anet's job to limit that destructive behavior

    The best solution will remain to merge the bottom tiers into new servers. If those servers were reconstructed based on the their WvW needs (PvE uses megaservers so it won't affect them), Reduces their issues in all areas, their guilds and communities take less of an blow, and it removes linking at the same time.

    You cannot merge lower tier into higher tiers and achieve balance, you will eventually get to a point where prime time is queued and the lowest off time is outmanned. Anet has already said that BG has better coverage and linking servers together still doesn't match that coverage advantage.

  • Fuel.3285Fuel.3285 Member ✭✭
    edited February 22, 2018

    Quoted:
    "You cannot merge lower tier into higher tiers and achieve balance, you will eventually get to a point where prime time is queued and the lowest off time is outmanned. Anet has already said that BG has better coverage and linking servers together still doesn't match that coverage advantage."

    You misunderstand. Let me clarify.

    I didn't mean merge the lower tier servers into higher ones. I mean, make new servers, ones that do not exist now, with those populations. The higher tier servers would be untouched. Anet has already shown us they know the servers statistics. Reallocating the bottom tiers into fresh servers under a new name based on that data would address the problems they have to a degree and do less damage over all. That is what I'm getting at. Anet could probably fill gaps in the newer servers from the higher tier servers like Blackgate to open them up a bit for newer players (to the game). Moving players around should be something only Anet does. As you said; players are selfish, which is reason enough.

    Servers now only exist for WvW. They have no other purpose. The solution Anet proposed is WvW 'megaservers' for lack of better definition, which I'm against, as it destroys the core concept behind a WvW game mode entirely.

  • Samug.6512Samug.6512 Member ✭✭✭

    Will there be any way of predicting which alliances will be linked together in upcoming "tournaments"? If yes, will this information be accessible to players?

    [NUKE]

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

    @Samug.6512 said:
    Will there be any way of predicting which alliances will be linked together in upcoming "tournaments"? If yes, will this information be accessible to players?

    I truly hope not.

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

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Samug.6512 said:
    Will there be any way of predicting which alliances will be linked together in upcoming "tournaments"? If yes, will this information be accessible to players?

    I truly hope not.

    And I hope alliances would never repeat on the same world in consecutive matches.

  • Roxanne.6140Roxanne.6140 Member ✭✭✭

    Will we be informed of when the evaluation will be done? I mean the evaluation for which world we will be assigned to according to our guild or friends list. For example, notice to say evaluation be done on which date etc.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 23, 2018

    @Roxanne.6140 said:
    Will we be informed of when the evaluation will be done? I mean the evaluation for which world we will be assigned to according to our guild or friends list. For example, notice to say evaluation be done on which date etc.

    No I am certain they will just drop it 18:00 a random tuesday without listing it in the patch notes and 18:01 say "oh no one has signed up for WvW guilds the restructure failed and now we are shutting down WvW".

    Of course they are going to tell us.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Roxanne.6140 said:
    Will we be informed of when the evaluation will be done? I mean the evaluation for which world we will be assigned to according to our guild or friends list. For example, notice to say evaluation be done on which date etc.

    No I am certain they will just drop it 18:00 a random tuesday without listing it in the patch notes and 18:01 say "oh no one has signed up for WvW guilds the restructure failed and now we are shutting down WvW".

    Of course they are going to tell us.

    I don't think that was the question, I think (correct me if I am wrong) Roxanne was asking at what point before each season would we be notified which world we as individuals would be assigned to.

    I'm not sure they will notify us ahead of time, any more than they told us who was going to be in each matchup prior to reset during the Glicko days.

  • Roxanne.6140Roxanne.6140 Member ✭✭✭

    @Euryon.9248 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Roxanne.6140 said:
    Will we be informed of when the evaluation will be done? I mean the evaluation for which world we will be assigned to according to our guild or friends list. For example, notice to say evaluation be done on which date etc.

    No I am certain they will just drop it 18:00 a random tuesday without listing it in the patch notes and 18:01 say "oh no one has signed up for WvW guilds the restructure failed and now we are shutting down WvW".

    Of course they are going to tell us.

    I don't think that was the question, I think (correct me if I am wrong) Roxanne was asking at what point before each season would we be notified which world we as individuals would be assigned to.

    I'm not sure they will notify us ahead of time, any more than they told us who was going to be in each matchup prior to reset during the Glicko days.

    I meant if they will tell us when exactly will we be evaluated based on our contacts etc which world will we be assigned to, beforehand. yea, agree with you that there is no need to tell us from gameplay perspective.

  • Ferelwing.8463Ferelwing.8463 Member ✭✭
    edited February 24, 2018

    As someone who is in the EU but plays in NA and recently picked up wvw I was curious about playtimes, are you going to balance it around the clock or are we still going to have the downtimes where a handful are on and we're swarmed? I know you mentioned the metrics of timing but I am curious how you plan to balance that kind of timing? Also will there be bonuses for the people who aren't into the skirmishing but enjoy the building/fixing/strategy aspect of it? I do NOT like straight pvp, I don't care if I can 1v1 anyone and I'm not interested in having KDA even utilized. I'm interested in the other aspects, fort building/holding/maintaining. Scouting and keeping an eye on the various things built by myself or others.

    I like doing the supportive work in the game and while I didn't always have a high pip score as a result it was often more fulfilling for me. I want to know if perhaps that kind of work can be rewarded as much as those who run around in squads? I don't mind being in a zerg on occasion but sometimes I want to go scout ahead or check out the rear or go check on the sieges at various bases to make sure they are there in case we need them.

    I was wondering if there will be some way for that kind of behavior to be rewarded as well...

    I'm worried that it will become a zerg fest and I have no interest in that kind of play.

    I'm not sure if what I do is considered roaming since it goes between scouting out areas, checking to see where the enemies are at and their numbers, being backline and supporting or helping bring up downed players. Repairs etc... But I want to know if I will still have a place in this newer version or if it's going to become an all out fight fest. I'm not interested in an all out constant fight-fest.

    I guess what I'm trying to ask is, will there be rewards/etc for this kind of play style?

  • dzeRnumbrd.6129dzeRnumbrd.6129 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 3, 2018

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:
    We wanted to create a new post that is a FAQ to the world restructuring post, and clarify a few points that some have found confusing. Please feel free to continue to comment on the world restructuring post (McKenna and I are still working through all the questions), or on this post with feedback. I just wanted these topics to be easier to find for everyone, and figured a new post would be a good way to do this.

    Raymond,

    To say I'm concerned about the fact you aren't addressing coverage and time zones in this FAQ is an understatement.

    Coverage has been probably the biggest bugbear in the history of WvW - it should be at the CORE of your solution and yet it isn't mentioned here.

    I'm not being dramatic when I say you potentially risk killing the game for your South East Asian/Oceanic population if you do not address this.

    In the past we have addressed this ourselves by manually migrating to accounts where we could get SEA timezone fights.

    You are now removing our time zone migration controls - so your balancing algorithm MUST address this and it must address it as a priority in balancing, not as an afterthought.

    As there is no "server pride" anymore you can't leave this up to alliances to self-balance as most alliance leaders won't care at all what happens outside of their time zone.

    If a server with heavy SEA ends up playing against a server with no SEA for 8 weeks can you imagine how boring that would get and how many players would just quit the game?

    PvD every night is NOT fun - we'll just quit the game instead.

    You have to be very careful here that your solution addresses timezones/coverage as a priority.

    Your algorithm can easily categorise a player based on historical hours as either: "NA primary", "SEA primary", "EU primary" or "OCX primary".

    e.g., something like this: [sorry for pseudocode]

    NA_hour_count = count_hours(NA_timezone_start, NA_timezone_end, player_season_history);
    SEA_hour_count = count_hours(SEA_timezone_start, SEA_timezone_end, player_season_history);
    OCX_hour_count = count_hours(OCX_timezone_start, OCX_timezone_end, player_season_history);
    EU_hour_count = count_hours(EU_timezone_start, EU_timezone_end, player_season_history);

    PrimaryTimezone playerTZ = get_primary_timezone(NA_hour_count, SEA_hour_count, OCX_hour_count, EU_hour_count);

    NA_players = count_players(PrimaryTimezone.NA, guild_register);
    SEA_players = count_players(PrimaryTimezone.SEA, guild_register);
    OCX_players = count_players(PrimaryTimezone.OCX, guild_register);
    EU_players = count_players(PrimaryTimezone.EU, guild_register);

    PrimaryTimezone guildTZ = get_primary_timezone(NA_players, SEA_players, OCX_players, EU_players);

    Doing this calculation would enable you to classify non-aligned guilds and non-aligned players as NA, SEA, EU or OCX.

    I imagine your match up/balancing algorithm will have three phases:

    • Phase 1: Selecting core alliances
    • Phase 2: Back filling with non-aligned guilds
    • Phase 3: Back filling with non-aligned players

    Phase 1 is too hard to balance coverage because with 500 players, you don't have the granularity.

    So I'm suggesting during Phase 2 and 3 where you do have granularity that you need to examine the Time Zone make up of your Phase 1 alliances and back fill with non-aligned guilds and non-aligned players from the appropriate time zones to even up the coverage.

    So for example let's say your system does primary allocation of 4 alliances (server A) vs 4 alliances (server B ) and then sees that server B has 50 less SEA players than server A, your algorithm can then stack in SEA guilds and SEA individuals so server B has 50 more SEA players. If it then notices server B's OCX has 15 more players it will allocate 1 small OCX guild (10 players) and 5 OCX players to server A.

    It doesn't have to be EXACT but it needs to be close enough so there are good fights during at least the two primary time zones (NA and SEA) and if you can balance the secondary time zones (EU/OCX) then that would be cherry on the cake.

    Please let us know you are aware of this issue and going to address it in your solution (so I don't have to create more threads to raise awareness).

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

    @dzeRnumbrd.6129 said:
    As there is no "server pride" anymore you can't leave this up to alliances to self-balance as most alliance leaders won't care at all what happens outside of their time zone.

    But... how did servers get to care then if alliances cant? Does alliances somehow contain different players than where on the servers?

    There is as little stopping an alliance from 100% focusing on a 2h timeslot as there is stopping an alliance from recruiting people to cover different timezones 24/7. Its all up to players.

  • dzeRnumbrd.6129dzeRnumbrd.6129 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @dzeRnumbrd.6129 said:
    As there is no "server pride" anymore you can't leave this up to alliances to self-balance as most alliance leaders won't care at all what happens outside of their time zone.

    But... how did servers get to care then if alliances cant?

    Everyone used to be on the same boat for the foreseeable future. It's easy to plan long term this way.
    You care and maintain your boat because it is your boat for the foreseeable future - the people on this boat have become your friends and you rely on them and they rely on you - you make each other better because you know you're all stuck on this boat forever.
    However, with alliances you're on a boat that is rigged to explode after 8 weeks with a bunch of strangers.
    Do you care about maintaining and repairing a boat you know is going to blow up in 8 weeks?
    Do you care about a bunch of strangers that might be trying to kill you in the subsequent 8 week season?
    No alliance is going to want to help any other alliance because after each reshuffle, the alliance you helped get better might now be your enemy.
    Alliances will only care about themselves.

    Does alliances somehow contain different players than where on the servers?

    Yes an alliance is only 20% of a server's population. The other 80% are randoms.

    There is as little stopping an alliance from 100% focusing on a 2h timeslot as there is stopping an alliance from recruiting people to cover different timezones 24/7. Its all up to players.

    No it's not up to the players.

    That's simplistic thinking - you're not thinking about how it works enough.

    Servers will now be built from a random group of alliances supplemented by a random group of non-aligned guilds supplemented even further by a random group of non-aligned pugs.

    A full alliance would form only 20% of that server.

    However, the issue is that coverage happens at a server level, not an alliance level.

    You literally have no idea what coverage gaps these random groups will bring to your server and yet they make 80% of your server.

    It doesn't matter if I perfectly balance my alliance when the perfect balance only makes up 20% of the server's population.

    Let's say however that I do balance my alliance perfectly - during the reshuffle I get joined with 3 alliances that couldn't give a hoot about coverage and have just stacked NA to the roof.

    Do you think I'm going to be engaged in seeing my server succeed when the 3 other alliances I'm paired with don't care?

    I won't, I'll only care about my alliance's performance - so I'll just stack my timezone to the hilt so my alliance's play time is good.

    Even if I did work out the coverage gaps and manage to get a new SEA guild or two into my alliance - it would all change in 8 weeks.

    I might have too many SEA players in my alliance the next week - do I now anger the two guilds I just recruited and kick them out?

    If you structure your alliance to have a medium level of SEA players and you get randomly linked to groups that have zero SEA coverage, you now have terrible coverage.

    If you structure your alliance to have a high level of SEA players and you get randomly linked with huge SEA coverage you now have too much coverage.

    So an alliance would have to predict all the future shortcomings of every partner alliance, partner guilds and pugs in order to structure themselves for appropriate coverage.

    It's much easier if Arenanet handles the coverage balancing in the way I specified previously.

  • Alakatos.9405Alakatos.9405 Member ✭✭
    edited March 21, 2018

    Question:

    With the same max member cap for an Alliance or a Guild wich are de advantage to be in a Alliance, I mean, you can easy do a guild that group up those member and there is no need of an alliance system... and if you overcap that WvW guild you can simply do the same as the dev say for an overcapped alliance (go for you own with your guild). So I do not see any improvement to the Alliance (After the Hype.. if you think it is just the same has do a guild and set that guild as your WvW guild)

  • Just re-work on Eotm, make it so that you can port there with your guildies. Easy fix. I mean you spent time and effort building that map, so why not improve it? Hate to see a potential map with lots of fighting ground to waste.

    Guild wars 3 when?

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @dzeRnumbrd.6129 said:

    Everyone used to be on the same boat for the foreseeable future. It's easy to plan long term this way.
    You care and maintain your boat because it is your boat for the foreseeable future - the people on this boat have become your friends and you rely on them and they rely on you - you make each other better because you know you're all stuck on this boat forever.
    However, with alliances you're on a boat that is rigged to explode after 8 weeks with a bunch of strangers.
    Do you care about maintaining and repairing a boat you know is going to blow up in 8 weeks?

    Yes

    Do you care about a bunch of strangers that might be trying to kill you in the subsequent 8 week season?

    Yes

    No alliance is going to want to help any other alliance because after each reshuffle, the alliance you helped get better might now be your enemy.
    Alliances will only care about themselves.

    Speak for yourself, I will care about and help anyone in my world that isn't a troll, regardless of whether they are in my alliance or not, even if I may end up fighting them in 8 weeks.

    You speak only for yourself. Your selfish attitude does not speak for the majority of wvw players.

    Static, unchanging, permanent servers IS the problem with unbalanced matchups.

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

    Not sure why this thread is not stickied, it has a lot of important information that should be displayed until alliance format is ready to deploy.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • bigo.9037bigo.9037 Member ✭✭✭

    Q. What is beneficial in this system to roamers?

    Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world.
    If you want to guarantee playing with other roamers that you are friends with, then you can make a guild. If you do not want to do that, then there should still be plenty of roamers on the new worlds.
    I’ve seen some roamers worried about this system, and I’d be interested in hearing what in this system could change to make it better for roamers in their opinions. If you could mark your account as a WvW roamer account, and the system guaranteed a percentage of roamers on each world, would that feel better? Or is there anything else we could do besides use a different system. We would love to hear other ideas, and even though we haven’t been able to respond to everything we have been reading it all and taking notes.

    I think it would be a good idea if you can mark your account as a roamer. Roaming NEEDS to be more useful in WvW. I dont know exactly how this should be achieved.. just make roaming, small groups and solo players have more of an impact on the score. Atm it feels like its kinda useless except taking camps and killing some people here and there..

    If a server/world/alliance etc. has a lot of roamers in it though, wouldnt that make it weak? considering how zergs and PUG groups will have a much easier time taking towers and keeps etc. simply because of their size?
    I am worried that by linking roamers together you will just make our problem more apparent: there isnt a clear place for us to do what we are best at which is: smallscale fights or solo fights.

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

    @bigo.9037 said:

    Q. What is beneficial in this system to roamers?

    Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world.
    If you want to guarantee playing with other roamers that you are friends with, then you can make a guild. If you do not want to do that, then there should still be plenty of roamers on the new worlds.
    I’ve seen some roamers worried about this system, and I’d be interested in hearing what in this system could change to make it better for roamers in their opinions. If you could mark your account as a WvW roamer account, and the system guaranteed a percentage of roamers on each world, would that feel better? Or is there anything else we could do besides use a different system. We would love to hear other ideas, and even though we haven’t been able to respond to everything we have been reading it all and taking notes.

    I think it would be a good idea if you can mark your account as a roamer. Roaming NEEDS to be more useful in WvW. I dont know exactly how this should be achieved.. just make roaming, small groups and solo players have more of an impact on the score. Atm it feels like its kinda useless except taking camps and killing some people here and there..

    If a server/world/alliance etc. has a lot of roamers in it though, wouldnt that make it weak? considering how zergs and PUG groups will have a much easier time taking towers and keeps etc. simply because of their size?
    I am worried that by linking roamers together you will just make our problem more apparent: there isnt a clear place for us to do what we are best at which is: smallscale fights or solo fights.

    I see it as the complete opposite. Not having a big server to lean on anymore mean more people will band together in guilds and alliance to form their own little clique within the world that has been generated and them put in.

    Sure it can go whatever which way in practice, but I expect more small parties and independant roamers instead of less.

  • bigo.9037bigo.9037 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @bigo.9037 said:

    Q. What is beneficial in this system to roamers?

    Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world.
    If you want to guarantee playing with other roamers that you are friends with, then you can make a guild. If you do not want to do that, then there should still be plenty of roamers on the new worlds.
    I’ve seen some roamers worried about this system, and I’d be interested in hearing what in this system could change to make it better for roamers in their opinions. If you could mark your account as a WvW roamer account, and the system guaranteed a percentage of roamers on each world, would that feel better? Or is there anything else we could do besides use a different system. We would love to hear other ideas, and even though we haven’t been able to respond to everything we have been reading it all and taking notes.

    I think it would be a good idea if you can mark your account as a roamer. Roaming NEEDS to be more useful in WvW. I dont know exactly how this should be achieved.. just make roaming, small groups and solo players have more of an impact on the score. Atm it feels like its kinda useless except taking camps and killing some people here and there..

    If a server/world/alliance etc. has a lot of roamers in it though, wouldnt that make it weak? considering how zergs and PUG groups will have a much easier time taking towers and keeps etc. simply because of their size?
    I am worried that by linking roamers together you will just make our problem more apparent: there isnt a clear place for us to do what we are best at which is: smallscale fights or solo fights.

    I see it as the complete opposite. Not having a big server to lean on anymore mean more people will band together in guilds and alliance to form their own little clique within the world that has been generated and them put in.

    Sure it can go whatever which way in practice, but I expect more small parties and independant roamers instead of less.

    i HOPE thats the case. Im just worried this will somehow make blobbing and zerging an even better alternative to roaming, which is already not very useful.

  • Norbe.7630Norbe.7630 Member ✭✭✭

    @bigo.9037 said:

    I dont know exactly how this should be achieved..

    Remove doors and walls

    Why So Serious?

  • Shirlias.8104Shirlias.8104 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 24, 2018

    Hold on a second.
    Is it a joke or you WvW team are really considering the Roleplayers when you talk about wvw modifies?

    What I am trying to say is that it shouldn't be a problem to begin with.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @Shirlias.8104 said:
    Hold on a second.
    Is it a joke or you WvW team are really considering the Roleplayers when you talk about wvw modifies?

    What I am trying to say is that it shouldn't be a problem to begin with.

    It's not about the wvw, it's about the role servers currently play with landing RPers on the same world in (mostly) PvE maps. Currently servers are a primary factor in picking which instance of a given map you load into in PvE, and RPers want to load into the same world if possible for obvious reasons. NA RPers to now have generally chosen TC for that purpose.

    Removing servers has an effect on them that has nothing to do with wvw but instead with how they are assigned to maps in PvE. Without a server to group them into the same map, the question becomes what will be used to replace that function. That's what the devs have to figure out before this can go live for wvw, even though it has very little to do with wvw itself.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 24, 2018

    Man this change can't come soon enough, all the servers really need to die and give birth to new worlds, even if they're only 8 weeks at a time. The tier matchups are absolute messes, tier 1 has one server dominating whenever they feel like it on all 4 maps, the other server is afraid to take on that server and just ktrains the weak desert borderland all week while trying not stepping on their big brother toes. Tier 2 is a mismatch of tier 2 and 3 servers every single week, tier 3 is really the same as tier 4 just a matter of who decided to ppt train more that week. Heavy siege usage up and down the tiers now, walk up to t3 keep and you'll just 3-5 trebs and acs firing on as soon as you get there, zergs hiding in t3 structures for points don't want to give up kdr, broken one shot builds in roaming, combat still loaded with red circles and super tanks, I honestly don't know how people are getting any joy in this game mode anymore.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    Q. What is beneficial in this system to roamers?

    Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world.
    If you want to guarantee playing with other roamers that you are friends with, then you can make a guild. If you do not want to do that, then there should still be plenty of roamers on the new worlds.
    I’ve seen some roamers worried about this system, and I’d be interested in hearing what in this system could change to make it better for roamers in their opinions. If you could mark your account as a WvW roamer account, and the system guaranteed a percentage of roamers on each world, would that feel better? Or is there anything else we could do besides use a different system. We would love to hear other ideas, and even though we haven’t been able to respond to everything we have been reading it all and taking notes.

    I Just posted A Cure for this here: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/34417/raymond-lukes-6305-the-cure-for-roaming-those-alike/p1?new=1 going into great detail for You @Raymond Lukes.6305

©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.