Post your ideas to improve World Restructuring.

I am not a huge fan of the proposed changes, but hopefully with enough improvements over time in the development phase I think it can become a better concept that will appeal to more people. There are several things that I have issues with and would like to post my suggestions. Now I have not read through all 1300+ comments on the main thread so feel free to correct me.

These are-

Guild requirementsPlayer activity evaluationsLeaderboardsInactive accountsMaintaining a sense of communityNot promoting elitist and exclusionary behaviorRewards

*Guild requirements and number of guilds allowed per alliance- This should be removed, there are just so many things that are bad about this idea, especially if you get down to the day to day details of guild management. Not only can it be manipulated but it can exclude many players that are in small guilds, guildless, or in PvX/E guilds that like to do WvW.

Instead allow players to mark a specific alliance as their favorite. What this does is allow anyone to join a server freely as long as it is open without having to go through the needlessly complicated process of having guild requirements. This will also allow players to stay together in a server without worrying about getting reshuffled every cycle. This will also deter elitist and exclusionary behavior but also allow greater flexibility for all players, whether small/large guilds or just solo players. I posted in the main thread how guilds can simply have their members create a Dummy guild in an alliance to have players join it, mark it as their WvW guild, and thus allowing a bunch of guilds to bypass the guild limit. Just remove the guild limit and requirements all together, and allow players to go where they want.

Doing this will help promote a sense of community once again, since all types of players regardless of guild size or playstyles will be allowed to play together and stay on the same server together. .

*Player activity evaluations and inactive accounts- If a player should go inactive through an entire period between cycles, for example not having logged in at all or having no wvw participation. They will be removed from their marked server and when they should become active again they will need to choose a new open server. This will prevent servers from having their populations and activity skewed by players that log in every now and then and go inactive again. This will ensure only active account can stay on a server.

*Leaderboards- Haven't personally seen anything official about it, just posts from other players. But lets face it, its just a tool that will be used for trolling and epeen contests.

*Rewards- Please do not... I repeat DO NOT reward servers for winning. This was done in the past, and we all know what the results were. Stacking, burnout, and permanent population loss. Just please do not repeat this mistake again. I have always been a supporter of rewarding individual participation and activity.

Ok so these are just some ideas right now, please post your ideas, suggestions etc. Thanks.

Plugging deeper changes to a design Anet want to go with is fairly pointless since we still dont know how anything will turn out.

Still I only have have one request, one that remain the core flaw under the linking system:

Visible representation of alliances ingame on both players and claimed objectives

I want to know if 30 people from one alliance fought 30 people from another alliance regardless of what guilds they all belong too and I want to know if a guild from a specific alliance claimed a keep for their world. Alliances should even be seen in PvE.

That is the new pride and if we cant get that then whats the point of it all.

I know BG is getting a huge case of salt over this, but the whole idea is to break up servers. I like capping the number of guilds and putting a max size in Alliances to force some greater granularity. The focus should be on your guild (first) and the Alliance (second). If you're not in a guild, then hey...it really doesn't matter. If you're not in a guild but like running with a bunch of people, then just join their guild.

I think you're idea on inactives is good and easy to implement - just don't make a "default" guild; make everyone actively choose so the inactives will drop.

I believe they addressed leaderboards (it's in the long post) and said they are not going to implement them. I'm fine with that because if people fear elitism and exclusion, then leaderboards will just exacerbate the problem.

We need an all Charr alliance

Idea 1 - Add an "RP Toggle" for each player and guild, so that parameter also acts during population distribution when a World is created.Idea 2 - The "WvW Guild" selected status for a player auto deselects if the player is not active in WvW for a month. This way non-active WvW players don't keep weighing their guild's worlds.Idea 3 - Let the highest scored player on each new World name such World when created. This could be one of the more gratifying and "pride oriented" rewards ever.

100 "WvW guild" capacity, then your good to go for the 500 limit alliance

@"Norbe.7630" said:100 "WvW guild" capacity, then your good to go for the 500 limit alliance

Maybe...

@X T D.6458 said:

*Guild requirements and number of guilds allowed per alliance- This should be removed, there are just so many things that are bad about this idea, especially if you get down to the day to day details of guild management. Not only can it be manipulated but it can exclude many players that are in small guilds, guildless, or in PvX/E guilds that like to do WvW.

Or at least make the number large enough that it never comes into play other than to deter extremism (hundreds of tiny guilds). Someone suggested 100 below, and that seems reasonable. Does anyone know more than 100 tiny guilds on your current server who wvw regularly?

Instead allow players to mark a specific alliance as their favorite. What this does is allow anyone to join a server freely as long as it is open without having to go through the needlessly complicated process of having guild requirements. This will also allow players to stay together in a server without worrying about getting reshuffled every cycle. This will also deter elitist and exclusionary behavior but also allow greater flexibility for all players, whether small/large guilds or just solo players. I posted in the main thread how guilds can simply have their members create a Dummy guild in an alliance to have players join it, mark it as their WvW guild, and thus allowing a bunch of guilds to bypass the guild limit. Just remove the guild limit and requirements all together, and allow players to go where they want.

My one question about this would involve who loses out when the alliance caps (assuming 500 for now) and individuals fill all the slots originally meant for specific guilds. If you have an alliance of 5 guilds with 50 dedicated, regular members you want to include, and then open the other 250 slots up to individuals, what happens when >250 individuals join the alliance while there are still several guild members who haven't yet clicked that box? Does the next guildie who signs up kick out an individual? Or are you stuck with an alliance that doesn't include some of the people in guilds you specifically wanted in that alliance?

*Player activity evaluations and inactive accounts- If a player should go inactive through an entire period between cycles, for example not having logged in at all or having no wvw participation. They will be removed from their marked server and when they should become active again they will need to choose a new open server. This will prevent servers from having their populations and activity skewed by players that log in every now and then and go inactive again. This will ensure only active account can stay on a server.

Auto-unchecking of alliances for inactive players (how to determine can be worked out) would be ideal, but might also be difficult to implement. It might come down to guild leaders having to manually remove those people from the alliance. If the only mechanism is to gkick them entirely...that might create issues. Anet will need to address this one head-on.

*Leaderboards- Haven't personally seen anything official about it, just posts from other players. But lets face it, its just a tool that will be used for trolling and kitten contests.

I certainly hope they do not implement Leaderboards. I believe they have suggested that they will not.

*Rewards- Please do not... I repeat DO NOT reward servers for winning. This was done in the past, and we all know what the results were. Stacking, burnout, and permanent population loss. Just please do not repeat this mistake again. I have always been a supporter of rewarding individual participation and activity.

Or at the very least no rewards for a few cycles until mechanics have been locked down and it's demonstrably impossible or impractical for anyone to manipulate any part of the system. And even then, keep the rewards very modest, most play wvw for reasons other than rewards as it stands (not to mention loot drops, which in my experience are quite poor for time spent vs. other game modes).

Add giant dragons and monsters that will destroy keeps and towers, make the sky black, improve textures on the aping borderlands, put skeletons around the maps, get rid of t2 and t3 walls.

@Euryon.9248 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

*Guild requirements and number of guilds allowed per alliance- This should be removed, there are just so many things that are bad about this idea, especially if you get down to the day to day details of guild management. Not only can it be manipulated but it can exclude many players that are in small guilds, guildless, or in PvX/E guilds that like to do WvW.

Instead allow players to mark a specific alliance as their favorite. What this does is allow anyone to join a server freely as long as it is open without having to go through the needlessly complicated process of having guild requirements. This will also allow players to stay together in a server without worrying about getting reshuffled every cycle. This will also deter elitist and exclusionary behavior but also allow greater flexibility for all players, whether small/large guilds or just solo players. I posted in the main thread how guilds can simply have their members create a Dummy guild in an alliance to have players join it, mark it as their WvW guild, and thus allowing a bunch of guilds to bypass the guild limit. Just remove the guild limit and requirements all together, and allow players to go where they want.

*Player activity evaluations and inactive accounts- If a player should go inactive through an entire period between cycles, for example not having logged in at all or having no wvw participation. They will be removed from their marked server and when they should become active again they will need to choose a new open server. This will prevent servers from having their populations and activity skewed by players that log in every now and then and go inactive again. This will ensure only active account can stay on a server.

I anticipate (and maybe wrongly so) that the term and function of an Alliance is an alliance of guilds and not individuals. Individuals will likely have to be in an allied guild to be in the Alliance.

World's will be completed out by alliances (maybe two max) non alliance guilds and non guild individuals.

Separate guilds by timezone they tend to be most active in and then put the OCX/SEA guilds in their own distinct servers so they no longer distort the results like they have since launch.

Restructuring doesn't matter if coverage is still the most important condition for overall victory.

I do not know what is wrong with expecting players to join a guild to join that alliance. You can make a 1-player dummy guild and use that to join an alliance. If you are worried about elitist behavior, and about elitists not allowing you to join their alliance... Why do you want to tag onto their server with this system?

The player time evaluation stuff is interesting to me because I find it confusing that so many people are against it. It is a system that has already been in the game for quite a while and it seems reasonably fair. I am particularly perplexed by your suggestion because it is only a problem because of your prior suggestion.

@Israel.7056 said:Separate guilds by timezone they tend to be most active in and then put the OCX/SEA guilds in their own distinct servers so they no longer distort the results like they have since launch.

Restructuring doesn't matter if coverage is still the most important condition for overall victory.

Maybe when we get some actual servers

What I'd like to see is Restructuring made asap. The rest can be done after.

@Israel.7056 said:Separate guilds by timezone they tend to be most active in and then put the OCX/SEA guilds in their own distinct servers so they no longer distort the results like they have since launch.

Restructuring doesn't matter if coverage is still the most important condition for overall victory.

Truly don't know this answer; are there enough of them to fill out 12 servers? (Or 15?)

Talk has been about 4-5 tiers for NA.

@Israel.7056 said:Separate guilds by timezone they tend to be most active in and then put the OCX/SEA guilds in their own distinct servers so they no longer distort the results like they have since launch.

Restructuring doesn't matter if coverage is still the most important condition for overall victory.

Coverage is going to be more important since the player cap is smaller. This means that there will be less people playing throughout the day. This will likely result in a concentration of OCX/SEA guilds in the top 2-3 alliances. The other servers will be left without proper coverage and a lot of dead time zones, since they wont be able to get enough coverage and wont have enough people on a server.

@X T D.6458 said:

@Israel.7056 said:Separate guilds by timezone they tend to be most active in and then put the OCX/SEA guilds in their own distinct servers so they no longer distort the results like they have since launch.

Restructuring doesn't matter if coverage is still the most important condition for overall victory.

I wonder how many OCX/SEA players there are on the NA servers at this time? Supposing they maxxed out their concentration and fit as many of them as possible into as few 500-person alliances as possible. If you sorted the worlds so that no more than one such alliance was on any given world, how many worlds would (or would not) have an OCX/SEA alliance?

This also might be a valid reason to cap alliances closer to 500 than 1000, so that the overseas guilds are able to be spread more evenly throughout the worlds.

@Euryon.9248 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Israel.7056 said:Separate guilds by timezone they tend to be most active in and then put the OCX/SEA guilds in their own distinct servers so they no longer distort the results like they have since launch.

Restructuring doesn't matter if coverage is still the most important condition for overall victory.

Cant say how many there are, but certainly a lot less then there were in the past... I think we can all agree on that. Basically either of 2 things will happen, they will stack in one tier with a cluster of alliances to have guaranteed fights and action in their timezone. Or they will be forced to spread out and have little to do but PvD. Because OCX/SEA has a smaller playerbase, there is little incentive for them to spread out because this reduces activity in their timezone, it is also natural for people to want to play with those that are from the same part of the world as they are.

The smaller the player cap, the more important (and harder) coverage becomes.

I want to have an EU alliance and NA alliance so I don't need this alt account. <3 Keke

I don't understand your pov on guild reqs. what exactly is the difference between what you propose and what we have now? if 75% of the population chooses an alliance as their favorite, isn't that the same as having servers? it would completely negate the purpose of alliances, which is to rebalance things. it will allow unlimited band wagoning. is that what you want?

@X T D.6458 said:

@Euryon.9248 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Israel.7056 said:

Which means either they go to 4 worlds or they will get crappy matchups every other week with one up, one down.

Or they will be forced to spread out and have little to do but PvD. Because OCX/SEA has a smaller playerbase, there is little incentive for them to spread out because this reduces activity in their timezone, it is also natural for people to want to play with those that are from the same part of the world as they are.

The smaller the player cap, the more important (and harder) coverage becomes.

Yes. Will also create interesting dynamics with one up one down, with the alliances who are more fights oriented vs those that are more PPT oriented... unless they end up on the same world of course.

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:I don't understand your pov on guild reqs. what exactly is the difference between what you propose and what we have now? if 75% of the population chooses an alliance as their favorite, isn't that the same as having servers? it would completely negate the purpose of alliances, which is to rebalance things. it will allow unlimited band wagoning. is that what you want?

Alliances are much smaller than servers. One world currently = one server, but with the proposal one world = several alliances + unaffiliated players (randomly spread to even out coverage). This will prevent bandwagoning, not encourage it since the alliance is hardcapped on numbers. Who any given alliance is grouped with each session will differ and not be a constant population the way servers are now.

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:I don't understand your pov on guild reqs. what exactly is the difference between what you propose and what we have now? if 75% of the population chooses an alliance as their favorite, isn't that the same as having servers? it would completely negate the purpose of alliances, which is to rebalance things. it will allow unlimited band wagoning. is that what you want?

The guild reqs are unnecessarily complicated and there are a lot of small everyday details that will be more noticeable when the system goes live. It also promotes exclusionary behavior and can be easily manipulated as I already pointed out. If the point of this restructuring is to make it easier to promote population balance by lowering the player caps per server, it doesn't make sense to add in a bunch of reqs that deter people from being able to play where they want to.

@X T D.6458 said:The guild reqs are unnecessarily complicated and there are a lot of small everyday details that will be more noticeable when the system goes live. It also promotes exclusionary behavior and can be easily manipulated as I already pointed out. If the point of this restructuring is to make it easier to promote population balance by lowering the player caps per server, it doesn't make sense to add in a bunch of reqs that deter people from being able to play where they want to.

I don't see whats so complicated about them. there are a certain number of guilds per alliance, and there are a certain number of people per alliance so that scenario wouldn't happen that you pointed out. you rep your guild, and bam that's pretty much all there is to it. there is nothing about lowering player caps per server, and not much about exclusionary behavior unless you think 500-1000 people per alliance is too small, in which I would ask if you really think that there are that many people playing gw2 wvw. if you don't join an alliance, you get shuffled like a rag doll, so join an alliance.

@X T D.6458 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:I don't understand your pov on guild reqs. what exactly is the difference between what you propose and what we have now? if 75% of the population chooses an alliance as their favorite, isn't that the same as having servers? it would completely negate the purpose of alliances, which is to rebalance things. it will allow unlimited band wagoning. is that what you want?

You mean it's going to be more exclusionary than having a locked unlinked server that has 30% more play hours than the average host server?

population should be shown