Post your ideas to improve World Restructuring. — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Post your ideas to improve World Restructuring.

X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

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 requirements
Player activity evaluations
Leaderboards
Inactive accounts
Maintaining a sense of community
Not promoting elitist and exclusionary behavior
Rewards

*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 kitten 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.

Somewhere chasing bags....

Comments

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

    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.

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

  • 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.

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

    We need an all Charr alliance

    -Balwarc [ICoa]

  • Ardid.7203Ardid.7203 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 6, 2018

    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.

  • Norbe.7630Norbe.7630 Member ✭✭✭

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

    Why So Serious?

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

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

    Maybe...

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @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).

  • Aridon.8362Aridon.8362 Member ✭✭✭

    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.

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

    @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.

    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.

    >

    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.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    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.

  • Sarrs.4831Sarrs.4831 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 6, 2018

    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

  • Tiawal.2351Tiawal.2351 Member ✭✭✭

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

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

    @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.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @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.

    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.

    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.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 6, 2018

    @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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • GDchiaScrub.3241GDchiaScrub.3241 Member ✭✭✭✭

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

    Holy Warriors of [Kazo] following Kazo doctrine guided by, Our Lord and Commander, Zudo in the holy Trinity of Him and his two firm glutes.

  • 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?

    Te lazla otstra.
    nerf list

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

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Euryon.9248 said:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @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.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • @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.

    Te lazla otstra.
    nerf list

  • Swamurabi.7890Swamurabi.7890 Member ✭✭✭

    @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?


    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.

    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?

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

    population should be shown

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @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.

    Small guilds and militia are vital to any server and guild. Guilds rely on them for support and recruitment. Allowing a handful of guilds to artificially lock an alliance because of a low guild cap will simply exclude a lot of players. This will end up hurting those guilds in the long run. A server needs an active population and new blood to stay healthy, as well as people that engage in different playstyles like scouting, roaming, small team play etc.

    You need to remember WvW is 24/7, it is not timed matches like PvP.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Eramonster.2718Eramonster.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 7, 2018

    I think you got confused with how the new system will work. It will be a three sided war between 3 alliances/guilds. Server will no longer play a role imo, an alliance/guild can recruit players from different servers.

    The cap seems reasonable, since there's no point in having say 2000+ players to be locked behind que time. Too soon to make any judgement, but it is an improvement or at least an attempt to fix the current system's problem.

    Instead of having X server and Y server is good in WvW. You will be seeing X alliance and Y alliance is good in WvW. And they can freely recruit players to join their ranks(within the cap) without server restrictions.

    A good change since "Guilds" will be playing a major role in the new system. Currently, guilds are merely banks or collective of strangers(not even close to be called a community & you can see the solo playing mentality by now).

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 7, 2018

    @Eramonster.2718 said:
    I think you got confused with how the new system will work. It will be a three sided war between 3 alliances/guilds. Server will no longer play a role imo, an alliance/guild can recruit players from different servers.

    The cap seems reasonable, since there's no point in having say 2000+ players to be locked behind que time. Too soon to make any judgement, but it is an improvement or at least an attempt to fix the current system's problem.

    Instead of having X server and Y server is good in WvW. You will be seeing X alliance and Y alliance is good in WvW. And they can freely recruit players to join their ranks(within the cap) without server restrictions.

    A good change since "Guilds" will be playing a major role in the new system. Currently, guilds are merely banks or collective of strangers(not even close to be called a community & you can see the solo playing mentality by now).

    I might have some things mixed up because like I said I did not read through that entire main thread, its over 1400 posts now. I did not really mention the server population cap as one of my main issues, although I believe it will not be positive for servers in the long run because it will make coverage very difficult. The main issue here that I was referring to in my reply is the guild cap for alliances, which really seems rather pointless when combined with the smaller population cap.

    Hypothetically you can have 5 small guilds with a total of 25 players lock up an alliance with a 5 guild max if they should establish it and get on a server first. Same thing with 5 large guilds. It just seems like an unnecssary barrier that can be used to exclude people.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • @X T D.6458 said:
    Small guilds and militia are vital to any server and guild. Guilds rely on them for support and recruitment. Allowing a handful of guilds to artificially lock an alliance because of a low guild cap will simply exclude a lot of players. This will end up hurting those guilds in the long run. A server needs an active population and new blood to stay healthy, as well as people that engage in different playstyles like scouting, roaming, small team play etc.

    You need to remember WvW is 24/7, it is not timed matches like PvP.

    where are you getting this guild cap from? I'm sure there is one but I didn't catch it anywhere. I'm guessing it will be big enough to accommodate even t1 servers. remember there can be several alliances per world. coverage will always be a problem, hopefully they take into account a players time zone when they put together worlds.

    Te lazla otstra.
    nerf list

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

    @Eramonster.2718 said:
    I think you got confused with how the new system will work. It will be a three sided war between 3 alliances/guilds. Server will no longer play a role imo, an alliance/guild can recruit players from different servers.

    The cap seems reasonable, since there's no point in having say 2000+ players to be locked behind que time. Too soon to make any judgement, but it is an improvement or at least an attempt to fix the current system's problem.

    Instead of having X server and Y server is good in WvW. You will be seeing X alliance and Y alliance is good in WvW. And they can freely recruit players to join their ranks(within the cap) without server restrictions.

    A good change since "Guilds" will be playing a major role in the new system. Currently, guilds are merely banks or collective of strangers(not even close to be called a community & you can see the solo playing mentality by now).

    People are confused across the board and trying to imagine alliances as something they are not. The number of 500-1000 Anet has spoken about is the cap, nothing else. Just like guilds have a cap of 500.

    Its real simple: a server (current) = lots of random guilds + pugs = ~2-5 alliances (at 10-20%) + less random guilds +pugs = a world (new).

    Its the same population as now. Its just cut into more manageable chunks that they can MMR. WvW from the ground perspective will look exactly the same under the new system. Server still play a role - they are just called worlds. Its the same thing.

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

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:
    Small guilds and militia are vital to any server and guild. Guilds rely on them for support and recruitment. Allowing a handful of guilds to artificially lock an alliance because of a low guild cap will simply exclude a lot of players. This will end up hurting those guilds in the long run. A server needs an active population and new blood to stay healthy, as well as people that engage in different playstyles like scouting, roaming, small team play etc.

    You need to remember WvW is 24/7, it is not timed matches like PvP.

    where are you getting this guild cap from? I'm sure there is one but I didn't catch it anywhere. I'm guessing it will be big enough to accommodate even t1 servers. remember there can be several alliances per world. coverage will always be a problem, hopefully they take into account a players time zone when they put together worlds.

    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.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26877/world-restructuring-faq

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Eramonster.2718Eramonster.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 7, 2018

    Base on my understanding of the new system.

    Hypothetically you can have 5 small guilds with a total of 25 players lock up an alliance with a 5 guild max if they should establish it and get on a server first. Same thing with 5 large guilds. It just seems like an unnecssary barrier that can be used to exclude people.

    Was surprisingly mentioned by a few players too. But it's actually a misconception after some thinking. In the new system, you will be assigned to the alliance of the WvW guild you choose to be on. Players do not need to represent the WvW guild, the player however will be fighting under/alongside that guilds name in WvW. Example, in gw2 we can have 5 guilds :

    1) Current guild : ERA (representing)
    2) WvW guild : MnM (chosed to be part of their force this week)
    3) My personal bank guild : MoNS
    4) PvE guild : xxx
    5) PvX guild : yyy

    I will be fighting under the alliance MnM guild is in for the week even tho I'm representing ERA. Theoretically you can : represent you current guild, make/join a rally WvW guild (name of server) not sure if other server recruits will mind tho and fight under X alliance (2-5 guilds that covers each other dead time zones.)

    Eg. XTD (Current guild) > under WvW Guild (Server name) > Alliance matchup.

  • Jumpin Lumpix.6108Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Remove any reserved spots for guilds/alliances so wvw is 100% random like one giant solo que.

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

    @Eramonster.2718 said:
    I think you got confused with how the new system will work. It will be a three sided war between 3 alliances/guilds. Server will no longer play a role imo, an alliance/guild can recruit players from different servers.

    its not a fight between three alliances. It will still be worlds made up of alliances, guilds and individual players. Based on the initial image presented, a world can have two alliances. Along with non allied guilds.

    Instead of having X server and Y server is good in WvW. You will be seeing X alliance and Y alliance is good in WvW. And they can freely recruit players to join their ranks(within the cap) without server restrictions.

    Servers will now be called worlds, with different restrictions. To a point, guilds will have more freedom to recruit. But if they are in an alliance that is full, they won't be able to play together until either they leave the alliance, or the alliance opens up a spot.

    A good change since "Guilds" will be playing a major role in the new system. Currently, guilds are merely banks or collective of strangers(not even close to be called a community & you can see the solo playing mentality by now).

    to a point, yes. But it has been noted that the alliance leader will be able to kick guilds from the alliance. Of course, if that happens, I would imagine things progressed to the point of toxicity anyway so..

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Eramonster.2718Eramonster.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 7, 2018

    @Stand The Wall.6987
    Sorry, my bad forget to mention 2000+ is just a made up example for that point. The number anet gave was 500-1000(still in consideration I think?).

    @Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:
    Remove any reserved spots for guilds/alliances so wvw is 100% random like one giant solo que.

    Kinda, since an alliance free from server binds. An alliance is a substitude of what used to be server. Remove tier, and current system is 100% random like one giant solo que.

    For the new system, a good coverage server is a full round cookie. Sadly, most of the cookies have missing sections and it's not wise to merge the servers together. The new system breaks the cookies into smaller portions/sections(guilds) and fit the pieces together to reform complete cookies. Its not a perfect system, there will be pieces left out(leftover guilds that lacks quota) and crumbs(daily/solo players) which will be randomly placed. But it will give more representable/complete coverage matchup.

    @Strider Pj.2193 ty for helping to make it clearer :smile:

    But it has been noted that the alliance leader will be able to kick guilds from the alliance. Of course, if that happens, I would imagine things progressed to the point of toxicity anyway so..

    Thought about this too. But once the matchup starts, the alliance kinda sticks. Although im not sure how or if anyone can kick a guild out of the alliance (maybe with a vote from the guild leaders in the alliance?) No idea tbh. But the guild will remain to fight in the same world under the same "color" for the week. Just need to find and fit into another alliance for the next matchup(which is similar to a guild transfer).

  • @X T D.6458 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.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26877/world-restructuring-faq

    oh alright thanks for that. yeah seems like they are aiming for a low number of guilds which would be a mistake, but as the example shows here the alliance cap is also determined by the number of players which is good.

    Te lazla otstra.
    nerf list

  • 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 just create the same problem with population as we do now, players who don’t choose any WvW guild will just be put into a world that the system thinks is good for him and his playtime. I don’t know by people are scared to meet new players playing the same game mode, for me I think it’ll be nice to see different faces every 8 weeks.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    its not a fight between three alliances. It will still be worlds made up of alliances, guilds and individual players. Based on the initial image presented, a world can have two alliances. Along with non allied guilds.

    I don't think there's anything special about the number 2 here, that was just the storyboard Anet drew up to illustrate the concept. A world may end up having 3 or more alliances, esp. if they are smaller alliances.

    We don't yet know what kinds of pieces anet will be working with because no one has actually created alliances yet. Maybe people will tend to join max-cap alliances, which will create fewer discrete pieces to be sorted, or maybe there will only be a few of these very large alliances with a large number of smaller alliances, which gives Anet more pieces to distribute. Maybe there will be a lot of unaffiliated people not joining alliances, or maybe most of the playerbase will join a small or larger alliance in the end. We don't even really know how many worlds there will be total because we don't know exactly how big the playerbase is or will become both before implementation and during each season.

    These are all variables that will affect the composition of a world. It may have 2 big alliances, a couple of small alliances, and randoms. It may have 1 big alliance, a bunch of smaller alliances, and randoms. It's going to be a lot harder to game/manipulate because of the continuing variation in number of alliances, sizes of the alliances, and number of free players, not to mention that no matter how 'stacked' people try to make any single alliance, that alliance will only be a fraction of the world size and that alliance cannot control the remainder of the people who are fighting with them that week. People may try to transfer mid-season to a world that is doing well, assuming it isn't already full -- but they won't be grouped with those people come next season, so the motivation to do so is greatly reduced compared to what it currently is to transfer to a top-level server.

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

    @Euryon.9248 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    its not a fight between three alliances. It will still be worlds made up of alliances, guilds and individual players. Based on the initial image presented, a world can have two alliances. Along with non allied guilds.

    I don't think there's anything special about the number 2 here, that was just the storyboard Anet drew up to illustrate the concept. A world may end up having 3 or more alliances, esp. if they are smaller alliances.

    We don't yet know what kinds of pieces anet will be working with because no one has actually created alliances yet. Maybe people will tend to join max-cap alliances, which will create fewer discrete pieces to be sorted, or maybe there will only be a few of these very large alliances with a large number of smaller alliances, which gives Anet more pieces to distribute. Maybe there will be a lot of unaffiliated people not joining alliances, or maybe most of the playerbase will join a small or larger alliance in the end. We don't even really know how many worlds there will be total because we don't know exactly how big the playerbase is or will become both before implementation and during each season.

    These are all variables that will affect the composition of a world. It may have 2 big alliances, a couple of small alliances, and randoms. It may have 1 big alliance, a bunch of smaller alliances, and randoms. It's going to be a lot harder to game/manipulate because of the continuing variation in number of alliances, sizes of the alliances, and number of free players, not to mention that no matter how 'stacked' people try to make any single alliance, that alliance will only be a fraction of the world size and that alliance cannot control the remainder of the people who are fighting with them that week. People may try to transfer mid-season to a world that is doing well, assuming it isn't already full -- but they won't be grouped with those people come next season, so the motivation to do so is greatly reduced compared to what it currently is to transfer to a top-level server.

    Not going to disagree with this. Just noted that it isn't Just an alliance vs an alliance, and that worlds were made up of alliances and guilds. I used the term 'can' for that reason meaning it was possible, not that it was exclusionary.

    It's not a war of three alliances. It's a war or three worlds still.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

©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.