World Restructuring Update 1 - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

World Restructuring Update 1

2456789

Comments

  • @X T D.6458 said:

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:
    *Do we still need to mark a guild/alliance to stay on the same world?

    Yes, this hasn't changed.

    *Will there still be a cap to how many guilds can be in an alliances, if so what is it?

    see above

    Maybe I am missing something, but I see the post referring to the size of guilds but not the number of guilds per alliance.

    Sorry it's not really called out specifically but its here. Basically if we do some kind of round up method that will limit the number of guilds to what ever the 500 / Minimum guild size (so like if a 1 person guild is rounded up to 5 then there would be a limit of 100 guilds). If we don't round up guild limit would be 500 at one person per guild.

    Minimum Guild Size

    The original plan was to count a guild within the alliance at some rounded-up size rather than exact size when calculating how full an alliance was. The benefit of this method was it would give more autonomy to the individual guilds to control WvW members, i.e., recruit new members or if current guild members decide they want to start playing WvW.

  • ImperialWL.7138ImperialWL.7138 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 2, 2018

    @Andalus.9476 said:
    If you want to bring WvW back to life (as it was few years ago) there has to be leaderboard of guild/aliance. We have to have reason to put effort, play more and improve.

    Agree with this 100%. Bring back tournaments for servers/worlds, and introduce REAL GvG in an instanced map with WvW balance (this or change guild hall balance to WvW/PvP) which is not limited by color or server. (15v15, flat terrain with no gimmicks or map mechanics). Add a leaderboard. The system is already in place with automated tournaments in PvP, expand to 15v15, monthly tournaments and so many guilds will come back it's not even funny.

  • Redponey.8352Redponey.8352 Member ✭✭

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    So the alliance of guilds (which can each be up to 500 players) can be no bigger than 500 players across all of them?

    Does anyone else see the hole in that logic?

    This will be potentially devastating to many player communities that have formed across the past few years. I do not say this lightly. You are messing with something that affects a lot of people/friendships.

    I sincerely hope you either reconsider or leave things as they are now.

    many of them are already eroded ... linking system over years with no news and no change has killed them...

    As i said, it's not really a issue of number of people in WvW on servers. the major isssue is to keeping player in!! and to keep them to play WvW we need content and big balance change.

    As i remember WvW is a massive competitive PvP gamemode that mean we need challenge between servers and reward. (tournamement?!) and we need to HAVE FUN ** in fight or roaming or just defending a tower etc... **WvW has lost its fun

    Create a challenge PvP gamemode , players will be back on it because there no other mmo that offer a massive pvp as GW2 does.

  • anduriell.6280anduriell.6280 Member ✭✭✭

    literally im loving all this and i'm hopefull it will be amazing, catmander!

    Overhauls of the Ranger to be LOVED by EVERYBODY:
    Condition ranger;
    Power Ranger;
    Support Ranger;
    Survival Setup
    Beastmastery and Pets

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:
    *Do we still need to mark a guild/alliance to stay on the same world?

    Yes, this hasn't changed.

    *Will there still be a cap to how many guilds can be in an alliances, if so what is it?

    see above

    Maybe I am missing something, but I see the post referring to the size of guilds but not the number of guilds per alliance.

    Sorry it's not really called out specifically but its here. Basically if we do some kind of round up method that will limit the number of guilds to what ever the 500 / Minimum guild size (so like if a 1 person guild is rounded up to 5 then there would be a limit of 100 guilds). If we don't round up guild limit would be 500 at one person per guild.

    Minimum Guild Size

    The original plan was to count a guild within the alliance at some rounded-up size rather than exact size when calculating how full an alliance was. The benefit of this method was it would give more autonomy to the individual guilds to control WvW members, i.e., recruit new members or if current guild members decide they want to start playing WvW.

    Ah I see now, thanks for clarifying. I remember in the original post that I read it was supposed to be a small number of guilds allowed per alliance. So basically the guild cap will still rely on the population cap of an alliance if I am understanding correctly, if a guild in an alliance has 499 members than the alliance only has room for 1 guild with 1 player in it.

    BG

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2, 2018

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    I am sorry, but there are a number of people that will likely be left behind with a system like this. In my guild's situation, a number of us are PVX players and only head into WvW once or twice a week. At the same time, the people we go into WvW with (many in our existing guild) are more hardcore, but still enjoy the time they spend with us on those nights. Under the system described, those people will have to make difficult decisions about who is in and who is out - and that will leave a lot of people out and unable to play with the friends they can/do under the current system.

    This isn't a hypothetical scenario. It is one that many people I know (and probably many others) are in.

    These limits, as described, make no sense and will force communities to fragment as harder core players have to decide between competitive gameplay and their more casual friends.

    I know you can do better than this, Anet.

    This would actually make it easier for PvX guilds to play together. Currently PvX guilds can, and often do have members spread on many different worlds. With this system you can all mark the guild as your WvW guild and all be placed on the same server to play together. As I stated before, this system is guild centric.

    BG

  • Redponey.8352Redponey.8352 Member ✭✭
    edited July 2, 2018

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    I am sorry, but there are a number of people that will likely be left behind with a system like this. In my guild's situation, a number of us are PVX players and only head into WvW once or twice a week. At the same time, the people we go into WvW with (many in our existing guild) are more hardcore, but still enjoy the time they spend with us on those nights. Under the system described, those people will have to make difficult decisions about who is in and who is out - and that will leave a lot of people out and unable to play with the friends they can/do under the current system.

    This isn't a hypothetical scenario. It is one that many people I know (and probably many others) are in.

    These limits, as described, make no sense and will force communities to fragment as harder core players have to decide between competitive gameplay and their more casual friends.

    I know you can do better than this, Anet.

    This would actually make it easier for PvX guilds to play together. Currently PvX guilds can, and often do have members spread on many different worlds. With this system you can all mark the guild as your WvW guild and all be placed on the same server to play together. As I stated before, this system is guild centric.

    As i remember , PvX guild as you describe didnt have a great impact on WvW as mid-range WvW Guild. All i fear is that anet would get more people in instead of fidelize them with great combat system and new content. It's all about quantity and quality. a PvX player doesnt get involved as a WvW player in WvW so he would have not the same impact => eotm inc

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2, 2018

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    So. What happens to the RPer's and their server(s)?

    D:

    I would like to elaborate this to:

    What happens to the current servers and their ability to prioritize players to certain PvE map instances.

    Especially considering most player replies seem to have a total lack of understanding on the subject.

  • @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    So. What happens to the RPer's and their server(s)?

    D:

    I am sorry but RP'ing in "WvW does not fit the intended game mode."

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2, 2018

    Also would like to know if the system still is set out to ask for guild to be set as a wvw guild

  • @FrizzFreston.5290 said:
    Also would like to know if the system still is set out to ask for guild to be set as a wvw guild

    Yes you will still declare a guild as your WvW guild.

  • Can we please get some type of title of the the world were on currently when this changes. I've been on the same server since Early access and would like to have something to represent that.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Redponey.8352 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    I am sorry, but there are a number of people that will likely be left behind with a system like this. In my guild's situation, a number of us are PVX players and only head into WvW once or twice a week. At the same time, the people we go into WvW with (many in our existing guild) are more hardcore, but still enjoy the time they spend with us on those nights. Under the system described, those people will have to make difficult decisions about who is in and who is out - and that will leave a lot of people out and unable to play with the friends they can/do under the current system.

    This isn't a hypothetical scenario. It is one that many people I know (and probably many others) are in.

    These limits, as described, make no sense and will force communities to fragment as harder core players have to decide between competitive gameplay and their more casual friends.

    I know you can do better than this, Anet.

    This would actually make it easier for PvX guilds to play together. Currently PvX guilds can, and often do have members spread on many different worlds. With this system you can all mark the guild as your WvW guild and all be placed on the same server to play together. As I stated before, this system is guild centric.

    As i remember , PvX guild as you describe didnt have a great impact on WvW as mid-range WvW Guild. All i fear is that anet would get more people in instead of fidelize them with great combat system and new content. It's all about quantity and quality. a PvX player doesnt get involved as a WvW player in WvW so he would have not the same impact => eotm inc

    The impact of guilds is irrelevant, the issue is creating an environment that encourages people to play together. PvX guilds used to be on one server until megaservers. This change essentially forced guilds to stop focusing on WvW because it was harder to do with players spread on other servers while at the same time having to continuously recruit to stay active, so it became harder and harder for them to make WvW a regular activity.

    This restructuring would actually eliminate those barriers and make it easier for players in PvX guilds to play together on the same server.

    BG

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2, 2018

    @Raymond Lukes.6302 Thank you for the update! I know the players appreciate it.

    We know this project will take time, and that you all have full plates, but I'm just wondering if there are any interim improvement plans to keep players participating in wvw? Stuff like... Profession updates targeted at improving wvw play? Reevaluating the 20k 1 shot and multi-burst builds vs an individual players health? Tasteful Condition system improvements? New maps?….There are a list of issues that repel players from this mode, and almost everything about wvw is stale at this point, so anything to wonder about or get excited over?

    "It's that sorta mentality that prevents progress from actually being made and the game from being fun for everyone and not the minority." -TexZero

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/9804/idea-wvw-only-movement-skills

  • @Phelar.1627 said:
    Can we please get some type of title of the the world were on currently when this changes. I've been on the same server since Early access and would like to have something to represent that.

    We are still finalizing things but we are looking at giving titles. How it will work I'm still not clear on but we want to do something that acknowledges people's worlds.

  • hunkamania.7561hunkamania.7561 Member ✭✭✭

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    @Phelar.1627 said:
    Can we please get some type of title of the the world were on currently when this changes. I've been on the same server since Early access and would like to have something to represent that.

    We are still finalizing things but we are looking at giving titles. How it will work I'm still not clear on but we want to do something that acknowledges people's worlds.

    magswag plz

    Maguuma

    VR

  • Lanthun.7251Lanthun.7251 Member ✭✭
    edited July 2, 2018

    @hunkamania.7561 said:

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    @Phelar.1627 said:
    Can we please get some type of title of the the world were on currently when this changes. I've been on the same server since Early access and would like to have something to represent that.

    We are still finalizing things but we are looking at giving titles. How it will work I'm still not clear on but we want to do something that acknowledges people's worlds.

    magswag plz

    *Magbags pls

    I want Carnished Toasters, pls.

    Teacher, gamer, uncle, etc..
    Devils Remorse, lvl80 MP257 Scourge (filthy)
    Phantom Moon [PM] GM/Founder

  • Leaa.2943Leaa.2943 Member ✭✭

    As i thought but have not been cleared until now. What really is happening is that we scramble servers and there wont be a hardcore we rule one world alliances. It been hinted at but people simply did not take this up or understood that it would not be like that.

    So at this point i kind of wonder why scramble servers if the outcome will be very much like it is now. You have groups stacking servers and then we have fill ins with small guilds, lonely players in which alliances have no power over or vise versa. Much like now. Nothing changes.

  • Yukio blaster.9082Yukio blaster.9082 Member ✭✭✭

    WvW veteran players are already leaving the game only few are left and this restructuring is taking even longer come-on ANET you are better that this , i know that this isn't easy to make but in my opinion this change is critical for the future of GW2 or even the potential GW3 in the future so u need to put more dev's in making this change live as soon as possible, peace out.

    S A R À B

  • Roxanne.6140Roxanne.6140 Member ✭✭✭

    In this new system, there will be no server pride and winning has no meaning because of matchmaker. Not that both of them have a huge presence now but they will be even less in the new system. But of course who is reading this anyway rofl.

  • Donari.5237Donari.5237 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2, 2018

    @Seera.5916 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    So. What happens to the RPer's and their server(s)?

    D:

    Find PvE maps or custom PvP rooms to do the RP you do in WvW. Because, personally, RP should not be done in WvW due to the map cap of players.

    There are only X number of spots for people to come into WvW. RP can happen on any map, anywhere. WvW can only happen on a specific map. And a large number of RP'ers on an active WvW player map is a hinderance for the world of those RP'ers. It means that the map gets overrun by enemies as the players who own the land can't get enough players onto the map to defend.

    Which means I'm basically saying that RP concerns should be the very very very very very last thing ANet devs consider when designing this system. And things put in place for RP'ers should only happen if they wouldn't negatively impact WvW players or would benefit WvW players.

    As was discussed at length in the original announcement thread and cogently pointed out in this thread at https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/581560/#Comment_581560 this is NOT a concern about RPing in WvW, it is about RPers in PvE who are more likely to find each other randomly in the open world if their home server is one of the unofficial RP servers, primarily Tarnished Coast on NA and Pikken Square on EU. This server restructuring will affect that and therefore is of concern. Nothing needs to be done differently in the WvW design to accommodate RPers, but the hope is that something else will be offered to replace that which is taken away. Perhaps the ability to "flag" as an RPer and have that weighed as a factor when choosing which map IP to drop you in when you zone into an area.

    Many other suggestions were made in the initial thread and the devs at that time responded that they understood this to be an issue. So now the question is, has any dev thought gone into an approach to solving this issue?

    @Raymond Lukes.6305

  • neven.3785neven.3785 Member ✭✭

    Will anet provide a seperate guild slot (ie. /gw) seperate from the original 5? with 5 years of history, many in pve land are having issues with available guild slots for a wvw guild. personally doesn't affect me, but seems to be a common issue.

  • Roxanne.6140Roxanne.6140 Member ✭✭✭

    @Blocki.4931 said:

    @Roxanne.6140 said:
    In this new system, there will be no server pride and winning has no meaning because of matchmaker. Not that both of them have a huge presence now but they will be even less in the new system. But of course who is reading this anyway rofl.

    Server pride hasn't been a thing for a few years now...

    Good news is that guild pride will be more of a thing with this though

    So the logic is if something is wrong or broken or missing, accept it's broken and make it worse?

  • @Raymond Lukes.6305 I apologise if the question I am about to ask has already been answered elsewhere, but I cannot find the question in this thread (it's late here and I could be wrong) and I feel it is worth asking.

    I am pretty much exclusively a PvE player. I used to play a bit of PvP and, at launch, a LOT of WvW, but over time I've drifted away from those modes and focussed on the PvE elements of the game.

    However, I like to collect legendaries. One of the annoying pain points for me is going into WvW for the gift of battle, as at this point I literally don't care about WvW.

    It isn't particularly clear to me right now how the changes to WvW will impact upon my ability to get gifts of battle. Will it still be a simple matter of hopping into WvW to do that, or will I have to join a guild marked as WvW? Or mark my account as being a WvW account?

    Beyond that, as part of this revamp, has any consideration at all been given to the process by which people obtain gifts of battle? I know that people who are dedicated WvWers really hate people like me leaching off of zergs and not giving a kitten just to get the gift of battle. Can a new PvE method/system be implemented so that people such as myself don't need to take the place of someone who actually wants to play the game mode? A repeatable mastery track requiring a some millions PvE XP? A repeatable reward track like in WvW but works in PvE? Or maybe a repeatable achievement collection where you need to obtain X amount of XP alongside doing particular open world events (all world bosses) and some other stuff?

    Aside from that, I think the changes to WvW sound interesting and I am glad for the WvW community that some much needed love and attention is being directed at it. I hope it all works out well for you.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 3, 2018

    We subsequently have decided to, at least at the start, use only play hours and not adjust using other metrics. This will allow us to compare apples to apples so to speak once the system is in place. From there we can simulate how certain adjustments would change the matchups. This will make it easier to determine if an adjustment will have a positive impact.

    Does this include, at the very least, the hours at which players or groups are active? If not the system will require it or is otherwise doomed to fail. The issue with "population inbalance" isn't necessarily having too many players on one side; but having too many players during a certain timezone for others to compete. This entirely ruins the gamemode for said timezone.

    Your current system promotes forming clusters in the times where you enjoy playing, as commanders are limited and guilds / communities are declining. Very few servers are active 24/7 but many servers can queue maps on certain times of day. This overhaul seems to be focussed on dealing with matchmaking and population issues which WvW faces, but I don't see an actual proposal here on how these issues will be fixed. I do think this system is still an improvement as it puts more power to steer their alliance as players; but I don't see any protection from two alliances focussed at the same timezone to be grouped only to create overwhelming dominance throughout a few hours complete inactivity during others.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 3, 2018

    @Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    I ask, because I'm a pretty casual WvW player, honestly, and I'm currently on a T1 world. Everyone else at that level is way more serious than I ever expect to be, so I'm a bit of both an easy target, and inclined to feel like a bit of a hinderance -- even if I play competently with the groups, I'm likely to make unwise decisions because I just don't have the same commitment they do.

    Ideally you can find a guild that has a similar play style and approach to WvW that you do and join them. That way you have a group that plays like you'd like.

    And then you'd end up in an alliance of casual players matched against WvW veterans. Which might be fun for the latter, but definitely won't be for the former.

    @Seera.5916 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    So. What happens to the RPer's and their server(s)?

    D:

    Find PvE maps or custom PvP rooms to do the RP you do in WvW. Because, personally, RP should not be done in WvW due to the map cap of players.

    If you have actually read what was being said, you'd find it had nothing to do with RPing in WvW, but a lot to do with servers still having impact on open world instances. And impact many people count on, which, after that change, will be gone.

    So, basically, that change may be beneficial in WvW, but is going to have some negative sideeffects in PvE that might not have been well thought out by the devs.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • neven.3785neven.3785 Member ✭✭

    you will be matched to a world as a Solo character when you first enter. if you are not in a wvw guild.

    as for people after map completion leeching, as long as they are in match playing, not afking near a wall to repair, no issues there.

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭

    @Roxanne.6140 said:

    @Blocki.4931 said:

    @Roxanne.6140 said:
    In this new system, there will be no server pride and winning has no meaning because of matchmaker. Not that both of them have a huge presence now but they will be even less in the new system. But of course who is reading this anyway rofl.

    Server pride hasn't been a thing for a few years now...

    Good news is that guild pride will be more of a thing with this though

    So the logic is if something is wrong or broken or missing, accept it's broken and make it worse?

    Why is guild or alliance pride worse than server pride?

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    If you have actually read what was being said, you'd find it had nothing to do with RPing in WvW, but a lot to do with servers still having impact on open world instances. And impact many people count on, which, after that change, will be gone.

    But that is not a concern for WvW devs but more the PvE devs.

  • How many players from an alliance will be allowed per map?

    Will alliances be limited to competing on one map or match up at a time?

    What will be the work/time flow for creating alliances in relation the the match making schedule?

  • Roxanne.6140Roxanne.6140 Member ✭✭✭

    @morrolan.9608 said:

    @Roxanne.6140 said:

    @Blocki.4931 said:

    @Roxanne.6140 said:
    In this new system, there will be no server pride and winning has no meaning because of matchmaker. Not that both of them have a huge presence now but they will be even less in the new system. But of course who is reading this anyway rofl.

    Server pride hasn't been a thing for a few years now...

    Good news is that guild pride will be more of a thing with this though

    So the logic is if something is wrong or broken or missing, accept it's broken and make it worse?

    Why is guild or alliance pride worse than server pride?

    Because there is a whole segment of the playerbase who will be left out! Doesn't this go against the historical design principle of the game developers?

  • Vegeta.2563Vegeta.2563 Member ✭✭✭

    I'm still curious how these worlds are going to be named. Since we are doing away with servers, I'm assuming that means these worlds will need to have a name before you can enter a borderland.

  • The Last Hobbit.6492The Last Hobbit.6492 Member ✭✭
    edited July 3, 2018

    If alliances are going to be a maximum of 500 players then why not just use guilds? What benefit does an alliance bring? What are the differences?

    If we're going to be forming/joining dedicated WvW guilds, those already have a cap of 500, surely a new system is unnecessary?

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 3, 2018

    @Roxanne.6140 said:

    @morrolan.9608 said:

    @Roxanne.6140 said:

    @Blocki.4931 said:

    @Roxanne.6140 said:
    In this new system, there will be no server pride and winning has no meaning because of matchmaker. Not that both of them have a huge presence now but they will be even less in the new system. But of course who is reading this anyway rofl.

    Server pride hasn't been a thing for a few years now...

    Good news is that guild pride will be more of a thing with this though

    So the logic is if something is wrong or broken or missing, accept it's broken and make it worse?

    Why is guild or alliance pride worse than server pride?

    Because there is a whole segment of the playerbase who will be left out! Doesn't this go against the historical design principle of the game developers?

    Thats not objectively better but more a historical artifact of the existing system. Plus its a small minority and why aren't they in guilds, at least community guilds anyway?

  • @The Last Hobbit.6492 said:
    If alliances are going to be a maximum of 500 players then why not just use guilds? What benefit does an alliance bring? What are the differences?

    If we're going to be forming/joining dedicated WvW guilds, those already have a cap of 500, surely a new system is unnecessary?

    I suspect the primary aspect is to not make guilds 100% about WvW and to allow players who are not in the same guild to still play together.

    The new system also prevents stacking beyond the alliance cap. In the current system it's possible for the top N players (1000's of them) to all get on the same server, be it guilds or solo, and steam roll other servers. The new system will assign the alliances in such a way to minimize this.

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jalad Lantana.3027 said:
    How many players from an alliance will be allowed per map?

    No change from current iteration.

    Will alliances be limited to competing on one map or match up at a time?

    No change from current iteration, 1 Alliance will be on 1 "New World", and thus play like a current server.

    What will be the work/time flow for creating alliances in relation the the match making schedule?

    From the old thread: You can make the new alliance and changes at any time until the last week of the 2 month period. During this last week, it is locked down so the servers can calculate the "new worlds". Once done, I guess you'll be able to start changing it again, but it won't take effect until next change 2 months later.

    Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
    "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - J. Michael Straczynski
    "It's kind of sad how MMORPGs went from DND based sandbox games to theme park grind time sinks." -YoukiNeko.6047

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @The Last Hobbit.6492 said:
    If alliances are going to be a maximum of 500 players then why not just use guilds? What benefit does an alliance bring? What are the differences?

    If we're going to be forming/joining dedicated WvW guilds, those already have a cap of 500, surely a new system is unnecessary?

    Because it allows 2 guilds of 250 members each to stay together. Or 50 guilds of 10 players.

    A guild of 500 players are going to be their own alliance (but honestly doubt there are many guilds with that many active players left).

    This does have some benefits like multiple guilds to claim objectives with etc.

    Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
    "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - J. Michael Straczynski
    "It's kind of sad how MMORPGs went from DND based sandbox games to theme park grind time sinks." -YoukiNeko.6047

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Roxanne.6140 said:

    @morrolan.9608 said:

    @Roxanne.6140 said:

    @Blocki.4931 said:

    @Roxanne.6140 said:
    In this new system, there will be no server pride and winning has no meaning because of matchmaker. Not that both of them have a huge presence now but they will be even less in the new system. But of course who is reading this anyway rofl.

    Server pride hasn't been a thing for a few years now...

    Good news is that guild pride will be more of a thing with this though

    So the logic is if something is wrong or broken or missing, accept it's broken and make it worse?

    Why is guild or alliance pride worse than server pride?

    Because there is a whole segment of the playerbase who will be left out! Doesn't this go against the historical design principle of the game developers?

    Who is going to be left out ?

    Everyone gets into WvW, if you haven't flagged a WvW guild, you're considered a solo player and put into a random server. And a solo player always have the option of joining a wvw guild for the next season.

    Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
    "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - J. Michael Straczynski
    "It's kind of sad how MMORPGs went from DND based sandbox games to theme park grind time sinks." -YoukiNeko.6047

©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.