World Restructuring Update 1 - Page 7 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

World Restructuring Update 1

123457>

Comments

  • Naxos.2503Naxos.2503 Member ✭✭✭

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:

    @Naxos.2503 said:

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:
    The alliance system will ruin wvw. I am shocked that many don't realize it's guilds that are destroying the wvw experience. It's all guild runs now and guild tags, tiny groups. No more large open tag zergs. To be honest if they just wiped the guild system in wvw I think things would improve. IMHO

    Is it ? o.O Vabbi and the Shiverpeak manage large zergs very frequently, same goes for the generally opposite servers. Guilds tend to constitute roamers and scouts Only. But that doesn't mean there isn't a zerg going around. Personally, I want the alliance system, because the megaserver setup means that I cant play with all my guildies in WvW, it makes no sense

    I have been playing for over 4 years now and WVW is nothing like it was then. It is dying out and no there are a lot less open tags then there used to be.

    How come there are consistently fully queued WvW on borderlands with up to 50+ Queued in EB if it's dying out ? It may be different than how it was, but as far as I can see, the mode is still very much active and enjoyable...

    Beside, that still doesn't help with the fact that because of megaservers, it becomes impossible for guilds of varied servers (When you recruit, you dont necessarily invite people of your own server, knowingly or not) to play together in WvW, despite it having a guild mechanic, and guilds benefitting from being able to do missions in it ?

    At worse, just let my guildies join me on my runs in WvW, rather than us being split across 15 maps. I want to play with my friends, that's what I do with games. Not that randoms arent sometime nice, but I'd much rather play tactically on a strategic map, rather than rely on bruteforce. A guild lets you plan things beforehand easily, and is overall more enjoyable. So far, WvW is the one content with guild interests that cannot Fully be enjoyed by guilds.

    Furthermore, it wont prevent the creation of zergs. If there is a commander with a clear plan, fair skill, and there is an actual objective/threat. Then a zerg can be mustered in a few seconds. I Really dont see how this is an issue. It wont diminish the amount of players running WvW, it actually has a high chance of increasing it, because more people will willingly try and run it, if they have friends along with them. In my opinion, that's much more valuable than fearmongering "WvW is doomed if guilds get involved". Dont you think ?

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:
    The alliance system will ruin wvw. I am shocked that many don't realize it's guilds that are destroying the wvw experience. It's a lot of guild runs now and closed guild tags, tiny groups. No more large open tag zergs. To be honest if they just wiped the guild system in wvw I think things would improve. IMHO, I honestly used to love eotm because it wasn't all guild tags and guild runs, then pips were introduced and boom no more eotm. I used to play wvw daily now ugh....tried switching servers many times it's all the same. WVW is literally guild vs guild now, it's ruined and alliance will ruin it further. Why not bring back an eotm like system with pips and bonuses but create a gvg system for guilds to gvg, I think this would help so much.

    Large open tag zergs are less because pugmanders left the game and because there are less guilds that raid openly, not because guilds destroyed it generally.

  • SnowPumpkin.1809SnowPumpkin.1809 Member ✭✭
    edited November 28, 2018

    @morrolan.9608 said:

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:
    The alliance system will ruin wvw. I am shocked that many don't realize it's guilds that are destroying the wvw experience. It's a lot of guild runs now and closed guild tags, tiny groups. No more large open tag zergs. To be honest if they just wiped the guild system in wvw I think things would improve. IMHO, I honestly used to love eotm because it wasn't all guild tags and guild runs, then pips were introduced and boom no more eotm. I used to play wvw daily now ugh....tried switching servers many times it's all the same. WVW is literally guild vs guild now, it's ruined and alliance will ruin it further. Why not bring back an eotm like system with pips and bonuses but create a gvg system for guilds to gvg, I think this would help so much.

    Large open tag zergs are less because pugmanders left the game and because there are less guilds that raid openly, not because guilds destroyed it generally.

    I agree it has a lot to do with the closed guild raids. So not really the guilds fault but guild leaders I guess. Js what I am seeing I have probably been on at least 10 different EU/NA servers in the past 2 years alone and I am seeing less and less coms willing to run an open tag and more and more closed guild raids. Maybe if Pips were brought in to EOTM as well it would help with queues and less pugs in actual WVW until they learn WVW through EOTM and less Pip farmers?

  • borgs.6103borgs.6103 Member ✭✭✭

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:

    @morrolan.9608 said:

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:
    The alliance system will ruin wvw. I am shocked that many don't realize it's guilds that are destroying the wvw experience. It's a lot of guild runs now and closed guild tags, tiny groups. No more large open tag zergs. To be honest if they just wiped the guild system in wvw I think things would improve. IMHO, I honestly used to love eotm because it wasn't all guild tags and guild runs, then pips were introduced and boom no more eotm. I used to play wvw daily now ugh....tried switching servers many times it's all the same. WVW is literally guild vs guild now, it's ruined and alliance will ruin it further. Why not bring back an eotm like system with pips and bonuses but create a gvg system for guilds to gvg, I think this would help so much.

    Large open tag zergs are less because pugmanders left the game and because there are less guilds that raid openly, not because guilds destroyed it generally.

    I agree it has a lot to do with the closed guild raids. So not really the guilds fault but guild leaders I guess. Js what I am seeing I have probably been on at least 10 different EU/NA servers in the past 2 years alone and I am seeing less and less coms willing to run an open tag and more and more closed guild raids. Maybe if Pips were brought in to EOTM as well it would help with queues and less pugs in actual WVW until they learn WVW through EOTM and less Pip farmers?

    Guilds have been running tagless ever since. Having pips in EOTM won't change that. It's as what was said - PUG commanders stopped playing/left the game.

    Hi.

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 28, 2018

    The natural step should be for people to join a guild, not condemn them for trying to run coordinated groups.

    Logging out forever.

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

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:

    @morrolan.9608 said:

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:
    The alliance system will ruin wvw. I am shocked that many don't realize it's guilds that are destroying the wvw experience. It's a lot of guild runs now and closed guild tags, tiny groups. No more large open tag zergs. To be honest if they just wiped the guild system in wvw I think things would improve. IMHO, I honestly used to love eotm because it wasn't all guild tags and guild runs, then pips were introduced and boom no more eotm. I used to play wvw daily now ugh....tried switching servers many times it's all the same. WVW is literally guild vs guild now, it's ruined and alliance will ruin it further. Why not bring back an eotm like system with pips and bonuses but create a gvg system for guilds to gvg, I think this would help so much.

    Large open tag zergs are less because pugmanders left the game and because there are less guilds that raid openly, not because guilds destroyed it generally.

    I agree it has a lot to do with the closed guild raids. So not really the guilds fault but guild leaders I guess. Js what I am seeing I have probably been on at least 10 different EU/NA servers in the past 2 years alone and I am seeing less and less coms willing to run an open tag and more and more closed guild raids. Maybe if Pips were brought in to EOTM as well it would help with queues and less pugs in actual WVW until they learn WVW through EOTM and less Pip farmers?

    Yes and the people jumping between servers have absolutely nothing to do with it.

    And why are you suddenly arguing about pips in EoTM and queues, is WvW dead or not?

  • SnowPumpkin.1809SnowPumpkin.1809 Member ✭✭
    edited November 28, 2018

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:

    @morrolan.9608 said:

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:
    The alliance system will ruin wvw. I am shocked that many don't realize it's guilds that are destroying the wvw experience. It's a lot of guild runs now and closed guild tags, tiny groups. No more large open tag zergs. To be honest if they just wiped the guild system in wvw I think things would improve. IMHO, I honestly used to love eotm because it wasn't all guild tags and guild runs, then pips were introduced and boom no more eotm. I used to play wvw daily now ugh....tried switching servers many times it's all the same. WVW is literally guild vs guild now, it's ruined and alliance will ruin it further. Why not bring back an eotm like system with pips and bonuses but create a gvg system for guilds to gvg, I think this would help so much.

    Large open tag zergs are less because pugmanders left the game and because there are less guilds that raid openly, not because guilds destroyed it generally.

    I agree it has a lot to do with the closed guild raids. So not really the guilds fault but guild leaders I guess. Js what I am seeing I have probably been on at least 10 different EU/NA servers in the past 2 years alone and I am seeing less and less coms willing to run an open tag and more and more closed guild raids. Maybe if Pips were brought in to EOTM as well it would help with queues and less pugs in actual WVW until they learn WVW through EOTM and less Pip farmers?

    Yes and the people jumping between servers have absolutely nothing to do with it.

    And why are you suddenly arguing about pips in EoTM and queues, is WvW dead or not?

    If you read back I was answering someone else about the queues and how that could be fixed. As I said there are people for and against these changes so suggesting two separate game modes makes sense, GVG and WVW....If you don't believe that go back and read all the previous posters comments and then say I'm wrong. Also I have been in many large guilds that do daily WVW runs and I didn't enjoy it, not everyone does. The reason I have been trying different servers is in hopes of finding one that actually has open tags and people that want to play other then just in guilds, hope that answers all your questions. Pug commanders didn't really leave the game they just started guilds and are running closed tagged, it's because there are to many inexperienced WVW players and they don't want to deal with it.

  • zinkz.7045zinkz.7045 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 28, 2018

    @Naxos.2503 said:

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:

    @Naxos.2503 said:

    @SnowPumpkin.1809 said:
    The alliance system will ruin wvw. I am shocked that many don't realize it's guilds that are destroying the wvw experience. It's all guild runs now and guild tags, tiny groups. No more large open tag zergs. To be honest if they just wiped the guild system in wvw I think things would improve. IMHO

    Is it ? o.O Vabbi and the Shiverpeak manage large zergs very frequently, same goes for the generally opposite servers. Guilds tend to constitute roamers and scouts Only. But that doesn't mean there isn't a zerg going around. Personally, I want the alliance system, because the megaserver setup means that I cant play with all my guildies in WvW, it makes no sense

    I have been playing for over 4 years now and WVW is nothing like it was then. It is dying out and no there are a lot less open tags then there used to be.

    How come there are consistently fully queued WvW on borderlands with up to 50+ Queued in EB if it's dying out ?

    There aren't, at least not on the majority of EU servers.

    Normally the only time all borderlands get queued is reset, beyond that what you typically get even at primetime is either a "big" queue on one map (usually EB) or maybe two maps with smaller queues. And again that is normally only for primetime on most servers.

    So if you compare that to even 3 years ago (let alone back in 2012/13) it is much, much less active.

    Take afternoons for example, I just logged on EU T1 (WSR/underworld) there is no queue on any map, TS is basically empty, that is pretty typical. Now three years ago if I was on FSP for example then it was pretty common to have a zerg on EB and another zerg going round the borderlands to downgrade keeps with 60 people on TS. And of course there were other zergs to fight back then, unlike now where T1 has servers which are largely absent much of the time.

    And this is with two servers combined as a link compared to a single server back then, the overall activity of the game mode is a pale shadow of what it once was, hence why it is dying out.

  • One option would be for ANET to have players level to say for ex. 100 in EOTM before entering WVW. Then there would not be so many fed up pugmanders starting guilds and running closed tagged.

  • I totally agree Speedo that would help a lot. We would see a lot more experienced players and maybe more open tags willing to deal with them again.

  • Ranks means absolutely nothing, I have seen alot of so called rank 2000+ players there have no idea what they are doing and not running builds contributing to zerg/blob fights

  • SnowPumpkin.1809SnowPumpkin.1809 Member ✭✭
    edited December 1, 2018

    Those are guild players just farting around until their guilds log in and they can do a closed raid xD

  • Something I have not seen on here and I think might be a okay idea is. Why not have the guilds bid gold to be part of an alliance every week and cap the numbers that can join. So say like if Guild A joins Alliance (wvw server) "A" and they have 450 players then only a guild with 50 or less players can join them. Also make it first come first sever. As for the pugs have them be filler for the servers. So at the start of each week if a play is wearing their tag they must join the server that their guild joined. If a pug player goes in and their guild did not sign up they are put in as filler into the servers that need players. Make the cost of joining something like 10 gold so it is not out of the means of the guilds but will act as a money sink and make it where the guilds need to plan.
    More of a break down.
    Guild A pays 10 gold to join Alliance A and has 450 players.
    Guild B also pays 10 gold and joins Alliance A and has 50 players. So they now make up Alliance A
    Guild C through F only have 50 players each and join Alliance B putting them at 400 players but the remaining 100 players are filled in with pugs.
    Like wise for Alliance C.
    So more than likely you are going to still have tiering where are you have the better wvw wrecking face, but it will mean that the guilds might have to spread out some over the other alliances. And you might end up with some of the Alliances being made of pugs.
    Also if you win the week either wave the gold fee or let the guilds have first pick of servers for the week (till capped) .

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

    @Sithia.3158 said:
    Something I have not seen on here and I think might be a okay idea is. Why not have the guilds bid gold to be part of an alliance every week and cap the numbers that can join. So say like if Guild A joins Alliance (wvw server) "A" and they have 450 players then only a guild with 50 or less players can join them. Also make it first come first sever. As for the pugs have them be filler for the servers. So at the start of each week if a play is wearing their tag they must join the server that their guild joined. If a pug player goes in and their guild did not sign up they are put in as filler into the servers that need players. Make the cost of joining something like 10 gold so it is not out of the means of the guilds but will act as a money sink and make it where the guilds need to plan.
    More of a break down.
    Guild A pays 10 gold to join Alliance A and has 450 players.
    Guild B also pays 10 gold and joins Alliance A and has 50 players. So they now make up Alliance A
    Guild C through F only have 50 players each and join Alliance B putting them at 400 players but the remaining 100 players are filled in with pugs.
    Like wise for Alliance C.
    So more than likely you are going to still have tiering where are you have the better wvw wrecking face, but it will mean that the guilds might have to spread out some over the other alliances. And you might end up with some of the Alliances being made of pugs.
    Also if you win the week either wave the gold fee or let the guilds have first pick of servers for the week (till capped) .

    Achievement earned! Tier 1: Kill WvW.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gaberen.4325 said:
    Ranks means absolutely nothing, I have seen alot of so called rank 2000+ players there have no idea what they are doing and not running builds contributing to zerg/blob fights

    Oh. Since it means absolutely nothing, I guess you will have no problem being in a server filled with people ranked 1000 or less than to be in servers filled with people ranked 3000 and more, right? Don't lie to yourself, don't lie to the world.

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • @Sleepwalker.1398 said:
    Is there any new update of when this will be implemented?
    Players in my server are leaving in numbers and we are starting to struggle in fielding players.

    It will never make it into the game. Raymond is a super nice guy and the only person at Anet that I trust, but he's only person working on the restructuring and only works on it part time.

  • okay so we have been hearing about this for over a year now.. is there any set deadline or is this just speculation. So far there are no hard dates on any of this and it seems to me that Anet would not be willing to do something like this honestly, because i would kill their server transfer cash they get from gems.

    Does anyone else think this smells funny? I mean.. im not joking here.. just asking a simple question.. why would they kill a really big source of income like this?

    Anyway.. if there are any hard dates as to when this upgrade can be expected i would love to hear them. My best guess, would be 4th quarter of 2020... know what i mean?

  • The Path Finder.3197The Path Finder.3197 Member ✭✭
    edited December 13, 2018

    Excuse me 500 alliance cap? You must be joking - As a PvX guild, often at those numbers...

    I don't want my non wvwers, affecting the "alliance's count" please - do add an 11th rank to guilds, so that it can be dually held e.g. a player can be assigned two ranks.

    If I have 500 players I might have 50-100 wvwers, rest are raiders or pvpers or fractals etc, of which are active, ideally, but I would like to co-ordinate with an alliance of guild/s, I'd like the ability to "allow a member to join my wvw roster of my guild, which will effect my & partners alliance." e.g. If for example 10 of my wvw players afks mid season for two weeks, or 20 decides its time to do a new living story... hopefully the server pulls in public during que time, that is not in guilds/alliance.

    So I would like the ability to approve my wvw pool in my roster, if I prefer new, casual or veterans, or mixed. I'd like to assign them our "guild's wvw" rank, which will allow them to join our guild's alliance. I as a guild leader & potentially a wvw alliance general or elected marshal of an alliance - would like the ability to choose the guild/s and view their credentials/goal.

    I'd like the ability to choose on behalf of my guild - the direction or style it will be, after all, I recruit like minded players to work towards a common cause.

    Presently "servers" lack freedom, "other than expensive" gem transfers - of some hardcore guilds who drop to lowby servers to stack and uplift them then flip them later when they migrate again to make them enemies... which is not cool.

    What I would like to see is the ability of freedom to choose, your guild that you join should have an agenda, are you a newby wvw friendly guild? or are you a casual wvw guild, hardcore - or mixed?

    Knowing the "purpose" will help me as a guild leader... make friends/allies with other like minded guilds like in a game of CiV5... my nation becomes friends with nations who share goals etc.

    There must be a LFG system for wvw guilds, plus ability for players to choose preference. There must be then too, for guild leaders, a LFG to find matching style pref/alliances.

    Now, there's "open communities" larger than 500 players, but not all of them play same time ... I am not gonna advocate for them, that's their problem.

    I do see a problem if there's more than 500 players/spread across a few guilds who "make" up a present server - who are* presently allies/friends with each other. I mean lets say there's a player cap of x on a server, surely the alliance should have the ability to reach the potential of maxing of 2/3 out on all maps/excluding the public" randoms who will fill up 1/3... if there's such ambition?

    It will be harder to topple such alliance... but they do rise and fall, looks at EvE, and its something to work towards to build. Stronghold kingdoms have a good system for "alliances" with Marshals, "guilds" and voting. (although) voting a guild leader out was not cool haha.

    A guild leader should be able to say ok, I want to be hardcore or casual or mixed, or I am a vet wanting to help to new players learn.

    I think larger Alliance cap will be better say 1000 players, then the rest can be made up of public guildless players, or non alliance guilds or or smaller alliances. (consider not all 1000 players will be in wvw all the time, afks, life, doing other content, etc.)

    I think every 8 weeks your guild should have the ability to vote in the alliance who the alliance guilds are, who the marshal is, AND here's the thing... the guild leader sets the guild's "vibe" and direction, which mean, for an alliance to form he will have partners who are like minded/share play style that he wishes to vote for... lets say I find 5 guilds, together we make up 1000 players... (obviously not all logged in same time zone or even online) you get people who take breaks you know, but any way...

    Lets say my guild chooses to be mixed (not hardcore) not newby and not casual but balanced, we'd like the ability to vote - for the "mission" of an alliance... at the 8 week reset, when a "servers" reset, the alliance guild leaders should get a way to 1.) stay together, 2.) who the allied guilds are, 3.) what we want in the alliance.

    Perhaps we want an all hardcore alliance, or an all newby alliance, or an all casual alliance, or "mixed" meaning - when a guild applies to an alliance they must indicate - are they casual, newb, hardcores, or mixed. The alliance should be able to choose ok we want two hardcore guilds, a casual one and a new one - cause new people need to be trained, you can't just stack max hardcore and expect to maintain it... unless you grow by name attracting other hardcores from other guilds alliances.

    So, as a guild I'd like the ability to set a wvw rank(which a member must accept or decline), which gets flagged as my wvw member "count," then I want those members to vote - do they want to be in a new player friendly alliance, a casual one or a hardcore one, or mixed one. But this will not take the final decision away from the guild leader, who can set the mood and say no direction we're going is towards casual and not just "new" or hardcore... as an recruitment "policy" - not based on present player's "skill rank". But in order to make that choice he will need a majority of wvwer's who meet said rank, e.g hardcores level 350+ must be 2/3 of the wvw rank to enable it.

    The guild leader then chooses his guild's "policy" perhaps "hardcore" which then displays in an alliance preference panel, for other guild leaders in the alliance to see - so they'd know who they be climbing into bed with. + it will display what guildies voted for vs what a guild leader decided.

    So lets say guildies voted hardcore (cause obviously newbs won't be voting for hardcore/or have the option to due to low rank... ) and the guild leader decided, hardcore way to go... then lets say we want to join a hardcore alliance, either we need to form one with the agenda set - for hardcore, by being the founding marshal, but the other 5 guilds will have a say in the final "mission" agenda, and then before the alliance initiates - based on the vote tally you can choose to make the alliance official or decline due to diff views of style.

    So lets say members hardcore vote, guild leader wanted hardcore, and we either made or joined an established hardcore alliance, and all 5 guilds/or majority voted hardcore, and the minority did not withdraw, then the alliance forms. Now the Marshal can for example who been "voted" for implement this vision. Knowing the other guilds are backing this vision...

    An hardcore alliance will get pitted against other hardcore alliances... e.g. the present GvG folk, but now in a bigger community, with "voted on wvw guild pride+alliance common vision/goal pride." to become AvAs. Here stacking is fine as they will fight stacked opponents. being in a hardcore alliance = better rewards, leader boards, etc. Casual and mixed will have no leader board, but normal present day wvw rewards pips/etc.

    Also the ability for players to vote - for which mode they prefer will be limited to their wvw level. e.g. a level 1 can't troll and vote his hardcore ready, and level 800s can't vote they want to be in a "new friendly"(unless in minority) of a player guild, but as high levels in majorit they can either vote for hardcore, casual(no leader board) or just mixed*(mix includes new players) - mixed will be similar to how servers work today, casuals play in mixed mode, so do hardcores and new. As you gotta recruit eh and teach do open squads to win hearts of new recruits?

    I don't think "new guilds" will mind fighting other new guilds... as they need to build halls, learn and train people.

    Since there's resets every 8 weeks and hopefully by that time if enough of them reached say level 50-100, to gain casual vote... majority vote allows for for "lower levels" to be pulled "up" into more xpd alliance - its your own problem if you allow "lowby players/friends" - then you as a GM need to be aware your guild's limit is casual - ideal for a mixed server alliance match up.

    I really do think you need a new, casual, hardcore "match up system - and a mixed pool, with varying pros and cons.

    This will allow new players to not to feel like people are toxic and excluding them with closed tags, and casual or roamers or those who enjoy open tags in mixed servers (no leader board pressure) and less chance of coming up against stacked players, as often enough "elites" can't get some items or stay on leader boards... if they play mixed often... which kinda separates the varying skill types but still allow freedom to move between the systems.

    On a side note RP is not my thing, but if server effects your "zone" and they want to "run into other RPers... perhaps adding an RP menu under H, to "enable RP" which will group you more onto open world RP maps won't be a bad thing, you can still - swop instances if you join squads or parties of your guild, and if you turn off "RP" tagged you will more likely get put in pve with your guild and alliance on maps :)

    RP tag, will also not effect or wvw guild choice/alliance or wvw grouping etc.

    Ok, so with a bigger "alliance" pool = present big communities don't loose out - let them stack, we need rivals or enemies to - work to toppling someday (as new communities) ;)

    With selection of "alliance" styles, to match against similar types... opens freedom.

    I just feel, those who have ambition like the present old guard "server" communities with their TS etc... 500 cap is too small, let it be bigger... smallers alliances team up together to fight other servers with smaller alliances, and stacked big alliances fight stacked big alliance.

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

    @The Path Finder.3197 said:
    Excuse me 500 alliance cap? You must be joking - As a PvX guild, often at those numbers...

    I don't want my non wvwers, affecting the "alliance's count" please - do add an 11th rank to guilds, so that it can be dually held e.g. a player can be assigned two ranks.

    If I have 500 players I might have 50-100 wvwers, rest are raiders or pvpers or fractals etc, of which are active, ideally, but I would like to co-ordinate with an alliance of guild/s, I'd like the ability to "allow a member to join my wvw roster of my guild, which will effect my & partners alliance." e.g. If for example 10 of my wvw players afks mid season for two weeks, or 20 decides its time to do a new living story... hopefully the server pulls in public during que time, that is not in guilds/alliance.

    So I would like the ability to approve my wvw pool in my roster, if I prefer new, casual or veterans, or mixed. I'd like to assign them our "guild's wvw" rank, which will allow them to join our guild's alliance. I as a guild leader & potentially a wvw alliance general or elected marshal of an alliance - would like the ability to choose the guild/s and view their credentials/goal.

    I'd like the ability to choose on behalf of my guild - the direction or style it will be, after all, I recruit like minded players to work towards a common cause.

    Presently "servers" lack freedom, "other than expensive" gem transfers - of some hardcore guilds who drop to lowby servers to stack and uplift them then flip them later when they migrate again to make them enemies... which is not cool.

    What I would like to see is the ability of freedom to choose, your guild that you join should have an agenda, are you a newby wvw friendly guild? or are you a casual wvw guild, hardcore - or mixed?

    Knowing the "purpose" will help me as a guild leader... make friends/allies with other like minded guilds like in a game of CiV5... my nation becomes friends with nations who share goals etc.

    There must be a LFG system for wvw guilds, plus ability for players to choose preference. There must be then too, for guild leaders, a LFG to find matching style pref/alliances.

    Now, there's "open communities" larger than 500 players, but not all of them play same time ... I am not gonna advocate for them, that's their problem.

    I do see a problem if there's more than 500 players/spread across a few guilds who "make" up a present server - who are* presently allies/friends with each other. I mean lets say there's a player cap of x on a server, surely the alliance should have the ability to reach the potential of maxing of 2/3 out on all maps/excluding the public" randoms who will fill up 1/3... if there's such ambition?

    It will be harder to topple such alliance... but they do rise and fall, looks at EvE, and its something to work towards to build. Stronghold kingdoms have a good system for "alliances" with Marshals, "guilds" and voting. (although) voting a guild leader out was not cool haha.

    A guild leader should be able to say ok, I want to be hardcore or casual or mixed, or I am a vet wanting to help to new players learn.

    I think larger Alliance cap will be better say 1000 players, then the rest can be made up of public guildless players, or non alliance guilds or or smaller alliances. (consider not all 1000 players will be in wvw all the time, afks, life, doing other content, etc.)

    I think every 8 weeks your guild should have the ability to vote in the alliance who the alliance guilds are, who the marshal is, AND here's the thing... the guild leader sets the guild's "vibe" and direction, which mean, for an alliance to form he will have partners who are like minded/share play style that he wishes to vote for... lets say I find 5 guilds, together we make up 1000 players... (obviously not all logged in same time zone or even online) you get people who take breaks you know, but any way...

    Lets say my guild chooses to be mixed (not hardcore) not newby and not casual but balanced, we'd like the ability to vote - for the "mission" of an alliance... at the 8 week reset, when a "servers" reset, the alliance guild leaders should get a way to 1.) stay together, 2.) who the allied guilds are, 3.) what we want in the alliance.

    Perhaps we want an all hardcore alliance, or an all newby alliance, or an all casual alliance, or "mixed" meaning - when a guild applies to an alliance they must indicate - are they casual, newb, hardcores, or mixed. The alliance should be able to choose ok we want two hardcore guilds, a casual one and a new one - cause new people need to be trained, you can't just stack max hardcore and expect to maintain it... unless you grow by name attracting other hardcores from other guilds alliances.

    So, as a guild I'd like the ability to set a wvw rank(which a member must accept or decline), which gets flagged as my wvw member "count," then I want those members to vote - do they want to be in a new player friendly alliance, a casual one or a hardcore one, or mixed one. But this will not take the final decision away from the guild leader, who can set the mood and say no direction we're going is towards casual and not just "new" or hardcore... as an recruitment "policy" - not based on present player's "skill rank". But in order to make that choice he will need a majority of wvwer's who meet said rank, e.g hardcores level 350+ must be 2/3 of the wvw rank to enable it.

    The guild leader then chooses his guild's "policy" perhaps "hardcore" which then displays in an alliance preference panel, for other guild leaders in the alliance to see - so they'd know who they be climbing into bed with. + it will display what guildies voted for vs what a guild leader decided.

    So lets say guildies voted hardcore (cause obviously newbs won't be voting for hardcore/or have the option to due to low rank... ) and the guild leader decided, hardcore way to go... then lets say we want to join a hardcore alliance, either we need to form one with the agenda set - for hardcore, by being the founding marshal, but the other 5 guilds will have a say in the final "mission" agenda, and then before the alliance initiates - based on the vote tally you can choose to make the alliance official or decline due to diff views of style.

    So lets say members hardcore vote, guild leader wanted hardcore, and we either made or joined an established hardcore alliance, and all 5 guilds/or majority voted hardcore, and the minority did not withdraw, then the alliance forms. Now the Marshal can for example who been "voted" for implement this vision. Knowing the other guilds are backing this vision...

    An hardcore alliance will get pitted against other hardcore alliances... e.g. the present GvG folk, but now in a bigger community, with "voted on wvw guild pride+alliance common vision/goal pride." to become AvAs. Here stacking is fine as they will fight stacked opponents. being in a hardcore alliance = better rewards, leader boards, etc. Casual and mixed will have no leader board, but normal present day wvw rewards pips/etc.

    Also the ability for players to vote - for which mode they prefer will be limited to their wvw level. e.g. a level 1 can't troll and vote his hardcore ready, and level 800s can't vote they want to be in a "new friendly"(unless in minority) of a player guild, but as high levels in majorit they can either vote for hardcore, casual(no leader board) or just mixed*(mix includes new players) - mixed will be similar to how servers work today, casuals play in mixed mode, so do hardcores and new. As you gotta recruit eh and teach do open squads to win hearts of new recruits?

    I don't think "new guilds" will mind fighting other new guilds... as they need to build halls, learn and train people.

    Since there's resets every 8 weeks and hopefully by that time if enough of them reached say level 50-100, to gain casual vote... majority vote allows for for "lower levels" to be pulled "up" into more xpd alliance - its your own problem if you allow "lowby players/friends" - then you as a GM need to be aware your guild's limit is casual - ideal for a mixed server alliance match up.

    I really do think you need a new, casual, hardcore "match up system - and a mixed pool, with varying pros and cons.

    This will allow new players to not to feel like people are toxic and excluding them with closed tags, and casual or roamers or those who enjoy open tags in mixed servers (no leader board pressure) and less chance of coming up against stacked players, as often enough "elites" can't get some items or stay on leader boards... if they play mixed often... which kinda separates the varying skill types but still allow freedom to move between the systems.

    On a side note RP is not my thing, but if server effects your "zone" and they want to "run into other RPers... perhaps adding an RP menu under H, to "enable RP" which will group you more onto open world RP maps won't be a bad thing, you can still - swop instances if you join squads or parties of your guild, and if you turn off "RP" tagged you will more likely get put in pve with your guild and alliance on maps :)

    RP tag, will also not effect or wvw guild choice/alliance or wvw grouping etc.

    Ok, so with a bigger "alliance" pool = present big communities don't loose out - let them stack, we need rivals or enemies to - work to toppling someday (as new communities) ;)

    With selection of "alliance" styles, to match against similar types... opens freedom.

    I just feel, those who have ambition like the present old guard "server" communities with their TS etc... 500 cap is too small, let it be bigger... smallers alliances team up together to fight other servers with smaller alliances, and stacked big alliances fight stacked big alliance.

    Dont just thread necro when there is newer stickied update...

    Also that is a whole lot of words about something that has already been addressed.

    If you have 100 out of 500 players that WvW, they choose that guild as their WvW guild. The remaining 400 will be dropped in random servers until they choose their WvW guild.

    You could also create a new guild just for WvW, or have those 100 invited to a dedicated 500 man WvW guild that they set as their WvW guild instead of their majority PvE guild, while still being members in both.

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

    @The Path Finder.3197 said:
    Excuse me 500 alliance cap? You must be joking - As a PvX guild, often at those numbers...

    I don't want my non wvwers, affecting the "alliance's count" please - do add an 11th rank to guilds, so that it can be dually held e.g. a player can be assigned two ranks.
    [most of the rest snipped]

    Did you actually read the idea and post?

    Only those members in your guild that select you as their WvW guild will count against your alliance.

    The other 400 (by your count) would not count.

    Now, if you don’t want to clutter, several communities have established a guild thats primary purpose will be for WvW that their primary WvW players will be a part of. This allows a cleaner look at which players are ‘where’.

    But that would be your call.

    Increasing alliance cap to 1000 would allow better organized groups to effectively crowd out any other ‘world’ once their alliance is placed.

    The whole idea of alliances is to have smaller chunks (alliances) to help balance worlds (alliances + guilds + unaffiliated individual players) during 8 week matchups (seasons).

  • idolin.2831idolin.2831 Member ✭✭✭

    @rugerra.2351 said:

    @Sleepwalker.1398 said:
    Is there any new update of when this will be implemented?
    Players in my server are leaving in numbers and we are starting to struggle in fielding players.

    It will never make it into the game. Raymond is a super nice guy and the only person at Anet that I trust, but he's only person working on the restructuring and only works on it part time.

    Where did you get this information?

  • Hey there,

    It seems that people are continuing to post in this thread from nearly six months ago.

    I'd encourage everyone to read and comment in the new thread on the subject of world restructuring. You'll find that here.

    Gaile Gray
    Communications Manager: ArenaNet
    Fansite & Guild Relations; In-Game Events; Community Showcase Live

123457>
©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.