My Idea for WvW

So before I share this, please bear in mind that I am fairly new to WvW and this is just my idea. I am not the brightest, so criticize it as you please! I myself may look back on it and think, "you dummy."

WvW is an incredibly fun game mode. It has it's issues of course but one major issue I cannot get over is how unbalanced certain match ups are. I have been in tier 1 for a couple weeks now and it definitely seems like we don't belong there. It's hard to enjoy this game mode when you are just being farmed by well structured guilds. Anyway, enough of my crying, here's my idea.

Instead of worlds progressing to higher tiers, I would have guilds progress to different worlds, potentially in higher tiers. This would mean a rating system would have to be implemented that measures your guilds performance for the week. Initially I thought they could use the total pips earned by the players in the guild, but with being outnumbered, I could see how this could be a poor representation. It would have to be a rating system that would factor in time played and the number of players actually participating for their guild. This way tier 1 wouldn't have small guilds going up against large, well structured guilds.

Let's say we get 9 worlds and 3 tiers. These worlds would not move from their particular tier. So in tier 1, you would have Blackgate, Maguuma, and Fort Aspenwood (just an example). This would not change. The 3 best rated guilds would be split into each of these worlds, this way the top 3 guilds are always fighting against each other. As an example, the guilds placed in 1st and 6th place would be assigned together in Blackgate, the guilds in 2nd and 5th place would be assigned together in Maguuma, and the guilds in 3rd and 4th place would be assigned together in Fort Aspenwood. I assume this would make it a fairly balanced population and fight. Of course there will be guilds that will probably always be on top, and rightly so. But I don't believe it will be hard for a guild in tier 2 to pass a guild that is in 4th through 6th place to make it into tier 1. I certainly don't believe it is impossible to recruit players and top the guilds that hold the top 3 spots. So basically WvW will become GvG in a tournament style. ArenaNet would also be wise to implement a reward system that would motivate guilds to actually want to be in tier 1. But I wouldn't give rewards out to everyone in the guild, only to those who have participated, and the more the participation, the better the reward. If this causes an issue to where everyone just flocks to the higher tier guilds, then perhaps they can combat this by capping the amount of players allowed to represent a particular guild for a given week. But this would indeed suck.

Furthermore, I would set it to where you have to choose which guild you represent before you enter into WvW. I would lock this decision for at least a week and upwards to a month. This way players wont be able to abuse the system and just farm lower tiers. Obviously ArenaNet makes money from players transferring worlds. To compensate for this, they could implement a reset for the guild you are representing at the cost of gems.

Lastly, I would implement a leaderboard displaying the ranking of the top guilds. This could be a leaderboard showing all of them, or maybe just the top 3, for bragging rights.

Anyway, there's my idea!

This idea is based upon the "best guild" being an easily defineable metric by game numbers.

There is no such thing.

A noble idea and all, but first they have to start supporting and guilds again. See: Guild Halls, Guild Missions, or just the general status of guilds and what updates they've received.

This isn't even remotely possible to do with the amount of player movement required every week, without it being automated which is what they are working on now with alliances.

Weird example of servers, BG SOS FC is more appropriate.

This isn't even remotely balanced, guilds have different amounts of players. You want to cap who can rep a guild a week? that's... just.. not.. even...

Total pips? so the biggest guilds with the most highest wvw ranks? because that gives you most amount of pips. 3/4/5 from skirmish rank, 1 for loyalty, 1 for commanding five+ squad, 7 from max ranks, 5 from outnumbered.

You're moving guilds but not the pug population around, BG is still the big server for this, so now you're giving the top guild a free pass to be on BG, even though they're locked all the time for a reason. But even forcefully moving guilds and pugs around every week according to their ranks, will probably not be liked very much.

What happens to the other 100+ wvw guilds? If they don't play they just get dumped down to t3 eventually?

Not even close to a gvg tournament, since getting the top requires pipping which you could do sitting afk at spawn half the time. And gvg guilds want to fight...

Leaderboard to show the BG winner?

Weird system that just wouldn't work unless it's more of a contained system like spvp, it's just a mess in an open server system of wvw.

Alliance system still looks like a better choice for wvw.

@"XenesisII.1540" said:

10. Alliance system still looks like a better choice for wvw.

If it was even a choice, and not only more of what we have actually...

@XenesisII.1540 said:

1. This isn't even remotely possible to do with the amount of player movement required every week, without it being automated which is what they are working on now with alliances.
2. Weird example of servers, BG SOS FC is more appropriate.
3. This isn't even remotely balanced, guilds have different amounts of players. You want to cap who can rep a guild a week? that's... just.. not.. even...
4. Total pips? so the biggest guilds with the most highest wvw ranks? because that gives you most amount of pips. 3/4/5 from skirmish rank, 1 for loyalty, 1 for commanding five+ squad, 7 from max ranks, 5 from outnumbered.
5. You're moving guilds but not the pug population around, BG is still the big server for this, so now you're giving the top guild a free pass to be on BG, even though they're locked all the time for a reason. But even forcefully moving guilds and pugs around every week according to their ranks, will probably not be liked very much.
6. What happens to the other 100+ wvw guilds? If they don't play they just get dumped down to t3 eventually?
7. Not even close to a gvg tournament, since getting the top requires pipping which you could do sitting afk at spawn half the time. And gvg guilds want to fight...
8. Leaderboard to show the BG winner?
9. Weird system that just wouldn't work unless it's more of a contained system like spvp, it's just a mess in an open server system of wvw.
10. Alliance system still looks like a better choice for wvw.

1. How is it not remotely possible?

2. I didn’t expect feedback on the server examples I listed. This is just silly.

3. I understand guilds have a different amount of players which is why I said a rating system would have to factor this in.

4. I emphasized this was my initial idea but also stressed why it would be a poor representation.

5. I’d imagine pugs would be moved around too. Depending on which guild they decide to represent. I wouldn’t keep them all in one world like Blackgate. It appears this is possibly the route ArenaNet is taking with them anyway.

6. Yes? Why wouldn’t that make sense?

7. Again, I emphasized why I think rating guilds by pips was a bad idea and stated a new rating system would have to be developed.

8. Yes, I think a leaderboard would be nice.

9. I suppose

10. I wasn’t aware of the alliance system until after I posted this. I knew they were going some route with focusing more on guilds so I decided to share this.

@Yahkov.8217 said:

1. How is it not remotely possible?

2. I didn’t expect feedback on the server examples I listed. This is just silly.

3. I understand guilds have a different amount of players which is why I said a rating system would have to factor this in.

4. I emphasized this was my initial idea but also stressed why it would be a poor representation.

5. I’d imagine pugs would be moved around too. Depending on which guild they decide to represent. I wouldn’t keep them all in one world like Blackgate. It appears this is possibly the route ArenaNet is taking with them anyway.

6. Yes? Why wouldn’t that make sense?

7. Again, I emphasized why I think rating guilds by pips was a bad idea and stated a new rating system would have to be developed.

8. Yes, I think a leaderboard would be nice.

9. I suppose

10. I wasn’t aware of the alliance system until after I posted this. I knew they were going some route with focusing more on guilds so I decided to share this.

I said it's not remotely possible without automation. The current system of automated transfers they have is based of requesting to move your account, they don't have a system to automatically move accounts between worlds based on defined conditions, that's why they're creating the alliances system. Even relinking is done manually. But at this point it would be better to have alliances than this system, sorry.

All else I'm going to say on this is it requires a lot of forced movement for players every single week, something like this would be highly upsetting in an ecosystem like wvw, but would be better suited to a confined system like(not in) spvp as it seems you intended this to be something mostly for guilds and gvgs. I just don't understand why there's even a need to move players or guilds up or down if they're being ranked anyways regardless of what server they're on, they're not even being ranked by fights won, just whomever has more pips or time played, or whatever other measurement of ranking you want to use.