How often does Blackgate open these days? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

How often does Blackgate open these days?

sostronk.8167sostronk.8167 Member ✭✭✭

Returning player. Before I left I was touring various servers. Looking to get back into it but the server I am on is dieing and looking for somewhere more active. Most of my old contacts are on Blackgate. This isn't intentionally a meme thread.

Bonus question: Does ONS/TW (Axis of Insurrection alliance?) still play or their guild/guild leaders?

PS I can't believe this game is seven years old. Feels like just yesterday everyone was bandwaggoning from SOS to JQ to BG. So many awesome people met along the way. So many epic commanders.

_We must secure the existence of our Quaggans and a future for Quaggan children. _

<13

Comments

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    When Mikey needs a few bucks to pad the quarterlies

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Like once a year, and you just missed it a couple weeks ago, so come back in a year I guess.
    Mal/Ons still play, think they're on AR these days?
    TW think they're on a long break again.

    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon."
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WoAH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

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

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    well after a while it will reset and you can join again.> @XenesisII.1540 said:

    Like once a year, and you just missed it a couple weeks ago, so come back in a year I guess.
    Mal/Ons still play, think they're on AR these days?
    TW think they're on a long break again.

    nah, every 2 months like relinking.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    wouldn't do anything lol. ppl would still stack the same single server. I think relinks more often would be better.

    Te lazla otstra.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Like once a year, and you just missed it a couple weeks ago, so come back in a year I guess.
    Mal/Ons still play, think they're on AR these days?
    TW think they're on a long break again.

    nah, every 2 months like relinking.

    what?

    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon."
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WoAH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Acheron.4731Acheron.4731 Member ✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    A true friend of the crown

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

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    wouldn't do anything lol. ppl would still stack the same single server. I think relinks more often would be better.

    actually anet can cap servers to x number of players if they want.

    so instead of ober numbers in bg, the spill over will be elsewhere. and at the same time others would be in where they want.

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Like once a year, and you just missed it a couple weeks ago, so come back in a year I guess.
    Mal/Ons still play, think they're on AR these days?
    TW think they're on a long break again.

    nah, every 2 months like relinking.

    what?

    how?

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • knite.1542knite.1542 Member ✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    actually anet can cap servers to x number of players if they want.

    so instead of ober numbers in bg, the spill over will be elsewhere. and at the same time others would be in where they want.

    I think having less servers instead of using links would be helpful as well. I am sure just straight up deleting servers would open up its own can of worms, however, but I think it would be helpful until alliances hypothetically get released.

    so you are still salty about that.

  • Wondering if some guilds in BG called it quits or if FC/HoD link is too strong for them.
    Seen quite a few times them being map wiped.

  • Acheron.4731Acheron.4731 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 8, 2019

    I think it is mostly just apathy after the aug 30th announcement (or lack thereof)
    BG has nothing to play for while FC and HoD get the satisfaction of beating bg
    It will then just be a matter of time for apathy to sink in after that intrinsic victory

    A true friend of the crown

  • @Sleepwalker.1398 said:
    Wondering if some guilds in BG called it quits or if FC/HoD link is too strong for them.
    Seen quite a few times them being map wiped.

    Which ones are you wondering are going to call it quits? I mean it's not like we're guild heavy to begin with. KiS isn't going anywhere and our raid days haven't changed. XVX isn't going anywhere, the adjust because of real life, but really haven't changed days or times. HoB is more SEA, but they aren't going anywhere, and I think they have even raided more.....so please? Or were you just chest thumping beating a mostly hollowed out BG? Or chest thumping beating BG militia?

    [KiS] is a hostage situation. Pls send help.

  • One of them servers is not used to fighting almost equal numbers. I am sure anet will let peeps transfer there since most devs on that server. There is prbly noobs on that server that have never seen their commander rage quit bc fighting close to equal numbers. 7 more weeks and anet will go back to status quo. Go play on your ftp accounts and spy, pull tactics etc ROFL

  • @radiantbliss.6875 said:

    @Sleepwalker.1398 said:
    Wondering if some guilds in BG called it quits or if FC/HoD link is too strong for them.
    Seen quite a few times them being map wiped.

    Which ones are you wondering are going to call it quits? I mean it's not like we're guild heavy to begin with. KiS isn't going anywhere and our raid days haven't changed. XVX isn't going anywhere, the adjust because of real life, but really haven't changed days or times. HoB is more SEA, but they aren't going anywhere, and I think they have even raided more.....so please? Or were you just chest thumping beating a mostly hollowed out BG? Or chest thumping beating BG militia?

    Ok seems you took my comments the wrong way.
    I was just simply looking in gw2stats and wondering what was going on in tier 1 as i'm not from tier 1.
    Not too long ago BG was open and got a bunch of transfers.
    So its a rare sight seeing BG wiped off EBG but Acheron.4731 just said what is going on.

  • One of them servers has never fought even numbered before. They cant handle it. They rage quit and pm salty messages. So, move to where their ftp accounts are and let them get a "LINK". LOL Then use your favorite account in 7 weeks when they outnumber everyone 4:1 again.

  • One of them servers still outnumbers about 7:1 starting at 7pm anet server time until 14 hours later when the euros start to log on. They dominate for about 14hrs bc of numbers and anet "balance". Then get farmed around 9am pst. Nothing personal here, just facts anet.

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

    Can you say it again @Slick.7164 ? We didn’t hear you.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Acheron.4731Acheron.4731 Member ✭✭✭

    @Slick.7164 said:
    One of them servers still outnumbers about 7:1 starting at 7pm anet server time until 14 hours later when the euros start to log on. They dominate for about 14hrs bc of numbers and anet "balance". Then get farmed around 9am pst. Nothing personal here, just facts anet.

    don't get too emotionally invested.
    The game-mode is dead. Nobody really cares anymore.

    A true friend of the crown

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Maaaan did you have to say dead? now the white noise crew will be in here soon...

    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon."
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WoAH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Acheron.4731Acheron.4731 Member ✭✭✭

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Maaaan did you have to say dead? now the white noise crew will be in here soon...

    lol,
    Meant to say, alive and well

    A true friend of the crown

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

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    actually anet can cap servers to x number of players if they want.

    so instead of ober numbers in bg, the spill over will be elsewhere. and at the same time others would be in where they want.

    I think having less servers instead of using links would be helpful as well. I am sure just straight up deleting servers would open up its own can of worms, however, but I think it would be helpful until alliances hypothetically get released.

    yes, having less would be fine.

    1. less servers
    2. return to glicko
    3. no more 1 up 1 down
    4. no links
    5. reset servers every season
    6. return the golden yak finisher reward

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Optimator.3589Optimator.3589 Member ✭✭✭✭

    As mentioned above, OnS/OnSL are currently on AR, albeit with far smaller numbers than in the past. But that's par for the course with this game mode isn't it? TW is gone and unlikely to return with things in their current state.

    REDUCE NA TO 3 TIERS

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

  • Liston.9708Liston.9708 Member ✭✭✭

    Except alliances were said to have caps. If a guild has people ‘away from game’ that could count against the alliance cAp. Not worth fretting over now, but could be issue.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Liston.9708 said:
    Except alliances were said to have caps. If a guild has people ‘away from game’ that could count against the alliance cAp. Not worth fretting over now, but could be issue.

    And how individual guilds address that would be the 'internal guild politics' referred to . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 10, 2019

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 10, 2019

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 10, 2019

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

    solves no problem yet. :/

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

    solves no problem yet. :/

    That's very true. Speaking of a future state with 'would' . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

    solves no problem yet. :/

    That's very true. Speaking of a future state with 'would' . . .

    nothing to do with the issue :/

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

    solves no problem yet. :/

    That's very true. Speaking of a future state with 'would' . . .

    nothing to do with the issue :/

    Nothing to do with the topic of the thread, you are correct . . .

    But once we went off topic with post four it became relevant . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

    solves no problem yet. :/

    That's very true. Speaking of a future state with 'would' . . .

    nothing to do with the issue :/

    Nothing to do with the topic of the thread, you are correct . . .

    But once we went off topic with post four it became relevant . . .

    how is it relevant?

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

    solves no problem yet. :/

    That's very true. Speaking of a future state with 'would' . . .

    nothing to do with the issue :/

    Nothing to do with the topic of the thread, you are correct . . .

    But once we went off topic with post four it became relevant . . .

    how is it relevant?

    We started to develop hypothetical new solutions to problems that have existing solutions that haven't been implemented yet . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

    solves no problem yet. :/

    That's very true. Speaking of a future state with 'would' . . .

    nothing to do with the issue :/

    Nothing to do with the topic of the thread, you are correct . . .

    But once we went off topic with post four it became relevant . . .

    how is it relevant?

    We started to develop hypothetical new solutions to problems that have existing solutions that haven't been implemented yet . . .

    what existing solutions?

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

©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.