I suggest launching a guild rating system - I think it’s an important part of the "Alliance Version"

[Dawdler.8521]

@Svarty.8019 said:

@"Dawdler.8521" said:Flawed idea since we can be part of 5 guilds at once. If a guild rep another for capturing or specofoc fights, it effectivly game your system.

The World Restructuring suggestion post said you should pick a single guild to be your WvW guild.A selection that would not impact anything until the next reshuffle where you automatically transfer with your guild, a completely different thing from what the OP is suggesting where the player would actively add to a "point" system for the WvW guild... ie something easily gamed under the current free for all rep at any time 5 guild system.

Look, its real simple - this will only be possible if you have one guild and you cannot change it during a 2 month period and you must always rep it. Kind of like an alliance in the layer above guilds.

But is this acceptable for guilds? Well if you say yes, sure.

I dont think it is.

[ASP.8093]

I can't see a way to do this that wouldn't be gamed in some really toxic ways.

And the final result if it does work is just "algorithm assigns you to play with people you don't necessary like." Enh.

[Baldrick.8967]

The problem with this idea is that 1. Anet won't devote more resources to wvw to develop it (there's barely half an intern working on it now) and 2. players would game the system as that is human nature.

[Flee.5602]

@Baldrick.8967 said:The problem with this idea is that 1. Anet won't devote more resources to wvw to develop it (there's barely half an intern working on it now) and 2. players would game the system as that is human nature.

Do you think

[Flee.5602]

@"ASP.8093" said:I can't see a way to do this that wouldn't be gamed in some really toxic ways.

And the final result if it does work is just "algorithm assigns you to play with people you don't necessary like." Enh.

I don't understand what you meanYou say "Let you play with people you don't like"This is a collective activity of the guild. This is the mainstream.

[ASP.8093]

@Flee.5602 said:

@"ASP.8093" said:I can't see a way to do this that wouldn't be gamed in some really toxic ways.

And the final result if it does work is just "algorithm assigns you to play with people you don't necessary like." Enh.

I don't understand what you meanYou say "Let you play with people you don't like"This is a collective activity of the guild. This is the mainstream.

Your core proposition is that you should use this (and, presumable, some kind of coverage metric) to "distribute guilds" across teams. I.e. this is how you'd assign people their "alliances."

[Flee.5602]

@ASP.8093 said:

@Flee.5602 said:

@ASP.8093 said:I can't see a way to do this that wouldn't be gamed in some really toxic ways.

And the final result if it does work is just "algorithm assigns you to play with people you don't necessary like." Enh.

I don't understand what you meanYou say "Let you play with people you don't like"This is a collective activity of the guild. This is the mainstream.

Your core proposition is that you should use this (and, presumable, some kind of coverage metric) to "distribute guilds" across teams. I.e. this is how you'd assign people their "alliances."

Your understanding is wrong

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

The alliance system isn't real, so this doesn't matter.

[ASP.8093]

@Flee.5602 said:

@ASP.8093 said:

@Flee.5602 said:

@ASP.8093 said:I can't see a way to do this that wouldn't be gamed in some really toxic ways.

And the final result if it does work is just "algorithm assigns you to play with people you don't necessary like." Enh.

I don't understand what you meanYou say "Let you play with people you don't like"This is a collective activity of the guild. This is the mainstream.

Your core proposition is that you should use this (and, presumable, some kind of coverage metric) to "distribute guilds" across teams. I.e. this is how you'd assign people their "alliances."

Your understanding is wrong

Then what does the rating actually do?

[Flee.5602]

@"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:The alliance system isn't real, so this doesn't matter.

I emphasized that this solution can be used now. "Alliance" is just a long-term plan. Same applies

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

@Flee.5602 said:

@"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:The alliance system isn't real, so this doesn't matter.

I emphasized that this solution can be used now. "Alliance" is just a long-term plan. Same applies

You do understand that to do the guild ranking would require the exact same system as the alliance system would right?

[Flee.5602]

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@Flee.5602 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:The alliance system isn't real, so this doesn't matter.

I emphasized that this solution can be used now. "Alliance" is just a long-term plan. Same applies

You do understand that to do the guild ranking would require the exact same system as the alliance system would right?

This plan can be implemented without an "alliance". This plan is compatible with the "Alliance"

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

@Flee.5602 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@Flee.5602 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:The alliance system isn't real, so this doesn't matter.

I emphasized that this solution can be used now. "Alliance" is just a long-term plan. Same applies

You do understand that to do the guild ranking would require the exact same system as the alliance system would right?

This plan can be implemented without an "alliance". This plan is compatible with the "Alliance"

That's a no.

[ASP.8093]

@"Flee.5602" said:This plan can be implemented without an "alliance". This plan is compatible with the "Alliance"

So the plan is:

1. Rank guilds by kdr math in some way.
2. Now you know which guilds are "good" or "weak" or whatever.
3. ??? What do you do with this information.

[Flee.5602]

@ASP.8093 said:

@"Flee.5602" said:This plan can be implemented without an "alliance". This plan is compatible with the "Alliance"

So the plan is:

1. Rank guilds by kdr math in some way.
2. Now you know which guilds are "good" or "weak" or whatever.
3. ??? What do you do with this information.

Please read the content of the post (and conversations with others). You need better understanding. Change the status quo of WvW. My idea is very good.

[Flee.5602]

There are many guilds that meet the A-level. There are many guilds that meet the B level. There are many guilds that meet the C level. Rating is a range.

[subversiontwo.7501]

The only guild rating system that this game needs is a GvG arena that actually works. That is a guild rating system as well as direct content for guilds.

The ownership/access control of the Guild Hall (but not bugged) or a Custom Arena (keeping trolls and spammers out)The spectator/caster support options of the Guild Hall or a Custom Arena (floating camera option would be ace)The map size of OS or slightly smaller (inbetween all the small ones and OS would be ideal)The physics and skill splits of WvW (duh!)No unecessary fluff (like edges, walls, water puddles that hides fields or uneven sides); blank, flat space, stands

To redistribute guilds over servers (battlegroups) all they need to do is deliver on Alliances. If the cap is too high after all the destruction of existing player-communities they could always just lower the cap, even if that would be sad. They could easily lower the cap and then raise it if the mode gets healthier.

[Flee.5602]

@subversiontwo.7501 said:The only guild rating system that this game needs is a GvG arena that actually works. That is a guild rating system as well as direct content for guilds.

The ownership/access control of the Guild Hall (but not bugged) or a Custom Arena (keeping trolls and spammers out)The spectator/caster support options of the Guild Hall or a Custom Arena (floating camera option would be ace)The map size of OS or slightly smaller (inbetween all the small ones and OS would be ideal)The physics and skill splits of WvW (duh!)No unecessary fluff (like edges, walls, water puddles that hides fields or uneven sides); blank, flat space, stands

To redistribute guilds over servers (battlegroups) all they need to do is deliver on Alliances. If the cap is too high after all the destruction of existing player-communities they could always just lower the cap, even if that would be sad. They could easily lower the cap and then raise it if the mode gets healthier.

GVG I think this is another area. Similar to PVE. PVP. WvW. (You want a GVG to appear)

[subversiontwo.7501]

@"Flee.5602" said:GVG I think this is another area. Similar to PVE. PVP. WvW. (You want a GVG to appear)True, it is another mode of sorts but if you are looking to rank guilds in general, that is the easiest and best way to do it.

If you are looking to seed guilds over different battlegroups that isn't really needed. The Alliance system will take care of that.

Like I said, if Alliances arrive and we end up in a situation where there are so few "good" guilds left that they end up in the same Alliance, then Anet can simply lower the cap of Alliances to force them to spread out. It is far from ideal to force entities around the size of 500 to break apart however. It isn't too much to ask for that other entities should be enabled to match that level of content.

The main weakness (and difference between 2018 and 2020) of the Alliance system right now is that so many player-groups have quit or gone on hiatus since the announcement that 500 players is relatively a much larger chunk of organized players today than it was back then.

 

For example (as has been noted in other topics of discussion) a server like Whiteside-Ranik may stand out today, but are doing nothing different from what they did back in 2016. It is everyone else that have disappeared. They are not stacking harder. The other stacks are gone. They are slowly becomming rather unique but at PoF launch there were easily 3-5 other servers sizable and composed enough to create quality content with them; with the promise of World Restructuring possibly creating even more Alliances that matched up well enough to produce content thanks to returning players, groups and splitting up some communities that were larger than 500 but still had the drive to create new communities. That simply isn't the case anymore, communities have loosened and dissolved, matching content is becomming increasingly difficult (at least at the T1 scale or by the "1 fight-guild + 2-3 GvG guilds" entity that created the first 500gem stacks like WSR and Vabbi). So, in a sense, Alliances as proposed (and for direct matchup purposes) are now getting outdated even before its release. It is becomming dangerously close to dead on arrival. Yet, it still has the ability to reverse some damage over time by opening up transfers. If players get the chance to fix it (when not "full" or forced to ask people to pay for the chance) we will just have to hope that they will still care enough to bother.

 

 

DL on UW is another good example of the issues with the system. That project was enough to turn a dead link (500 gems) into a host server and propel it to T1 in a single month. They have some organistation, they are teaching new players how WvW works etc. They can probably match content around T2-T3 decently if they have not outgrown it but it is not like that server has alot of tags, alot of guilds or a high average experience of players. It just goes to show how volatile the system is and how trying to do something good for the game/mode may not necessarily result in something good for matching content because the systems are so bad and broken. They are now faced with teaching their new players in matchups vs. the WSR community and a nightcapping server. Clearly exemplifying the problems with the systems. It remains to be seen for how long they can keep their chins up and look at that from a positive learning experience kind of perspective.

 

 

So in general, T1 that should be the competetive end of the ladder has two servers that do not belong there and there isn't really any other servers that may belong there anymore; in terms of relative content you have 1 server that belongs and 2 vacant places filled by servers that may actually take damage to their sense of fun, content and drive to (re-)build from being there. The nightcapping server would have far better content for their daytime players at a tier with content that is more reflective of their daytime presence (possibly as low as T4). The rebuilding or mode-introducing server with sizable numbers will ping between better and worse content over T1 and T2 but would greatly benefit from other servers with a higher average experience being sized, composed or driven enough to stay above them for at least a little bit longer than a month. The remaining guild-based entity would also obviously benefit from a system that enables other "servers" to pull together remaining guilds spread out elsewhere or that lets guilds recruit players that would then propel them to a T1 that actually has 3 servers with matching daytime content so the 3-world system makes sense and doesn't devolve into a system where 2 worlds uncompatively duel at day and 1 world play by themselves at night, where no one gets full potential fun.

 

Finally, let me add this piece of vital information: The issue of the paid transfer system only has two possible answers and none of them spells anything good about ArenaNet. It either does not make ArenaNet money or it makes ArenaNet money. Stop, think about that for a moment. It can only be the one or the other. If it does not make ArenaNet money then they are letting this mode bleed for no reason. It is sheer and simple neglect and not giving a hoot. If it makes them substantial money they are letting WvW pay for the development of the other modes. Then they are letting the players here pay for basic things that other players do not have to pay for (playing together with friends) and they are still not delivering on any adequate development. So I am really hoping that it is the former because that is the lesser of two evils.

[Flee.5602]

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@"Flee.5602" said:GVG I think this is another area. Similar to PVE. PVP. WvW. (You want a GVG to appear)True, it is another mode of sorts but if you are looking to rank guilds in general, that is the easiest and best way to do it.

If you are looking to seed guilds over different battlegroups that isn't really needed. The Alliance system will take care of that.

Like I said, if Alliances arrive and we end up in a situation where there are so few "good" guilds left that they end up in the same Alliance, then Anet can simply lower the cap of Alliances to force them to spread out. It is far from ideal to force entities around the size of 500 to break apart however. It isn't too much to ask for that other entities should be enabled to match that level of content.

The main weakness (and difference between 2018 and 2020) of the Alliance system right now is that so many player-groups have quit or gone on hiatus since the announcement that 500 players is relatively a much larger chunk of organized players today than it was back then.

 

For example (as has been noted in other topics of discussion) a server like Whiteside-Ranik may stand out today, but are doing nothing different from what they did back in 2016. It is everyone else that have disappeared. They are not stacking harder. The other stacks are gone. They are slowly becomming rather unique but at PoF launch there were easily 3-5 other servers sizable and composed enough to create quality content with them; with the promise of World Restructuring possibly creating even more Alliances that matched up well enough to produce content thanks to returning players, groups and splitting up some communities that were larger than 500 but still had the drive to create new communities. That simply isn't the case anymore, communities have loosened and dissolved, matching content is becomming increasingly difficult (at least at the T1 scale or by the "1 fight-guild + 2-3 GvG guilds" entity that created the first 500gem stacks like WSR and Vabbi). So, in a sense, Alliances as proposed (and for direct matchup purposes) are now getting outdated even before its release. It is becomming dangerously close to dead on arrival. Yet, it still has the ability to reverse some damage over time by opening up transfers. If players get the chance to fix it (when not "full" or forced to ask people to pay for the chance) we will just have to hope that they will still care enough to bother.

 

 

DL on UW is another good example of the issues with the system. That project was enough to turn a dead link (500 gems) into a host server and propel it to T1 in a single month. They have some organistation, they are teaching new players how WvW works etc. They can probably match content around T2-T3 decently if they have not outgrown it but it is not like that server has alot of tags, alot of guilds or a high average experience of players. It just goes to show how volatile the system is and how trying to do something good for the game/mode may not necessarily result in something good for matching content because the systems are so bad and broken. They are now faced with teaching their new players in matchups vs. the WSR community and a nightcapping server. Clearly exemplifying the problems with the systems. It remains to be seen for how long they can keep their chins up and look at that from a positive learning experience kind of perspective.

 

 

So in general, T1 that should be the competetive end of the ladder has two servers that do not belong there and there isn't really any other servers that may belong there anymore; in terms of relative content you have 1 server that belongs and 2 vacant places filled by servers that may actually take damage to their sense of fun, content and drive to (re-)build from being there. The nightcapping server would have far better content for their daytime players at a tier with content that is more reflective of their daytime presence (possibly as low as T4). The rebuilding or mode-introducing server with sizable numbers will ping between better and worse content over T1 and T2 but would greatly benefit from other servers with a higher average experience being sized, composed or driven enough to stay above them for at least a little bit longer than a month. The remaining guild-based entity would also obviously benefit from a system that enables other "servers" to pull together remaining guilds spread out elsewhere or that lets guilds recruit players that would then propel them to a T1 that actually has 3 servers with matching daytime content so the 3-world system makes sense and doesn't devolve into a system where 2 worlds uncompatively duel at day and 1 world play by themselves at night, where no one gets full potential fun.

 

Finally, let me add this piece of vital information: The issue of the paid transfer system only has two possible answers and none of them spells anything good about ArenaNet. It either does not make ArenaNet money or it makes ArenaNet money. Stop, think about that for a moment. It can only be the one or the other. If it does not make ArenaNet money then they are letting this mode bleed for no reason. It is sheer and simple neglect and not giving a hoot. If it makes them substantial money they are letting WvW pay for the development of the other modes. Then they are letting the players here pay for basic things that other players do not have to pay for (playing together with friends) and they are still not delivering on any adequate development. So I am really hoping that it is the former because that is the lesser of two evils.

First of all, I will affirm your serious attitude towards doing things (thinking a lot of things)WvW is now very deformedArenanet. No work efficiency. This is driven by interests. The more days the development team works, the more money they get.

[Baldrick.8967]

@Flee.5602 said:

@Baldrick.8967 said:The problem with this idea is that 1. Anet won't devote more resources to wvw to develop it (there's barely half an intern working on it now) and 2. players would game the system as that is human nature.

Do you think

Yes. Many years of experience bear this out.