Do you think your Guild will Bandwagon to create Super Alliances? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Do you think your Guild will Bandwagon to create Super Alliances?

EremiteAngel.9765EremiteAngel.9765 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited February 2, 2018 in WvW

Visit 🏴‍☠️ Eremite's WvW Necromancy Graveyard 🏴‍☠️

CD -> TC -> Mag -> GOM -> AR -> JQ

Do you think your Guild will Bandwagon to create Super Alliances? 80 votes

No, We are a Real Hardcore Fight-oriented GvG Guild and We don't Bandwagon. We would rather fight against the best, than fight alongside the best.
72%
godfat.2604DoctorWunderbar.5037Mogrey.3891Sirius Lemuria Draconis.7864LINKAZZATORE.8135Rampage.7145diamondgirl.6315Mini Crinny.6190Olli.9028Blackarps.1974Avit.3165snake.6734FrizzFreston.5290sephiroth.4217Kovu.7560Mechanix.9315SailorSpira.9371Sovereign.1093Garrus.7403Aeolus.3615 58 votes
Yes, We prefer to steam-roll opponents than slug it out among equals.
27%
Solori.6025xitoriki.9758Zaraki.5784Threather.9354ArthurDent.9538Loke Trickster.7514Jerry CCH.9816Crazy.6029Mysteriax.6049blinkPK.9564Kirnale.5914Baldrick.8967Ginko Nakano.2048godofcows.2451boolah.1325Jumpin Lumpix.6108shiri.4257Sharen Graves.1276SniffyCube.6107Poobah.6254 22 votes

Comments

  • steki.1478steki.1478 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 7, 2018

    No, because what's the point of stomping bronze scouts with diamond generals?

    I mean, people do that even now, and there's almost no reasons of winning a matchup (with new system there will be even less), yet they complain how matchups are getting too easy or too boring.

    Deso's favorite FROG
    Master of afk and kiting
    The God of Pips and Gud Deeps
    Froggo himself

  • Baldrick.8967Baldrick.8967 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes, We prefer to steam-roll opponents than slug it out among equals.

    Many guilds will do exactly that. Alliance leaders will kick any guilds they feel like losing for whatever reason.

    You will end up with steam rollers and then several fractured alliances making up the rest who don't have the right coverage to win match ups- then many people will bandwagon to the successful steam rollers.

    Once one or two 'superguilds' of nearly 500 players have formed, any time you're drawn against them will be 8 weeks playing something else. 8 weeks is way too long for a match up.

    Match ups should be one week. Any longer and people will start to quit.

  • No, We are a Real Hardcore Fight-oriented GvG Guild and We don't Bandwagon. We would rather fight against the best, than fight alongside the best.

    I run a small guild and we already have guild alliance for pve where a small active guild who relies on others guilds at times due note by the sound of the new system any op guilds will be faceing op guilds or matched up with lesser players we can only hope for this change as it is hard to get new ppl into wvw on a side note what if wvw was more like pvp and not gear baced buy only skill baced would that bring more ppl to play?

  • Justine.6351Justine.6351 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Isn't the whole design of the Alliance System to bandwagon? There is a population cap which will force multiple bandwagons. The real true danger is that there are not enough bandwagon alliances to balance out the weekly matches for good fights.

    Anet buff me :-(
    Make me good at game!

  • @Grim West.3194 said:
    Missing a 3rd option. Small casual WvW guild that hates options 1 and 2.

    This........

  • Kaiser.9873Kaiser.9873 Member ✭✭✭

    People have already shown what they are going to do over the last 5 years. They are going to try and bandwagon to whatever alliance can make sure they win. Alliances will throw stupid amounts of gold at offhours guilds in order to further ensure they dominate matchups.

    One positive is that these "super alliances" will definitely need to research who to invite, and it will be hilarious to watch the guild purges that will take place.

  • Like.... what's the point in putting all the 'good guilds' on the same alliance? There'd be nobody to fight. Ideally, you'd want to have a bunch of different alliances out there so the fights were always good. Some people really, really don't freaking care about 'winning' the matchup and I wish more people understood that.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 3, 2018
    Yes, We prefer to steam-roll opponents than slug it out among equals.

    Yes, we are gonna take all GvG/fighting guilds in so they can't fight each other on primetime. Then we are gonna recruit all fight commanders and decent players from all servers.

    Then we cap SM easily from massive enemy group and wonder where is the enemy, why did they quit? Fun.

    No in all seriousness, there is going to be bunch of fighting alliances so our aim will most likely to match theirs. GvG guilds will spread in them so they have something to fight. I doubt any fightingish alliance will get more than 200 players. It is enough to have 80 online on reset, 30 on prime and 10 off prime. By fighting alliance I mean that it is not like they are ex-GvG players but rather they know where to get builds from and join voice communications when necessary. You know, healthy gameplay that aims to win and pull their own weight. No rangers and thieves on reset or against known strong enemy alliances

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 3, 2018

    From what I read, there will be either a player cap or guild cap, which ever comes first. That mean its gonna be tricky to have "super alliances".

    Lets say the cap is 500 (eqvivalent of 1 full guild). That means a max sized alliance is... well, just like 1 guild today. No difference in how strong it can get when fighting for a server. You can do this today with normal transfer.

    If the cap is 5 guilds too, that means you can have a maximum of 100 people per guild in a max sized alliance (per guild count). Isnt that... kind of normal for a server? Finding 5 guilds on any given server is easy and most will probably have a large rooster with only 20-30 active.

    Then when you start to mix these two caps, it become even more complicated. What if your main alliance guild is fairly big, say 250 people (still like 50 peeps active tops). That only leaves 250 for the population cap, or 4 guilds. Meaning those 4 guilds can only bring a rooster of 62 people each. That's nothing.

    Alliance management to create a "super alliance" of actual active players at alliance cap is gonna be complete pain and impossible to maintain.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 3, 2018
    No, We are a Real Hardcore Fight-oriented GvG Guild and We don't Bandwagon. We would rather fight against the best, than fight alongside the best.

    My server is my guild, my fellow WvW compatriots are my guild, what u call"guilds" are just chatrooms.

    NSP will maintain together has a guild, guilds wont be individuals.

    @Threather.9354, im renitent about that, i feel that many guild and players will actually stop playing cause they cant ktrain.
    I suspect an incrase of players on EOTM maps.
    At most what it might happen is 2 alliance have decent coverage and none of other alliances have coverage, while some servers will try to fight small servers to kleep their ktrain gameplay alive to avoid get into EOTM(the map of shame).
    Maps design needs to change as well, sicne they are way to much ktrain-able.

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

    @zhonnika.1784 said:
    Like.... what's the point in putting all the 'good guilds' on the same alliance? There'd be nobody to fight. Ideally, you'd want to have a bunch of different alliances out there so the fights were always good. Some people really, really don't freaking care about 'winning' the matchup and I wish more people understood that.

    Agreed about the 'good guilds' in the same alliance.

    Just wonder why those people that don't care about winning are the most vocal about changing the current system?

    And with the new system, like minded people and guilds will ally together, which in theory will spread some of these guilds out some..

    So... fight oriented people will group together, and PPT oriented people will group together.

    Win win right?

    And we are still doing one up one down.

    So... the next 'mag alliance' is doing great roflstomping fights in their matchup.

    And the next 'black gate alliance' is waiting for them in the tier above..,

    Surely no one will tank.

    Same problem, different people and names...

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    People are grossly overestimating the effect any "bandwagon" can have because no single alliance will cover enough of a matchup's population to dominate every other alliance. Even if there is some kind of selection for "the best", those people are going to end up in multiple "mega-alliances" usually fighting each other, and allied with different groups every matchup. I predict there will be nothing like the current snoresville we have with BG never knowing what it's like to lose a matchup -- no matter how hard people try to bandwagon.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 3, 2018

    @Euryon.9248 said:
    People are grossly overestimating the effect any "bandwagon" can have because no single alliance will cover enough of a matchup's population to dominate every other alliance. Even if there is some kind of selection for "the best", those people are going to end up in multiple "mega-alliances" usually fighting each other, and allied with different groups every matchup. I predict there will be nothing like the current snoresville we have with BG never knowing what it's like to lose a matchup -- no matter how hard people try to bandwagon.

    If they keep alliances to 500.

    1000?. that may be more of an issue

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Cyczer.7834Cyczer.7834 Member ✭✭✭
    No, We are a Real Hardcore Fight-oriented GvG Guild and We don't Bandwagon. We would rather fight against the best, than fight alongside the best.

    If people are actually going to quit game cuz they cant ktrain/nightcap I can honestly say this uptade is necessary :v

  • Loosmaster.8263Loosmaster.8263 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Grim West.3194 said:
    Missing a 3rd option. Small casual WvW guild that hates options 1 and 2.

    I vote for the 3rd option too...

    Playing the PvE scene because WvW is just "BAD"...

  • Inoki.6048Inoki.6048 Member ✭✭✭

    Server stacking, alliance / guild stacking. Can happen. From experience until now, most love to be carried, very few accept a challenge and the possibility of losing....... sorry learning. You never lose, you just learn and until mentality changes we will witness bandwagoning. But then again there will be no scarcity of cowards.

  • I think a lot of you aren't taking into account the ppt vs fights mindset. with servers they were all thrown together, which made band wagoning super easy. with alliances fight guilds will want, drum roll, fights. there will be some buys but in the long run it wont last, unless there are good fights to be had ofc. even if super alliances form, theres a good chance that there will be enough of them that they can fight each other. regardless of what the dev said about not creating a virtual t1 alliance matchup, it will happen cuz of ton of ppl will complain and log out.

  • HazyDaisy.4107HazyDaisy.4107 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 3, 2018

    There are other ways to manipulate matches besides bandwagonning, we see them now.

    Example, just yesterday in T4 before reset Server A was winning and Server B was in second (in T4 it only matters if you win btw, second and third stay where they are), still Server A would send scouts out to cap Server C's stuff in the north, wait a couple of minutes before moving to a different northern objective while server B back capped the first objective Server A had capped. There is no other reason to intentional wait before moving on UNLESS you want your friends on a different server to have those points. They did this for 2 hours before reset, when there was no possibility of Server C even catching second place and they were doing it various times throughout the week as well.

    This is not bandwagonning, but it is match manipulation, it happens in every tier now and it will still happen even under the new system, only it will probably be to a greater extent with alliances of alliances, friends benefitting friends everywhere.

    [HaHa] Hazardous Hallucination - Sorrows Furnace

  • Eramonster.2718Eramonster.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 3, 2018

    We need to know more before that such as ; Are players allowed to reject certain guilds from joining the alliance? or everything is automated?
    As for your question ; Yes, normally people would. Question is will everyone "fit" into the cap. It won't be a "super alliance" if 50% of it can't perform well, plus to plan on coverage eg. prefer guilds that covers the dead time zones.

  • kash.9213kash.9213 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Most guilds want to fight or have something to do so I'm not sure about super alliances. I do think a lot of current server cores of guilds and individuals will try to restructure and define a bit more what they're about and we'll probably see a few groups part ways for something else.

    Northern Shiverpeaks [EL]

  • @HazyDaisy.4107 said:
    There are other ways to manipulate matches besides bandwagonning, we see them now.

    Example, just yesterday in T4 before reset Server A was winning and Server B was in second (in T4 it only matters if you win btw, second and third stay where they are), still Server A would send scouts out to cap Server C's stuff in the north, wait a couple of minutes before moving to a different northern objective while server B back capped the first objective Server A had capped. There is no other reason to intentional wait before moving on UNLESS you want your friends on a different server to have those points. They did this for 2 hours before reset, when there was no possibility of Server C even catching second place and they were doing it various times throughout the week as well.

    This is not bandwagonning, but it is match manipulation, it happens in every tier now and it will still happen even under the new system, only it will probably be to a greater extent with alliances of alliances, friends benefitting friends everywhere.

    although this may be the case, that's a problem with the ppt system. I don't think alliances are trying to do anything else besides make it a more even numbers game. its quite possible that we will see a lot less of this since servers, not matchups, actual whole entire servers, will get shaken up every couple of weeks.

  • Glass Hand.7306Glass Hand.7306 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 3, 2018

    @Baldrick.8967 said:

    You will end up with steam rollers and then several fractured alliances making up the rest who don't have the right coverage to win match ups- then many people will bandwagon to the successful steam rollers.

    Once one or two 'superguilds' of nearly 500 players have formed, any time you're drawn against them will be 8 weeks playing something else. 8 weeks is way too long for a match up.

    The concept is that an alliance can only consist of 25% or so of a world's total population. The world hosting one of those super alliances will be filled out with low level players. It will be interesting to see what sort of dynamic that produces. Will a world filled with average players be able to compete with one with 25% excellent players and 75% low hour casuals?

  • neven.3785neven.3785 Member ✭✭✭

    What a pointless poll, we are planning on using the alliance to keep people who actually play with us together. I couldn't care less about coverage or the score at the end of the week.

  • @Grim West.3194 said:
    Missing a 3rd option. Small casual WvW guild that hates options 1 and 2.

    Agree with this. At the end of the day most people just want to have good time (fights/caps/whatever) rather than seeing WvW like a job as many wvw guilds do.

    [RED] Crimson Sunspears...your small family guild since 2015.

  • Baldrick.8967Baldrick.8967 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes, We prefer to steam-roll opponents than slug it out among equals.

    What's most amusing was the comments about 'fight guilds' and 'looking for the fights'.

    It's been five years, yet guilds still haven't all moved across the various servers to ensure all servers have 'fight guilds' and they can always ensure that no matter who they are facing, there will always be at least two 'fight guilds' to fight.

    If they were truly always 'looking for the fights' this would have been organised between them long ago.

    So, if an alliance only fills up 25% of the slots on a world and the rest is low level/ lot hours casuals would the super guild win the match up? Most likely. Depends on the effort the alliance guilds want to put in. Might find the casuals getting shuffled around every few weeks might not like the system very much- and as we all know, casuals have a habit of running away at the first sign of a decent even fight and logging off if they lose a couple times, so it might come down to which side has the 'least-worst' casuals!

  • Caliburn.1845Caliburn.1845 Member ✭✭✭

    Are you on EU?

    Because on NA there are fight guilds on nearly every host server, and increasingly on many of the linked servers. Some guilds are better than others obviously. But if you want to argue that they're all lumped together on just a couple servers, you'd be woefully mistaken. Just look at the 26 guilds signed up for the GvG tourny, I think every host server is represented, with the exception of maybe one or two.

    Caliburn.1845, Monsters Inc(BOO) guildleader.
    DH>DB>BG>MAG>YB>SBI>YB>AR

  • DeadlySynz.3471DeadlySynz.3471 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2018

    Super alliances won't make a difference; match-ups will likely have similar numbers on both sides far more often than not. A 50 man quad with a few greenies can easily be taken down 50 people scattered with no pin. Granted people have been screaming for "guild vs guild" style fighting forever, and this is about as close as it's going to get with these changes.

    I'm sure there are still some ways for matches to be manipulated by creating a super alliance isn't one of them. An all guild map que can still be wiped out by a lesser disorganized enemy.

    People have to keep in mind here, because the coverage issue keeps coming up; this is essentially a 3 way match; there should be coverage clear across the board nearly all times of day/night. So what if a guild covers say 6pm to 6am, it doesn't mean anything, especially both the other enemies have the same coverage.

  • Guilds that enjoy playing with each other is the whole point of alliances and you won't see all the top tier gvg guilds piling together because then they would have nothing really good to fight.

  • Felipe.1807Felipe.1807 Member ✭✭✭

    None of the options, probably we will try to stay with the guilds that are part of our server right now, indepedent if they are casual or hardcore...the bad part is that the hardcore guilds of our server will probably try to join hardcore Alliences, so we will probably stay with the casual stuff...

    So far i dont really understand the reason for this change...was server stacking population? Well this will happens on this Alliance thing too...anyway, bad decision by Anet if they actually made this a thing.

  • Rampage.7145Rampage.7145 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2018
    No, We are a Real Hardcore Fight-oriented GvG Guild and We don't Bandwagon. We would rather fight against the best, than fight alongside the best.

    @Vermillion.4061 said:
    Guilds that enjoy playing with each other is the whole point of alliances and you won't see all the top tier gvg guilds piling together because then they would have nothing really good to fight.

    Sorry but fight guilds do not pile together, in fact guilds usually hate each other big time bro, all guilds u will see on an alliance will most likelly be because due raid times, so when one of the guilds is not raiding their members will have the option to play with someone else if they want (this is nothing but how succesfull guild leader managment works, keeping your players interested in the game), or maybe some of their members raid on both guilds since their schedules do not overlap each other. Every single guild out there knows how boring it is to stack over the same timezone, literally nobody does that. Most fight oriented guilds only run arround 20 people during their raids, and some Blob guilds usually just a full map blob with 60+ on TS like SF or KnT, so this smaller guilds will get run over, at that point u wanna have someome u can maybe call in to fight that massive que blob. Other than that guild stacking is a myth honestly guilds just go where the fights are, if there is fights on every matchup there is literally no reasson for guilds to move.

    VR Driver
    Salty beavers top guild 2 years in a row back to back, the double champs
    https://saltybeavers.com/

  • Rampage.7145Rampage.7145 Member ✭✭✭
    No, We are a Real Hardcore Fight-oriented GvG Guild and We don't Bandwagon. We would rather fight against the best, than fight alongside the best.

    @Baldrick.8967 said:
    What's most amusing was the comments about 'fight guilds' and 'looking for the fights'.

    It's been five years, yet guilds still haven't all moved across the various servers to ensure all servers have 'fight guilds' and they can always ensure that no matter who they are facing, there will always be at least two 'fight guilds' to fight.

    If they were truly always 'looking for the fights' this would have been organised between them long ago.

    So, if an alliance only fills up 25% of the slots on a world and the rest is low level/ lot hours casuals would the super guild win the match up? Most likely. Depends on the effort the alliance guilds want to put in. Might find the casuals getting shuffled around every few weeks might not like the system very much- and as we all know, casuals have a habit of running away at the first sign of a decent even fight and logging off if they lose a couple times, so it might come down to which side has the 'least-worst' casuals!

    Guilds will usually stack the most populated tiers so they can have variety of fights, problem with the current system is there are way too many worlds for the number of guilds, so this guilds will naturally stack on the tier that provides the best action and more variety of fights to make their raids fun, nobody wants to be stuck fighting the same group over and over for months on a dead tier, that is what u guys who have never been part of the fighting community never underood in 5 years. Whith the new system arenanet pretends to concentrate the population so we will get guranteed enemies to fight, there is little to no reasson for fight guilds to actually care about what world they are on or alliances even, they will just be able to log in any night and have multiple groups to fight which is what they intended in first place by stacking some servers/tier. I hope this is helpful for the clueless people to understand and illustrate what is actualy happening internally within these guilds when they historically stacked some servers.

    VR Driver
    Salty beavers top guild 2 years in a row back to back, the double champs
    https://saltybeavers.com/

  • Rampage.7145Rampage.7145 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2018
    No, We are a Real Hardcore Fight-oriented GvG Guild and We don't Bandwagon. We would rather fight against the best, than fight alongside the best.

    U guys getting rolled by servers with multiple guilds while not having any was just consecuence of a terrible matchmaking system aka servers/tiers. It will all be sloved with the new system that will dynamically scale up and down according to population so guilds will not really care about which matchup they are getting put on as long the enemy worlds are packed up with people to kill.

    VR Driver
    Salty beavers top guild 2 years in a row back to back, the double champs
    https://saltybeavers.com/

  • Elementalist Owner.7802Elementalist Owner.7802 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2018
    No, We are a Real Hardcore Fight-oriented GvG Guild and We don't Bandwagon. We would rather fight against the best, than fight alongside the best.

    All my guilds is fight guilds, homie.
    Come kitten wit us

  • Baldrick.8967Baldrick.8967 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes, We prefer to steam-roll opponents than slug it out among equals.

    @Rampage.7145 said:

    @Baldrick.8967 said:
    What's most amusing was the comments about 'fight guilds' and 'looking for the fights'.

    It's been five years, yet guilds still haven't all moved across the various servers to ensure all servers have 'fight guilds' and they can always ensure that no matter who they are facing, there will always be at least two 'fight guilds' to fight.

    If they were truly always 'looking for the fights' this would have been organised between them long ago.

    So, if an alliance only fills up 25% of the slots on a world and the rest is low level/ lot hours casuals would the super guild win the match up? Most likely. Depends on the effort the alliance guilds want to put in. Might find the casuals getting shuffled around every few weeks might not like the system very much- and as we all know, casuals have a habit of running away at the first sign of a decent even fight and logging off if they lose a couple times, so it might come down to which side has the 'least-worst' casuals!

    Guilds will usually stack the most populated tiers so they can have variety of fights, problem with the current system is there are way too many worlds for the number of guilds, so this guilds will naturally stack on the tier that provides the best action and more variety of fights to make their raids fun, nobody wants to be stuck fighting the same group over and over for months on a dead tier, that is what u guys who have never been part of the fighting community never underood in 5 years. Whith the new system arenanet pretends to concentrate the population so we will get guranteed enemies to fight, there is little to no reasson for fight guilds to actually care about what world they are on or alliances even, they will just be able to log in any night and have multiple groups to fight which is what they intended in first place by stacking some servers/tier. I hope this is helpful for the clueless people to understand and illustrate what is actualy happening internally within these guilds when they historically stacked some servers.

    Yes, you agreed with me. 'fight' guilds stacked servers. If you had organised, then you could have had fight guilds on every server and had a much more even distribution of the sort of fights you were looking for.

    By stacking you created the very problem you claim to try and avoid- namely dead servers as no one wants to fight a huge blob with 5 people week after week. If only a 'fight' guild had moved to the outmanned server....

    I was in the 'fight' guilds years ago, and understand perfectly the mainly elitism attitude of many of those- who think they are better than 'pugs' then get wiped repeatedly by them then moan the pugs won't fight 'fair' (how DARE they use open field siege against our 25 man melee train!). Then they go off and stack another server in the hope they find something easier to blob over.

    And to call people 'clueless' for knowing exactly what you were doing....

    If you really wanted pure fights, moving to the lowest tiers and getting other 'fight' guilds to move too would have been the real solution.

    Alliances will once again stack servers and you'll end up with a similar situation where you will get match ups with no one decent to fight- and other match ups were you are totally outnumbered due to coverage differences.

  • No, We are a Real Hardcore Fight-oriented GvG Guild and We don't Bandwagon. We would rather fight against the best, than fight alongside the best.

    an alliance may be stronger than other alliances but in the end you can't bandwagon in one huge alliance when alliances will have cap population. ofc still waiting to finalize that cap.

  • neven.3785neven.3785 Member ✭✭✭

    Funny thing, prior to my time in the top gvg fight guild CTH, i ran with other groups during the gvg era. Those guilds never really complained about groups not being fair. They just farmed the kitten out of the people who put too much effort into open field siege vs learning to use their profession skills. Then they laughed at those people for thinking their siege would save them. But groups were a different back then, even the fight guilds put effort in for objectives since it attracted fights. Now those fight groups just sit on the side lines and complain that the game doesn't 100% match the game style they prefer

  • Baldrick.8967Baldrick.8967 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes, We prefer to steam-roll opponents than slug it out among equals.

    Don't discount the history of wvw- which is that guilds and players will find a way to bandwagon. Given the very low map caps, it won't be long for one alliance to seek out (probably pay for) coverage guilds and players.

  • Thelgar.7214Thelgar.7214 Member ✭✭✭

    Doesn't really matter to me. If Misa or Robin want to bandwagon, I'll grab a trumpet and an ox cart and off I'll go.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @Baldrick.8967 said:
    Don't discount the history of wvw- which is that guilds and players will find a way to bandwagon. Given the very low map caps, it won't be long for one alliance to seek out (probably pay for) coverage guilds and players.

    That's a problem when you can control an entire population (server). That will not be nearly as much of a problem when your alliance, no matter how you "stack" it, can only control 20-30% of your group's fighting force. There will be far too many other "stacked" alliances out there who are now opposing you rather than bandwagoning with you simply due to numbers and caps. Some people just can't seem to get their heads wrapped around this.

  • godofcows.2451godofcows.2451 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes, We prefer to steam-roll opponents than slug it out among equals.

    even if they say they won't in this poll, we all know they will.

  • @Vermillion.4061 said:
    Guilds that enjoy playing with each other is the whole point of alliances and you won't see all the top tier gvg guilds piling together because then they would have nothing really good to fight.

    sorry - but that didn't stop the top teams in spvp from standing around at the top with no one to fight after the pre-formed teams stomped poor clueless "we have no choice in the matter" solo pugs on their way up to the top. more imbalance. more team v. solo pug mentality that hurts longevity of game cuz u know, solo pugs/roamers/casual 3 person guilds, etc., will over time hate getting stomped by the 5 alliance mega world which has been carefully handpicked/excluded and organized on ts with set paramilitary rules. why not everyone random? seems a better option.

  • Blackarps.1974Blackarps.1974 Member ✭✭✭
    No, We are a Real Hardcore Fight-oriented GvG Guild and We don't Bandwagon. We would rather fight against the best, than fight alongside the best.

    Lower the alliance cap and "season" or whatever that's 8 weeks (maybe do it like links are now? A few weeks should be fine even if some alliances and guilds are kept together). If an alliance get's too strong, people will just turtle up or not play like they do now. Alliances allowing multiple blob guilds to join is just lame beyond reasoning.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 6, 2018

    Lower player cap + guild reqs =

    more reason to stack because coverage is harder and thus more important=

    higher consolidation of non na in one tier=

    lots of dead time zones because its a 24/7 game mode with week long matchups.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Kamara.4187Kamara.4187 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 7, 2018

    @Grim West.3194 said:
    Missing a 3rd option. Small casual WvW guild that hates options 1 and 2.

    I agree on the third option. As far as bandwagon goes, if it can be done, those that are already doing it will continue.
    However forcing everyone to "guild up" in one of the super guilds would be a terrible mistake. Not all personalities mesh well and not everyone wields the power of leadership with humility and fairness. If this move is not done correctly it could be more detrimental than what we are already contending with in wvw.

    Don't get me wrong I am all for a wvw restructure, but what I don't want to see is everything focused on blob zergs and mega guilds. This would kill the game mode for me. I love running with a zerg from time to time but I enjoy a small havoc group so much more. I hope they and the solo will have a place in the restructuring :).

    "Love thy enemy, for without them there would be no 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.