World Restructuring FAQ

[Zionka.6897]

I'm understanding most of what's happening, but one thing with it seems unclear. Example: A small guild currently based on server A marks itself as a WvW guild. All active members mark it as their WvW guild, because for all members, having just one guild is how they want to play. But some members are on server A, some are on server B, one on server C, and so on. Previously, they never got to go to WvW together, on the same team.This is where I'm confused. It seems the new matchups will not be servers, but randomized teams. (people will only chose NA or EU at account creation) Yet I still see server transfers mentioned, and somehow still factoring in about playing together under this proposed system. It's not making any sense. I just want to know if our multiserver guild will now be able to come to WvW together, if we have it set like I mentioned. Also, we would not be looking for someone to form an alliance with, if that matters at all.

[Euryon.9248]

@Zionka.6897 said:I'm understanding most of what's happening, but one thing with it seems unclear. Example: A small guild currently based on server A marks itself as a WvW guild. All active members mark it as their WvW guild, because for all members, having just one guild is how they want to play. But some members are on server A, some are on server B, one on server C, and so on. Previously, they never got to go to WvW together, on the same team.This is where I'm confused. It seems the new matchups will not be servers, but randomized teams. (people will only chose NA or EU at account creation) Yet I still see server transfers mentioned, and somehow still factoring in about playing together under this proposed system. It's not making any sense. I just want to know if our multiserver guild will now be able to come to WvW together, if we have it set like I mentioned. Also, we would not be looking for someone to form an alliance with, if that matters at all.

Yes, the new system will allow ALL of your guildmates, regardless of current server, to play together in an alliance once the new system hits. If you don't ally with other guilds, you will largely have different allies for each 8-week session, but everyone in your guild will always be together on the same side.

[Zionka.6897]

@Euryon.9248 said:

@"Zionka.6897" said:I'm understanding most of what's happening, but one thing with it seems unclear. Example: A small guild currently based on server A marks itself as a WvW guild. All active members mark it as their WvW guild, because for all members, having just one guild is how they want to play. But some members are on server A, some are on server B, one on server C, and so on. Previously, they never got to go to WvW together, on the same team.This is where I'm confused. It seems the new matchups will not be servers, but randomized teams. (people will only chose NA or EU at account creation) Yet I still see server transfers mentioned, and somehow still factoring in about playing together under this proposed system. It's not making any sense. I just want to know if our multiserver guild will now be able to come to WvW together, if we have it set like I mentioned. Also, we would not be looking for someone to form an alliance with, if that matters at all.

Yes, the new system will allow ALL of your guildmates, regardless of current server, to play together in an alliance once the new system hits. If you don't ally with other guilds, you will largely have different allies for each 8-week session, but everyone in your guild will always be together on the same side.

Thank you for answering that... And it does make this change appealing in at least this respect! The "transfering worlds mid season" in the main thread was throwing me off, but I'm not going to think about it anymore, since me and my guildies can finally go cause some trouble together, yay!

[Oogabooga.3812]

Q. Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance?

Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full.

So you are saying that active participants would limit the number of guilds for a 2-big-guild alliance because it would get full. Why wouldn't this be the case for small guild alliances? I may be wrong, but when I think of small guilds, I think of about 5-15 active player guilds, which wouldn't come close to the 500 member cap if the guild cap was set at 5. I think the cap should be more like 50, if there is any cap to be had at all.

And before anybody responds with "just join a bigger guild," know that there is guild pride in Guild Wars, no matter the size.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Oogabooga.3812" said:

Q. Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance?

Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full.

So you are saying that active participants would limit the number of guilds for a 2-big-guild alliance because it would get full. Why wouldn't this be the case for small guild alliances? I may be wrong, but when I think of small guilds, I think of about 5-15 active player guilds, which wouldn't come close to the 500 member cap if the guild cap was set at 5. I think the cap should be more like 50, if there is any cap to be had at all.

And before anybody responds with "just join a bigger guild," know that there is guild pride in Guild Wars, no matter the size.If you look at the restructuring system top down, the guild cap is clearly there to handle smaller chunks of the player base better. Having 50 guilds in one alliance would be counterproductive to this purpose - you could never match those guilds against each other.

The point of the alliance isnt that all are are max and equal size - it's just a group of guilds. They will no doubt come in every shape or form. If one alliance is big, that's matched up against multiple smaller alliances (unless of course you can match it against equal size alliance). Like an alliance of 2 guilds (1000 peeps) being matched up against 5 alliances (~1000 peeps of similar activity, but spread out over ~20 guilds). Again, a cap smaller than guild cap is meaningless. Alliance player cap has to be 500 or more. 1 max sized guild on the current system is the lowest common denominator. The only reasonable way to go lower is to lower the guild cap itself. I dont mind - got like 5 guild masters and ~5 active players in my WvW guild, lol. But I am fairly sure that 500 man guilds would find it unacceptable.

[GrimReaper.3865]

So is this means larger map for containing more ppl? we gonna run like ants in wvw if we gunna try this , i mean like when the 1st time you guys launch the featureand also if this feature gunna be added , then we will deal with overwhelming lag right? (My Internet is a potatonet) i cant handle big zerg fight which means a total back off from wvw forever?

[SugarCayne.3098]

@Euryon.9248 said:

@"SugarCayne.3098" said:You do realize that by saying guilds will be used for population metrics it will increase the “must represent 100% of the time” factor for most big guilds?

And if they don’t like their pairings? Do not represent.

You are creating a massive problem with that. It will be exploited.

Repping has nothing to do with the metrics and no effect on alliances. It hinges entirely on which guild you set as your "wvw guild", which you can rep 100% of the time or 0%. There is nothing to exploit here that isn't already in the system.

Yes.

And it can be manipulated.

Matches are determined by the participation activity of members of any given guild.

Don’t like a match? Switch your chosen WvW Guild and play in another.

And so on....

[Euryon.9248]

@"Spurnshadow.3678" said:QUESTION:

It has been stated that one of the factors in world creation will be to try to group together "friends" or people you play with. I'm sure this will be weighted against over all population of your world with your friends and the population of the other servers. My question: does the "friend factor" work across alliances? For example, what if there are 2 alliances formed and all the players play with each other. Are the odds good that both alliances will be on the same world? Some practical aspects: a current server, Awesomesause, has a healthy NA and EU population. The NA guilds form an alliance and the EU guilds form an alliance. Is there a high probability that these two alliances will be on the same world when this system is implemented?

I don't think anyone has answered this directly, but the answer should be no. There would be alliance or not-alliance; alliance would be guaranteed to stay together, not-alliance would be more or less random as to whether it ends up on the same server. If you're talking about an alliance on the NA servers and a "sister" alliance on the EU servers -- I have seen no indication that the wvw worlds will ever cross the NA-EU server gap. They will still be completely separate pools of players.

[Euryon.9248]

@"GrimReaper.3865" said:So is this means larger map for containing more ppl? we gonna run like ants in wvw if we gunna try this , i mean like when the 1st time you guys launch the featureand also if this feature gunna be added , then we will deal with overwhelming lag right? (My Internet is a potatonet) i cant handle big zerg fight which means a total back off from wvw forever?

No one has said or suggested that map caps will be any larger than they are currently, afaik. It appears that the various worlds will be approximately the same size as a mediuim or large server currently is, and any given alliance will comprise no more than 20-25% of that world's population, which is why "stacking" alliances would be far less effective than stacking servers currently is, and probably hardly worth the effort to game. I'm sure people will try because, well, people, but I doubt they will ever succeed in creating anything like the BG megalith we currently have.

[Dawdler.8521]

@GrimReaper.3865 said:So is this means larger map for containing more ppl? we gonna run like ants in wvw if we gunna try this , i mean like when the 1st time you guys launch the featureand also if this feature gunna be added , then we will deal with overwhelming lag right? (My Internet is a potatonet) i cant handle big zerg fight which means a total back off from wvw forever?Why on earth do you even think that? The new system cant just create players out of thin air. That's physically impossible and beyond even Anets programming magic. There will be just as many players now as after it's implemented on about as many matchups with sides that will probably roughly equal T2-T3 servers (since chunks of players in what is now high pop servers will be allocated to what is now low pop servers the curve will be flatter with more even matchup populations). Cripes this thread was supposed to be devs answering questions, lol.

And as Anet has said, this system will also allow for dynamic matchup sizes. You could have 3 matchups (ie EoTM). Or 6 matchups. Or 9. Or 12. 15. 18. Etc. How many you want depending on the total population of WvW, with 8 weeks refresh between changes. It's MUCH more flexible for just the thing you want - not overloading matchups with too many players, or not allowing too low population in empty tiers.

[Ben K.6238]

@Dawdler.8521 said:If you look at the restructuring system top down, the guild cap is clearly there to handle smaller chunks of the player base better. Having 50 guilds in one alliance would be counterproductive to this purpose - you could never match those guilds against each other.

That's somewhat irrelevant though. If you have 10-20 guilds that want to ally, there's nothing stopping them from forming conglomerate guilds whose only purpose is to dodge the alliance guild cap.

[Euryon.9248]

@Ben K.6238 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:If you look at the restructuring system top down, the guild cap is clearly there to handle smaller chunks of the player base better. Having 50 guilds in one alliance would be counterproductive to this purpose - you could never match those guilds against each other.

That's somewhat irrelevant though. If you have 10-20 guilds that want to ally, there's nothing stopping them from forming conglomerate guilds whose only purpose is to dodge the alliance guild cap.

As long as they don't exceed the alliance population, what difference does it make? Whether an alliance consists of people in 1 or 20 guilds isn't going to affect their abilities or the world population.

[Ben K.6238]

None whatsoever, but it proves that limiting the number of guilds in an alliance is pointless for any reason other than ease of implementation.

[Euryon.9248]

@SugarCayne.3098 said:

@Euryon.9248 said:

@SugarCayne.3098 said:You do realize that by saying guilds will be used for population metrics it will increase the “must represent 100% of the time” factor for most big guilds?

And if they don’t like their pairings? Do not represent.

You are creating a massive problem with that. It will be exploited.

Repping has nothing to do with the metrics and no effect on alliances. It hinges entirely on which guild you set as your "wvw guild", which you can rep 100% of the time or 0%. There is nothing to exploit here that isn't already in the system.

Yes.

And it can be manipulated.

Matches are determined by the participation activity of members of any given guild.

Don’t like a match? Switch your chosen WvW Guild and play in another.

And so on....

No, repping has NO effect, which is what your original contention was. Activity levels will be analyzed in and of themselves, without regards to who you rep x% of the time. I don't know where you are pulling this nonsense from. Repping and setting your wvw guild have no relationship.

Of course you will be able to switch your selected wvw guild and potentially play with another alliance in the next session, assuming that alliance isn't full. You can't alliance-hop willy nilly in the middle of the season, although they may provide for gem-cost transfers to non-full worlds. People will obviously move and change guilds as this progresses. The alliance cap itself is going to heavily dampen any real effects of stacking or gaming. The current system is far more subject to manipulation than the one they're working on, and I really don't understand the strident opposition to the change on the basis of sky-is-falling fears of gaming.

[ArmyVeteran.9815]

Suggestion: Allow guild ranks with member editing permissions (kick/role moving/etc) to manually toggle somebody's "wvw flag" off. So if a guild wants to use a slot for a new player, and has a quit/less than wonderful current player they would want to trade out, it's possible without kicking the old member or trying to talk/force them into de-flagging themselves.

You rephrased it to appear considered about your guildees but only succeeded it verifying that elitist will find a way to game the system. Let me guess you run closed squads or tag less squads? Having an alliance with you would mean watching for the dagger in the back.

[SugarCayne.3098]

@Euryon.9248 said:

@SugarCayne.3098 said:

@Euryon.9248 said:

@SugarCayne.3098 said:You do realize that by saying guilds will be used for population metrics it will increase the “must represent 100% of the time” factor for most big guilds?

And if they don’t like their pairings? Do not represent.

You are creating a massive problem with that. It will be exploited.

Repping has nothing to do with the metrics and no effect on alliances. It hinges entirely on which guild you set as your "wvw guild", which you can rep 100% of the time or 0%. There is nothing to exploit here that isn't already in the system.

Yes.

And it can be manipulated.

Matches are determined by the participation activity of members of any given guild.

Don’t like a match? Switch your chosen WvW Guild and play in another.

And so on....

No, repping has NO effect, which is what your original contention was. Activity levels will be analyzed in and of themselves, without regards to who you rep x% of the time. I don't know where you are pulling this nonsense from. Repping and setting your wvw guild have no relationship.

Of course you will be able to switch your selected wvw guild and potentially play with another alliance in the next session, assuming that alliance isn't full. You can't alliance-hop willy nilly in the middle of the season, although they may provide for gem-cost transfers to non-full worlds. People will obviously move and change guilds as this progresses. The alliance cap itself is going to heavily dampen any real effects of stacking or gaming. The current system is far more subject to manipulation than the one they're working on, and I really don't understand the strident opposition to the change on the basis of sky-is-falling fears of gaming.

You switch alliance guild for next matchup. You say you can do that above. Even suggest you can do this mid game for a fee. Remove the word rep. It seems to create confusion.

Extrapolate. How will Anet determine matchmaking?

Don’t look at it as a single player moving, think an entire guild. And because these alliances will be much smaller, the greater the impact.

Anything that lets a player impact metrics will be exploited.

Some will do it to ensure their rivals have nobody to fight for eight weeks. Others will do it to surge an alliance and give false metrics for next matchmaking.

Just because I can already see the exploits is not a sky is falling reaction. I think some folks are refusing to consider these issues because it negates the proposal. Or they just haven’t considered how it will be exploited.

The point is that if players have the option to choose guild A B or C as their WvW Guild, and can arbitrarily change that, it will be exploited.

[Lemoncurry.2345]

Q: Will recruitment for a designated WvW-guild be disabled when it's alliance's player cap is reached?

One extreme example of exploiting the system: Create 4 small designated WvW guilds, the system allows them to form one alliance (because they fall well below the 500 alliance cap). After that, start binge-recruiting members in each of the guilds. With a guild cap of 500 people you could end up with 2000 players (so nearly a whole server by your metrics) in these guilds and thus in their alliance, well above the normal limit.Needless to say, that would give this inflated alliance organizational advantages to more smaller and heterogeneous groups. It would also make it harder for you to balance out MUs because smaller chunks of player-groups is what you want after all.

[Euryon.9248]

@Lemoncurry.2345 said:Q: Will recruitment for a designated WvW-guild be disabled when it's alliance's player cap is reached?

One extreme example of exploiting the system: Create 4 small designated WvW guilds, the system allows them to form one alliance (because they fall well below the 500 alliance cap). After that, start binge-recruiting members in each of the guilds. With a guild cap of 500 people you could end up with 2000 players (so nearly a whole server by your metrics) in these guilds and thus in their alliance, well above the normal limit.Needless to say, that would give this inflated alliance organizational advantages to more smaller and heterogeneous groups. It would also make it harder for you to balance out MUs because smaller chunks of player-groups is what you want after all.

They've already said that you can't exceed the alliance cap by adding new members to a guild in a capped alliance. So this won't be possible. Once that alliance hits 500 (e.g.) people, any guild in it will not be able to add new members (for wvw purposes) without removing an existing wvw member. Has no effect on guildies who haven't chosen the guild as their wvw guild, but any new guild members will have to play on a non-full world until the alliance makes room for them.

[Lemoncurry.2345]

@Euryon.9248 said:They've already said that you can't exceed the alliance cap by adding new members to a guild in a capped alliance. So this won't be possible. Once that alliance hits 500 (e.g.) people, any guild in it will not be able to add new members (for wvw purposes) without removing an existing wvw member. Has no effect on guildies who haven't chosen the guild as their wvw guild, but any new guild members will have to play on a non-full world until the alliance makes room for them.Ah, tyvm , I must have overlooked that bit of information!

[No One.3716]

@Lemoncurry.2345 said:

@Euryon.9248 said:They've already said that you can't exceed the alliance cap by adding new members to a guild in a capped alliance. So this won't be possible. Once that alliance hits 500 (e.g.) people, any guild in it will not be able to add new members (for wvw purposes) without removing an existing wvw member. Has no effect on guildies who haven't chosen the guild as their wvw guild, but any new guild members will have to play on a non-full world until the alliance makes room for them.Ah, tyvm , I must have overlooked that bit of information!

Except they would be able to transfer to the same world, providing it wasn't full. Full alliance =/= Full world.

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

There's allot of good info here that you can keep adding to until this goes live, can we get this stickied?@Raymond Lukes.6305

[cobracommander.5861]

@Euryon.9248 said:

@Lemoncurry.2345 said:Q: Will recruitment for a designated WvW-guild be disabled when it's alliance's player cap is reached?

One extreme example of exploiting the system: Create 4 small designated WvW guilds, the system allows them to form one alliance (because they fall well below the 500 alliance cap). After that, start binge-recruiting members in each of the guilds. With a guild cap of 500 people you could end up with 2000 players (so nearly a whole server by your metrics) in these guilds and thus in their alliance, well above the normal limit.Needless to say, that would give this inflated alliance organizational advantages to more smaller and heterogeneous groups. It would also make it harder for you to balance out MUs because smaller chunks of player-groups is what you want after all.

They've already said that you can't exceed the alliance cap by adding new members to a guild in a capped alliance. So this won't be possible. Once that alliance hits 500 (e.g.) people, any guild in it will not be able to add new members (for wvw purposes) without removing an existing wvw member. Has no effect on guildies who haven't chosen the guild as their wvw guild, but any new guild members will have to play on a non-full world until the alliance makes room for them.

Agreed, this guilds probably won’t be able to recruit period until their alliance sheds a guild or they cull their ranks of inactives etc.

Even if a friend wasn’t in the wvw guild, as long as their friends were in that wvw guild, they’d probably be auto-sorted to that world upon creation at the season beginning anyways.

[Menzo.2185]

How can I be recruited by a blackgate guild, that will did a OP alliance, being a member of other server right now? They wont recruit me.And... if they probably make an alliance with all already existed guilds of theirs server, NOTHING will change, right?

[LunarWolf.1548]

Real issue that has not been tackled in most WvW changes is: Scouting + Roaming. There's no system to reward or incentivise doing said actions. What could change to do such things is a few things I thought as additions: Giving WXP for Disabling siege, a system that "upgrades" the already available tatics system in objectives (i.e: Could be so that if a Ranger that stays ACTIVELY [aka not afk; moving around] scouting a objetive for X ammount of time (30 minutes?) and that Tower has a Watchtower upgrade on it, the Ranger would increase the range of it; Or a Engineer that does the same, could make the Auto-Turrets in a Keep or SMC to fire more quickly; That would improve the usage of said classes in WvW and also give a reason or meaning for scouting), make a system for quick world-wide callouts (i.e: There could be a lever [like the current Tactivators] that would be only able to be used if the objetive [probably not camps] is under attack by siege, which would reward the player with WXP or Participation, and would do a Map callout (either just link the tower in map chat, or do a "on-top-of-screen" announcement like the ones of when you claim or cap a objetive, or a siren that would ring for nearby players [aka, in the nearby territories] (?).In doing so, there would be more reason to sit in tower and defend it (even if it's "paper", Tier 0) since it would reward you in someway, since the current rewards is wishing someone will give you squad participation for doing so or mailing gold/items. As for roaming, the main issue is the current ammount of roamers which is very low.

TL;DR: What's the proposal for changes in roaming and scouting aspects? As both dont reward as much as just running around with the zerg, and are just as important for the PPT of the "server".

[Euryon.9248]

@"danserafim.7051" said:How can I be recruited by a blackgate guild, that will did a OP alliance, being a member of other server right now? They wont recruit me.And... if they probably make an alliance with all already existed guilds of theirs server, NOTHING will change, right?

If you read the changes more carefully, you'll realize that making an alliance with every other guild on the server will be impossible. An alliance will be at most 20-30% of a server, and will almost certain eventually face off against another alliance that used to be part of the same server. Stacking an entire world won't be possible.