Jump to content
  • Sign Up

World Restructuring FAQ


Raymond Lukes.6305

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Questions:

  1. Will the Matchmaker attempt (NOT GUARANTEE) to place players with their guilds if none is set as a 'personal-wvw-guild'?
  2. Is it possible to have 1 guild be a GUARANTEE placement (already stated to be coming), with a second being a PREFERRED placement.If i am correct, this would not make too much a difference to the matchmaker, due to the 2nd guild NOT being guaranteed.

This is due to seeing multiple posts in the main 35page (at time of writing) thread from people saying they are in multiple guilds that WILL NOT form an alliance due to one being a WvW community/raid guild, and the other being a roamer guild, or a PvX/casual guild full of friends who sometimes jump to WvW with their less-casual WvW buddy.

Any response would be greatly appreciated, either conformation that this could POSSIBLY be done, or some explanation as to why this is not possible.

Thanks for your hard work, and the increased communication regarding a great game-mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@pombear.1058 said:Questions:

  1. Will the Matchmaker attempt (NOT GUARANTEE) to place players with their guilds if none is set as a 'personal-wvw-guild'?
  2. Is it possible to have 1 guild be a GUARANTEE placement (already stated to be coming), with a second being a PREFERRED placement.If i am correct, this would not make too much a difference to the matchmaker, due to the 2nd guild NOT being guaranteed.

This is due to seeing multiple posts in the main 35page (at time of writing) thread from people saying they are in multiple guilds that WILL NOT form an alliance due to one being a WvW community/raid guild, and the other being a roamer guild, or a PvX/casual guild full of friends who sometimes jump to WvW with their less-casual WvW buddy.

Any response would be greatly appreciated, either conformation that this could POSSIBLY be done, or some explanation as to why this is not possible.

Thanks for your hard work, and the increased communication regarding a great game-mode.

Just my thoughts:

1) I would say no, because that opens up a potential loophole/exploit for loading a world2) If the first guild is a guarantee (100%) then the 2nd guild would be completely irrelevant because it would never come into play, at least not for the person doing the selecting. Unless you mean this as a mechanism for getting OTHER people in the 2nd guild into the world where the first guild's alliance is set? I would have the same objection to that as to the first argument, i.e. potential exploiting to stack a world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Euryon.9248 said:

@pombear.1058 said:Questions:
  1. Will the Matchmaker attempt (NOT GUARANTEE) to place players with their guilds if none is set as a 'personal-wvw-guild'?
  2. Is it possible to have 1 guild be a GUARANTEE placement (already stated to be coming), with a second being a PREFERRED placement.If i am correct, this would not make too much a difference to the matchmaker, due to the 2nd guild NOT being guaranteed.

This is due to seeing multiple posts in the main 35page (at time of writing) thread from people saying they are in multiple guilds that WILL NOT form an alliance due to one being a WvW community/raid guild, and the other being a roamer guild, or a PvX/casual guild full of friends who sometimes jump to WvW with their less-casual WvW buddy.

Any response would be greatly appreciated, either conformation that this could POSSIBLY be done, or some explanation as to why this is not possible.

Thanks for your hard work, and the increased communication regarding a great game-mode.

Just my thoughts:

1) I would say no, because that opens up a potential loophole/exploit for loading a world2) If the first guild is a guarantee (100%) then the 2nd guild would be completely irrelevant because it would never come into play, at least not for the person doing the selecting. Unless you mean this as a mechanism for getting OTHER people in the 2nd guild into the world where the first guild's alliance is set? I would have the same objection to that as to the first argument, i.e. potential exploiting to stack a world.

I understand the issues around stacking, and agree that this sort of thing could be used for it, hence some clarification:What i am suggesting is similar to the current PvE maps, where it prioritizes guilds, but if you cannot fit (in this case if it would skew matchmaking), then you don't get in.This is further reduced by 2) where only 1 guild is 'preferred'.

Or even being able to select a LIMITED number of friends who would be 'prefered', if a guild has too much potential to be used for stacking.This could further be secured by having it so that both players must select eachother for the prefered status to be active...Remember an alliance could be ~20-50% (based on 500 being 20-25% and 500-1000 limit in alliance) of a world size, plenty of room for more guilds/alliances/players.

IMO, GW2 has always been about allowing friends to play together, Mega-servers, Region-based SPvP, the only (slight) outlier has been WvW, which could be fixed by switching server (my small guild have collectively gathered gold to get guildies onto our server). With this change (as it is currently described), people in multiple guilds who currently play WvW together on the server will get screwed.

Those in multiple WvW guilds would likely make alliances and stay together, but it is highly doubtful that they will accept PvX/casual guilds due to the guild cap, and wanting spaces for those more WvW focused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to guarantee playing with other roamers that you are friends with, then you can make a guild. If you do not want to do that, then there should still be plenty of roamers on the new worlds.

If only just 'making a guild' was that easy. :/Does this sort of thing mean that the number of guilds you can be a part of will be expanded, either for free or for a cost?Because I know I don't have any guild slots free to be able to make or join a more WvW focused guild, and I don't like that this seems like I'm going to be forced to drop one of those, just to join said WvW guild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as i understand.

There is a 1000 pop world of active population composed of wvw guilds and non guilds (individuals).

they will be assigned in a random world.

guild members can play together.

allied guilds can play on the same side by choice on the same world.

as long as that world is not full, others can join whether in the alliance or not. or assigned there if no choice is made and moved every 8 weeks.

is this correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sovereign.1093 said:As far as i understand.

There is a 1000 pop world of active population composed of wvw guilds and non guilds (individuals).

Unknown at this time. That number is an estimate. That would likely be the max for an Alliance. An alliance would be at max 30ish% of a world's population.

they will be assigned in a random world.

What has been said says this is true

guild members can play together.

If they all have the same WvW guild selected at the start of a matchup.

allied guilds can play on the same side by choice on the same world.

As long as their is room in the alliance.

as long as that world is not full, others can join whether in the alliance or not. or assigned there if no choice is made and moved every 8 weeks.

As of what we have been told, yes. But likely would be a transfer fee. And no promise when next season hits.

is this correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We would use commander time and squad sizes to determine a scaler to that commander players play time. For example, these are not the real values but I am not even a full cup of coffee in so for my sake I am going to make the math easy, PlayerA, PlayerB and PlayerC all play for roughly 100 hours a week. PlayerA commands smaller havoc squads, PlayerB is a PUG zerg commander, and PlayerC does not command. "

I would like to touch on something from this snippet.You talk about Commanders that command small Havoc Squads....The problem with that wording is that you CAN'T Command a small Havoc Squad, because in your terms a Commander is "Pinned Up". When you pin up you gather unwanted numbers which makes your Havoc Squad no longer a Havoc Squad, but a Zerg/Blob.My Guild runs Havoc 99% of the time, and now and then 1 of us might pin to pull numbers.We run un-pinned and we do a LOT of work for the server we are on and/or linked with. But get no recognition for this, because we cannot do what we do, IF we were to pin, and be recognized by Anet as a Squad.Unless I am wrong and Anet has a way to count Squads that are not pinned?Havoc Squads are very important to any type of "war", and should be SEEN as viable without having to "Command/Pin Up".

Thanks for reading!

And thanks for making these changes, Anet. Long overdue!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Sovereign.1093" said:in visual form.

{world (alliance [guilds]) (individuals)} > 1000?

"World" likely more than 1000 yes. "Could" be each alliance has up to 500 in it, and up to 2 alliances in a world. Non allied guilds could also be in that world, with individuals also as long as the total does go over (let's just use an arbitrary number) 2000 people.

So... guild size for this purpose 'might' be different than current cap. But, even now, most guilds (and I'd argue likely all) that are at the current cap, don't have all of them playing WvW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE Roamers.. Since you asked here..

How will it work for people that dont have a real WvW guild, or are only in a PVX guild, or, even the few that are .. gasp.. guildless? Those players cannot select NA/EU or a primary language, from the way the system is described.

Some of us roamers ARE in WvW guilds, so we wont have to worry about that so much. However, since we cant play at the main times our guild fights, how much do we skew the numbers? Is that a concern, since you are looking at a granular player level, as well as a guild level? What about those of us who have commander tags but, use them to troll the enemy with a tag to distract from the real commander on the map?

What if our participation is high one week, then low the next? Are you using an average or a peak to peak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TheWolf.1602 said:What is missing in this FAQ is the outnumbered bonus, assuming the ideal situation of (near) equal population balance and time coverage would mean that the outnumbered bonus would be gone. Are those pips going to be moved to other criteria (multiple tiers of commitment) or will they be a thing of the past?

That's the million dollar question. =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Norbe.7630 said:

@TheWolf.1602 said:What is missing in this FAQ is the outnumbered bonus, assuming the ideal situation of (near) equal population balance and time coverage would mean that the outnumbered bonus would be gone. Are those pips going to be moved to other criteria (multiple tiers of commitment) or will they be a thing of the past?

That's the million dollar question. =)Thats overthinking the change. Why would the outnumbered buff even need touching? WvW will still play the same in matchups as it does now, even if some fancy MMR with guilds and alliances was done in the background when the world was formed. And right now, how the sides are balanced doesnt matter for outmanned. You can be leading a matchup and still be outmanned on DBL cause you got 10 people against a 50 man that just descended on the border.

Ideal world populations in balanced matchups doesnt suddenly mean permanent 1:1 fights.

This is WvW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Raymond Lukes.6305

QUESTION:Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:@Raymond Lukes.6305

QUESTION:Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

Players make guilds, guilds make alliances

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

QUESTION:Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

Players make guilds, guilds make alliances

I get that. That wasn't the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

QUESTION:Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

Players make guilds, guilds make alliances

I get that. That wasn't the question.

How about this then.

Players make guilds with a limit of players per guild.Guilds make alliances with a limit of guilds per alliance and a limit of players per alliance.Players and guilds and alliances make worlds, with a limit on alliances per world and a limit of play hours compared to other worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

QUESTION:Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

Players make guilds, guilds make alliances

I get that. That wasn't the question.

How about this then.

Players make guilds with a limit of players per guild.Guilds make alliances with a limit of guilds per alliance and a limit of players per alliance.Players and guilds and alliances make worlds, with a limit on alliances per world and a limit of play hours compared to other worlds.

Still not an answer to my question. Will an alliance be allowed to functionally accept individual players not in a guild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

QUESTION:Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

Players make guilds, guilds make alliances

I get that. That wasn't the question.

How about this then.

Players make guilds with a limit of players per guild.Guilds make alliances with a limit of guilds per alliance and a limit of players per alliance.Players and guilds and alliances make worlds, with a limit on alliances per world and a limit of play hours compared to other worlds.

Still not an answer to my question. Will an alliance be allowed to functionally accept individual players not in a guild.

alliances are made of guilds, not individual players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Zolazie Grengche.3051" said:"We would use commander time and squad sizes to determine a scaler to that commander players play time. For example, these are not the real values but I am not even a full cup of coffee in so for my sake I am going to make the math easy, PlayerA, PlayerB and PlayerC all play for roughly 100 hours a week. PlayerA commands smaller havoc squads, PlayerB is a PUG zerg commander, and PlayerC does not command. "

I would like to touch on something from this snippet.You talk about Commanders that command small Havoc Squads....The problem with that wording is that you CAN'T Command a small Havoc Squad, because in your terms a Commander is "Pinned Up". When you pin up you gather unwanted numbers which makes your Havoc Squad no longer a Havoc Squad, but a Zerg/Blob.My Guild runs Havoc 99% of the time, and now and then 1 of us might pin to pull numbers.We run un-pinned and we do a LOT of work for the server we are on and/or linked with. But get no recognition for this, because we cannot do what we do, IF we were to pin, and be recognized by Anet as a Squad.Unless I am wrong and Anet has a way to count Squads that are not pinned?Havoc Squads are very important to any type of "war", and should be SEEN as viable without having to "Command/Pin Up".

Thanks for reading!

And thanks for making these changes, Anet. Long overdue!

My guild does the same thing @"Zolazie Grengche.3051". We've actually gotten in the habit of running tagged in recent months. We just set the squad to closed (nobody can join) and sometimes to semi-open (can join with approval). We mostly run closed since we're all in the same voice chat. Yes, we've gotten some flack from others on the map who have a differing opinion on what a commander tag should be and do and when to fly one. We simply say we're havocing/roaming and proceed with our fun, ignoring the comments. You could try that for the next few months, in order to make sure Anet's new system gets more counting in.

That said, I 100% agree with you that Anet should also watch tagless squads and count those in the new system metrics as well. We still do that alot ourselve.

Better yet --- Anet: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE introduce a "private" or "hidden tag" squad option. This has been a need/problem/annoyance for a LONG time now. This will allow squads like mine and Zolazie's to run a tag -- which our group can see for following and orienting -- and which we need for the squad features -- like /squadinfo and subgroup control -- but no one else on the map can see our tag. And no, turning off the current "Show All Commander Tags" option doesn't solve this problem. This would be a huge benefit to roaming/havoc/small teams that want to NOT attract random followers, but still benefit from the squad features!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:@"Raymond Lukes.6305"

QUESTION:Is the definition of an Alliance a group of guilds?

Or is it a group of guilds AND players?

Most of what I have seen notes that individual players will have the opportunity to select a WvW guild, but not an alliance (again as an individual).

My reading of this: An Alliance is a group of guilds, and that for an individual to be part of an alliance they would need to be part of one of the Alliance Guilds and have that guild selected as their WvW guild.

Players make guilds, guilds make alliances

I get that. That wasn't the question.

How about this then.

Players make guilds with a limit of players per guild.Guilds make alliances with a limit of guilds per alliance and a limit of players per alliance.Players and guilds and alliances make worlds, with a limit on alliances per world and a limit of play hours compared to other worlds.

Still not an answer to my question. Will an alliance be allowed to functionally accept individual players not in a guild.

Anet has not stated that will be the case. However, you make a good point. Random, individual "roamers" should be allowed to join an alliance. Especially if it's a group of people they like to play with or around. It's important to respect different players preferences when it comes to flying solo or being associated with a guild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

//

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"Chaba.5410" said:McKenna wrote:

"We plan to track stats like play hours in WvW, commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels. "

Given that players will only be able to choose one WvW guild per account, the statistics will be skewed for a bit for players with multiple WvW guilds. It is very likely you will need to take current guild membership into account when looking at play hours and make some adjustments to account for guild splits, subtracting hours.

For example, I have one main WvW account and two main WvW guilds that rally at different times. I use a single WvW account for both guilds. But it is very likely that the two guilds will end up on different teams and thus halve the total play hours on the main WvW account. I know I'm not the only player who rallies with more than one WvW guild and will be affected like this.

Your play time will only apply to the guild you select as your WvW guild. You can only select one guild per account. If you play with multiple account then the play time of each account would be applied to the guild that was selected on that account.

This would in effect mean if you have one account and play with two different guilds the total play time for the account will be applied to the guild that you pick. If you are saying that your play time will change as a result of not being able to join your other rally then it will take some time to adjust to your new play hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...