World Restructuring

[Holgaia.8097]

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Most of the time the fighting in WvW is blob vs. blob not guild vs. guild even in high-population servers. More GvG/allience content in WvW implies more 'hardcore-user-friendly'. Many closed guilds will never allow blob light users to join their squad/teamspeak and WvW population will drop down such a boring situation. I know blob vs blob fighting is mostly stupid but don't low-estimate stupid fight which attract for the new comers who fill 99% of idle time. In some sense blob fighting is the core of WvW.

[Arcadius.1247]

I just wanted to thank ANET for this. I know some are upset because it's going to split your community, well only a little bit since every server will probably make an alliance so your super active people will still be together. The main reason I LOVE this change is because there are a lot of PvE guilds out there who only don't do WvW because everyone is on different servers. My guild for example will be coming to WvW once this change comes about.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@"Holgaia.8097" said:I'm not sure this is a good idea. Most of the time the fighting in WvW is blob vs. blob not guild vs. guild even in high-population servers. More GvG/allience content in WvW implies more 'hardcore-user-friendly'. Many closed guilds will never allow blob light users to join their squad/teamspeak and WvW population will drop down such a boring situation. I know blob vs blob fighting is mostly stupid but don't low-estimate stupid fight which attract for the new comers who fill 99% of idle time. In some sense blob fighting is the core of WvW.

I think that's why the intent is to make sure that a given guild/alliance does not make up more that 50% of a world. That way there is still a mix of people filling in the rest and potentially acting as a stop gap to "they who can stack best wins" syndrome. But proof will be in the algorithms doing the mixes and what stats actually equal what is expected turn out.

Its best to assume for some rough waters in the beginning though and be pleasantly surprised versus assume awesome day 1 and you get crushed. I would also expect an initial population boost as people try the new shiny versus some tappering off after a while. We will also get people coming and saying see this worked with that initial boost and the people that will say see this failed when levels normalize. Where as in reality, people like to try new thing but its not always for them and the new shinny is a bouncing ball.

Good hunting!

[Sojourner.4621]

@Donari.5237 said:

@Tolmos.8395 said:

@Donari.5237 said:

@"Sojourner.4621" said:

As a bonus to non-RPers, if the checkbox is the TOP shard sorting priority, with all others being below it... it could actually keep some non-RPers from having to see Emotes all over the place with their awful long range.

I actually don't think making it top priority is the best idea. If we get this checkbox I'm checking it and leaving it on forever. But I still want to do non-RP PVE, and I feel that if I've joined a party, squad, or guild, or put someone on my friends list, then those are the people I want to default join in maps. It's a much smaller pool for me than thousands of RPers out there. If I've gone to the trouble of marking someone as being of particular relevance to me, however transitorily in the case of parties and squads, then the game should try to load me into the same maps as them. (Caveat: to prevent stalking, friend weighting should only occur for players who have friended each other).

Once my list of named people has been checked through for map joining, THEN toss me in with others who have flagged as RP. The "join in" map feature is handy but it's much better to just start out sharing the map.

I would imagine it would be a top priority, primarily because the logical flow for things like this is conscious decision first, followed by passive decisions next.

Checking a checkbox whose sole purpose is to change your server channel is the highest level conscious decision you can make about where to end up. After that, passive things like friends list and guild, etc etc.

If friends list overrode the checkbox, then folks would have to sanitize their friends list to make the box work. I doubt that would pass Anets QA to get released

I see your point. It's certainly an arguable one (lawyer speak for it has a solid basis). I think I'm coming from a slightly different angle, though. To me, actively selecting a person to friend, guild, party, or squad with is a conscious decision and moment-to-moment choice. Whereas flagging for RP is a one time choice that then becomes a passive factor. "Please put me in maps with random people who also say they RP" vs "Please put me in the same DS map as the squad I joined, oh and if there are non-squad RP people porting to DS hey, if enough of the squad has flagged RP odds are the loners will be with us too." Could help that my friends list is very short and with one exception contains people I'm always happy to see, that exception being a proven scam beggar who always needs just 3 more of x valuable mat, in map after map, day after day, and I want to know it's that same jerk if I see the begging.

Besides, think of the pool sizes. What are the odds that a dozen or two on your friends list will all simultaneously decide to join the same zone as you? Whereas out of thousands of RPers, given a goal of just randomly getting mixed with them, the odds are much higher.

I think that you're partially correct here in that party sorting should be a priority over checkbox sorting if this were the route they went... that makes sense and I hadn't quite thought it through completely before posting, although if they are in a party or squad you can of course always join on someone so that could be an argument against potentially. My thing is, I think RP should be high priority sorting MOSTLY because as it stands now, with World Choice being basically the lowest sorting priority after party, friends, and then guild, I almost never see people out RPing in areas that aren't the major hub areas (the cities ofc)... which used to be something that I saw all the time. I'm just sorta hoping for a way to find that again.

[Zephyr.8015]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@Zephyr.8015 said:

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:There has been some talk about using Blackgate as an example in the post. Blackgate has been at the top of player activity hours in WvW for a very long time in NA. BG's numbers are twice as big as the average world on NA (without world linking) and 30% larger then the average NA host world. I'm not saying Blackgate hasn't suffered losses of players and coverage but BG is still on top for activity. IT'S NOT JUST BLACKGATE though.Here are all the worlds in NA and EU ordered by size names have been omitted to protect the innocent:

So you're are saying that BG has the most WvW hours played, you are not saying that BG has the most players. Played hours does NOT equal population. It is unfair to say that in general. Like tonight we have scouts, commanders, and players in general that spend hours or most of their day in WvW. BG players have stated numerous times that we have dedicated players and guilds who care about our standing in WvW. I'd love to see a statistic for average played hours per person/per server in WvW.

You are correct play hours is not the same as unique player population. We have found that it more accurately represents the ability of a world to "hold it's own" in WvW. That being said your position on that chart does not change compared to the other NA servers if we use unique player population.

When average play hours on BG are 30% higher than the average play hours of host worlds and double the average of all worlds, yea, those play hours are going to come from having more people, not fewer people who play longer hours. A host world would go Full status long before it was able to achieve parity with BG.

Given what currently seems to constitute the line between Very High and Full, I'd anticipate that the new worlds after restructuring will roughly be the side of a current T2 linked server.

They are not double average of all worlds, please go read that post again with the chart. It is double the average NA, and 30% larger than NA host + Link. I know plenty of players who put in 4+ hour commanding sessions, same with scouting, also lots of guilds who are in WvW probably 40hrs a week or more. If you want to continue to make the assumption BG has a larger unique player population when an Anet Dev has already stated WvW play hours are not indicative of population by all means I wont stop you.

[Tolmos.8395]

@Donari.5237 said:

@Tolmos.8395 said:

@Donari.5237 said:

@"Sojourner.4621" said:

As a bonus to non-RPers, if the checkbox is the TOP shard sorting priority, with all others being below it... it could actually keep some non-RPers from having to see Emotes all over the place with their awful long range.

I actually don't think making it top priority is the best idea. If we get this checkbox I'm checking it and leaving it on forever. But I still want to do non-RP PVE, and I feel that if I've joined a party, squad, or guild, or put someone on my friends list, then those are the people I want to default join in maps. It's a much smaller pool for me than thousands of RPers out there. If I've gone to the trouble of marking someone as being of particular relevance to me, however transitorily in the case of parties and squads, then the game should try to load me into the same maps as them. (Caveat: to prevent stalking, friend weighting should only occur for players who have friended each other).

Once my list of named people has been checked through for map joining, THEN toss me in with others who have flagged as RP. The "join in" map feature is handy but it's much better to just start out sharing the map.

I would imagine it would be a top priority, primarily because the logical flow for things like this is conscious decision first, followed by passive decisions next.

Checking a checkbox whose sole purpose is to change your server channel is the highest level conscious decision you can make about where to end up. After that, passive things like friends list and guild, etc etc.

If friends list overrode the checkbox, then folks would have to sanitize their friends list to make the box work. I doubt that would pass Anets QA to get released

I see your point. It's certainly an arguable one (lawyer speak for it has a solid basis). I think I'm coming from a slightly different angle, though. To me, actively selecting a person to friend, guild, party, or squad with is a conscious decision and moment-to-moment choice. Whereas flagging for RP is a one time choice that then becomes a passive factor. "Please put me in maps with random people who also say they RP" vs "Please put me in the same DS map as the squad I joined, oh and if there are non-squad RP people porting to DS hey, if enough of the squad has flagged RP odds are the loners will be with us too." Could help that my friends list is very short and with one exception contains people I'm always happy to see, that exception being a proven scam beggar who always needs just 3 more of x valuable mat, in map after map, day after day, and I want to know it's that same jerk if I see the begging.

Besides, think of the pool sizes. What are the odds that a dozen or two on your friends list will all simultaneously decide to join the same zone as you? Whereas out of thousands of RPers, given a goal of just randomly getting mixed with them, the odds are much higher.

I can definitely see your point in the aspect of parties. Parties should trump everything else.

Now, the following is just my own opinion. Different software devs view things in different ways, so just because I see it this way doesn’t mean a thing in regards to how the devs at Anet would see it:

The reason that I figure the checkbox is a logical higher sorting than friends list is because friends list is what we would normally refer to as a “fire and forget” sort of thing. You add someone to your list and don’t think about it. Currently, there are few reasons to clean that list out. On the other hand, the checkbox is a single purpose action, to specifically designed to say “override where you normally would send me and send me here instead.”

This distinction is important, because people could have very full friends lists. If the player logging in decides “ok, I want to RP today”, but members of their friends list are non-RPers hanging out in the zone they want to RP in, the player would be beholden to the choices of their friends list to where they end up.

What is important here is level of effort to correct. If the checkbox overrides all, then not ending up in the right instance because of that box could be corrected with an action as simple as unchecking and rezoning.

In contrast, if friends list overrides the checkbox, correcting the issue would require removing the offending players from the friends list and then rezoning. Depending on the length of the friends list, this could be a timely undertaking if you also want to add them all back once in the zone.

[Chaba.5410]

@Zephyr.8015 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@Zephyr.8015 said:

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:There has been some talk about using Blackgate as an example in the post. Blackgate has been at the top of player activity hours in WvW for a very long time in NA. BG's numbers are twice as big as the average world on NA (without world linking) and 30% larger then the average NA host world. I'm not saying Blackgate hasn't suffered losses of players and coverage but BG is still on top for activity. IT'S NOT JUST BLACKGATE though.Here are all the worlds in NA and EU ordered by size names have been omitted to protect the innocent:

So you're are saying that BG has the most WvW hours played, you are not saying that BG has the most players. Played hours does NOT equal population. It is unfair to say that in general. Like tonight we have scouts, commanders, and players in general that spend hours or most of their day in WvW. BG players have stated numerous times that we have dedicated players and guilds who care about our standing in WvW. I'd love to see a statistic for average played hours per person/per server in WvW.

You are correct play hours is not the same as unique player population. We have found that it more accurately represents the ability of a world to "hold it's own" in WvW. That being said your position on that chart does not change compared to the other NA servers if we use unique player population.

When average play hours on BG are 30% higher than the average play hours of host worlds and double the average of all worlds, yea, those play hours are going to come from having more people, not fewer people who play longer hours. A host world would go Full status long before it was able to achieve parity with BG.

Given what currently seems to constitute the line between Very High and Full, I'd anticipate that the new worlds after restructuring will roughly be the side of a current T2 linked server.

They are not double average of all worlds, please go read that post again with the chart. It is double the average NA, and 30% larger than NA host + Link. I know plenty of players who put in 4+ hour commanding sessions, same with scouting, also lots of guilds who are in WvW probably 40hrs a week or more. If you want to continue to make the assumption BG has a larger unique player population when an Anet Dev has already stated WvW play hours are not indicative of population by all means I wont stop you.

OK. Double the average of all NA worlds. Does that change the fact that an Anet dev said BG's position on the chart does not change if they use unique player population? No.

A 30% higher average than host worlds cannot be overcome by you knowing "plenty" who put in 4+ hours a day because it is an average. FA and formerly JQ could only come within 10% of BG's playhours recently (with JQ being larger than FA) and that was with a lot of players also putting in lots of hours. FA was Full and we didn't get open until those players who were overtiming (one commander in particular putting in over 12 hours almost every day) got burned out doing it while fighting against linked worlds that were made to be higher than BG's playhours. More players = higher play hours without so much overtiming.

[Isbot.6701]

I have been on Ferguson's Crossing (FC) since the game came out and WvW has been my favorite game mode for the last 4+ years. Last week we had a discussion of these changes that included around 40 active FC WvW players in our discord channel.

The one thing that was very clear is that all of those who communicated wanted to continue to play together. Since then I have talked to a number of FC people and their response has been the same. They want to continue to play with the FC people that they have gotten to know over the years.

FC is mostly made up of many smaller guilds. (I came up with 25+ off the top of my head that I have seen in the last 2 weeks) and most people identify very strongly with their guild. To clarify what I mean by smaller guilds, most have 2-8 active WvW members and the larger FC guilds generally have 15-25 active WvW members.

For FC to continue to play together one of a couple of things will happen.

1) The number of guilds in an alliance is set to a high number so we can all join together as we are.2) The above doesn't happen and we at FC need to form our own "server" guild and invite everybody who wants to continue to play together.

If scenario 2 comes to pass I would ask that a 6th guild slot be added so people can stay in their current guilds and also join this new WvW guild.Thank you very much for listening to our feedback and I look forward to more information on the new system as it is finalized and released.

Able Sentry

[Euryon.9248]

@"Isbot.6701" said:

1) The number of guilds in an alliance is set to a high number so we can all join together as we are.2) The above doesn't happen and we at FC need to form our own "server" guild and invite everybody who wants to continue to play together.

If scenario 2 comes to pass I would ask that a 6th guild slot be added so people can stay in their current guilds and also join this new WvW guild.Thank you very much for listening to our feedback and I look forward to more information on the new system as it is finalized and released.

Able Sentry

Agreed. The one thing I don't want to see is an artificially low guild cap combined with an inability to add any more guild slots. I think that could cause some real issues for some people. My hope continues to be that any guild cap for a single alliance is set at a high number only to prevent the most extreme cases (200-500 guilds consisting entirely of 1-2 people, for example).

[Grim West.3194]

@"Isbot.6701" said:I have been on Ferguson's Crossing (FC) since the game came out and WvW has been my favorite game mode for the last 4+ years. Last week we had a discussion of these changes that included around 40 active FC WvW players in our discord channel.

The one thing that was very clear is that all of those who communicated wanted to continue to play together. Since then I have talked to a number of FC people and their response has been the same. They want to continue to play with the FC people that they have gotten to know over the years.

FC is mostly made up of many smaller guilds. (I came up with 25+ off the top of my head that I have seen in the last 2 weeks) and most people identify very strongly with their guild. To clarify what I mean by smaller guilds, most have 2-8 active WvW members and the larger FC guilds generally have 15-25 active WvW members.

For FC to continue to play together one of a couple of things will happen.

1) The number of guilds in an alliance is set to a high number so we can all join together as we are.2) The above doesn't happen and we at FC need to form our own "server" guild and invite everybody who wants to continue to play together.

If scenario 2 comes to pass I would ask that a 6th guild slot be added so people can stay in their current guilds and also join this new WvW guild.Thank you very much for listening to our feedback and I look forward to more information on the new system as it is finalized and released.

Able Sentry

These are good suggestions.

Don't see a reason to have limits to the amount of guilds in an alliance. Perhaps the devs can tell us why this is needed. But if they do limit the amount of guilds in an alliance then a sixth guild slot makes sense. Especially if it is exclusively for the WvW guild you represent. If a player doesn't have a WvW only guild then it would remain open. Which has the added benefit of subliminally encouraging players to choose a WvW only guild.

[Raymond Lukes.6305]

@hmsgoddess.3869 said:I'd like to make a suggestion in regards to alliances and number cap. As a guild leader I am in charge of making alliances that benefits my guild, that said this means I need to know how many of my guild members are choosing my guild as their WvW guild, as you can imagine one larger guilds this is a guild leader nightmare. I need to know how many are choosing my guild as their WvW guild. When the time comes, I do hope that ANET places some sort of UI that guild leaders can see as to whom is selecting their guild as the WvW guild choice. A simple 50/100 have selected this guild for WvW is fine it would at least give guild leaders a base number to foster alliances with. Just my 2 cents.

There will be UI to help manage the guild aspects of this change so you'll defiantly be able to see guild members that have picked your guild as their WvW guild.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@hmsgoddess.3869 said:I'd like to make a suggestion in regards to alliances and number cap. As a guild leader I am in charge of making alliances that benefits my guild, that said this means I need to know how many of my guild members are choosing my guild as their WvW guild, as you can imagine one larger guilds this is a guild leader nightmare. I need to know how many are choosing my guild as their WvW guild. When the time comes, I do hope that ANET places some sort of UI that guild leaders can see as to whom is selecting their guild as the WvW guild choice. A simple 50/100 have selected this guild for WvW is fine it would at least give guild leaders a base number to foster alliances with. Just my 2 cents.

There will be UI to help manage the guild aspects of this change so you'll

defiantly

be able to see guild members that have picked your guild as their WvW guild.

There's that word again. :joy:

[Shiera.3152]

I have a couple of questions I really need answered before I decide which side of the fence I sit on with this issue:

1. Why would any guild ever NOT set themselves as a WvW guild?

It seems as if setting yourself as a WvW makes the system put the players in it together on the same WvW team - with no downside at all.Surely even casual PvE guilds would do this, just in case a few of their members want to WvW together occasionally: perhaps for the Guild Mission? Or a Daily Achievement?Surely if all the people I know who WvW I know through my PvE guilds, then why would I ever not set that as a WvW guild? Even if the guild itself is utterly unrelated to WvW, and just happens to have some WvW-ers in it.This of course doesn't really benefit the WvW-ers, but I can see this being done by the PvE guilds just in case.

What I don't want is the situation where I have to leave one of my current guilds just to join a WvW guild just so I can play with friends via that WvW guild (UNLESS anet gives out some more guild slots to allow for this)

2. Will Guild missions or Daily achievements be changed due to this?

Will the WvW dailies get an overhaul due to this system?

I think we can all agree that the Guild Mission system is overdue an overhaul, but surely the new system might potentially lock out players from doing Guild Missions for 8 weeks if you get assigned wrong and don't have enough people to help you complete them?I understand that WvW Guild Missions will be easier under the new system than the old system, but I suspect Anet might want to force WvW-dedicated guilds into the WvW Guild Missions as discouragement for point 1, which would make PvE social guilds really struggle to organise people together in WvW.

3. Will followers be included? or just friends?

If friends are taken into account then surely followers have to be as well?This becomes a problem for regular commanders who have lots of followers, but don't want to add them all to their friends list - which is most I suspect.

4. Will the system take account of who in your friends list plays the most in WvW, or who you talk to the most or something?

I lead a World Boss tour every day (pretty much) in PvE, and have done for several years now, as a result of this I have literally hundreds of friends, and even more followers.If I get placed based upon my friends list only, then I fear I will get placed utterly randomly, because so many of my friends WvW regularly that it will be impossible to discern one server for me since they will all play on different ones (due to them all having their own friends/guilds) - this problem gets worse if my followers are included...

The 'easy' solution to me is to have my main (PvE-focused) guild set as a WvW guild so I can select it as my WvW guild and hope I get placed with the other WvW-ers in that guild, even if they don't reciprocate, which brings me back to point 1...

5. What if somebody wants to play only a bit of WvW? or only occasionally?

As somebody who likes WvW but doesn't play every day or even every week, will my lack of WvW-ing mean I sometimes get not put with some of my friends because they WvW 'frequently' and I do not?

6. What about new players? or people with multiple conflicting agendas?

I know several hardcore WvW players, and I suspect I might like to play with them during a single matchup, but if there is no way to transfer and I don't get assigned to their world, then we can't play together?Similarly for new players: If they find a guild or friends or something that makes them want to play with a specific world during a matchup, do they have to wait until the next matchup starts to have a chance of playing with them?I know it said that worlds are freely transferable, but they also said that only works if worlds aren't 'full' (90%+)

7. Will this actually solve the problem if the populations aren't locked?

We have unbalances in the current population because people have transferred to worlds that have high population due to how 'population' is defined and so on.Surely this might happen again: If everybody transfers onto a few specific worlds as the season begins and they all become full, then all the other worlds will have low populations against much higher ones, and will thus lose, but they can't transfer to a higher world because those are full, or have 90% and require guild membership to join.It won't be as extreme population disparity as the current system, but it could still create a disparity I think.I can see this might not happen (or even: probably won't happen), as it requires quite a bit more organization, but I can't see any reason why it couldn't happen...

---

Finally, and what is in my opinion the most important question:

8. Is anet willing to revert back to the old WvW system if this turns out to be a disaster?

It's unlikely, but if after say 6 months (or however long) we all see that this system isn't working out, will anet be willing to revert back to the old system, at least until they come up with a new system or come up with ways to fix it?

---

As a final point I will have to insist on titles that represent the worlds we used to be in - perhaps higher tiers or different classes of title for how long we played in that world or what rank we reached in there, or even what gameplay style we had in it'Legendary Gandaran Commander''Lethal Far Shiverpeaks Scout''Dedicated Blacktide sieger'or whatever(I would very much like my own 'Immortal Vabbian Scout' title - make it happen anet!)

[Imi.4721]

It is a really good idea and it is something that needs to happen.Just a few initial thoughts:

1) As others said 1000 people per alliance is a bit too much for the start at least.500 seems much more reasonable.2) Of course when this system lands there will be some time needed to find solutions to the potential problems that will occur.But at some point soon you need to give people a motive to "win". Yeah the 3 seasons did harm to the game mode overall but imo that was caused mainly because they were handled poorly.With this new system it will be a bit easier to prevent overstacking at least till 1 point.3) The way you take and give feedback in this thread is a pleasant surprise and hopefully this is a new start for the long "communicating with anet about wvw" problem.4) Way too many people want to come back to check the game again when the new system comes so you should try to capitalize further on the hype that will definitely come.

[Frozen Peace.4930]

Coming from a casual WvW guild, it feels like 500-people limit per alliance is a bit on the low side. We have many casual players who don't play the game on consistent basis but enjoys the WvW mode.

Also, I hope the maximum number of guilds per alliance is more than 5. We know many small guilds whom we would love to have in our alliance.

Thank you.

Frozen

[Thelgar.7214]

I have four accounts, two of them with both expansions and with characters in legendary/ascended gear. It looks like I'll be able to swap those two accounts to play with a different WvW guild every 8 weeks. So, I could play with Dcon on my main account and WL on my secondary account for eight weeks, then swap so I can play with WL on my main account and Dcon on my secondary account for eight weeks. And all I need to do is switch which guild is my WvW guild for each account. Is that switch going to cost me anything?

[Euryon.9248]

@"Shiera.3152" said:I have a couple of questions I really need answered before I decide which side of the fence I sit on with this issue:I will take a stab at a couple of these

1. Why would any guild ever NOT set themselves as a WvW guild?I don't think Anet has provided us with a reason for a guild not to set that flag. An individual may have 5 guilds all flagged to be potential wvw guilds, but since he can only pick one, he will only be counted once. Anet hasn't said what setting that flag will do for the guild that might negatively impact them.

2. Will Guild missions or Daily achievements be changed due to this?

I"m fairly certain they have said that setting this flag will NOT affect your GMs in any way. Largely PvE guilds that have PvE set as their GM focus will be able to keep that even if checking the WvW guild box.

3. Will followers be included? or just friends?Included in what? World assignment? I certainly hope not, that would be an incredibly easy way to exploit the world composition. So far guild membership and with it alliance membership appears to be the only factor in the non-random world assigment.

4. Will the system take account of who in your friends list plays the most in WvW, or who you talk to the most or something?See above, friends lists should have zero impact on world population distribution. Many of your following questions seem to be addressed with this point.

I know several hardcore WvW players, and I suspect I might like to play with them during a single matchup, but if there is no way to transfer and I don't get assigned to their world, then we can't play together?If you aren't in their alliance, you aren't guaranteed to be on the same world. You might randomly be assigned together from time to time, though.

7. Will this actually solve the problem if the populations aren't locked?

We have unbalances in the current population because people have transferred to worlds that have high population due to how 'population' is defined and so on.Surely this might happen again: If everybody transfers onto a few specific worlds as the season begins and they all become full, then all the other worlds will have low populations against much higher ones, and will thus lose, but they can't transfer to a higher world because those are full, or have 90% and require guild membership to join.It won't be as extreme population disparity as the current system, but it could still create a disparity I think.The difference between the fullest and "emptiest" world in the new system will be vastly less than the current server imbalance. That's the main impulse for this initiative; world sizes will start out as equal as Anet can make them, perhaps with a slight cap buffer for new people coming into the system during the season, but it will not even slightly approach the kinds of imbalances between servers we see today.

[Klypto.1703]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@hmsgoddess.3869 said:I'd like to make a suggestion in regards to alliances and number cap. As a guild leader I am in charge of making alliances that benefits my guild, that said this means I need to know how many of my guild members are choosing my guild as their WvW guild, as you can imagine one larger guilds this is a guild leader nightmare. I need to know how many are choosing my guild as their WvW guild. When the time comes, I do hope that ANET places some sort of UI that guild leaders can see as to whom is selecting their guild as the WvW guild choice. A simple 50/100 have selected this guild for WvW is fine it would at least give guild leaders a base number to foster alliances with. Just my 2 cents.

There will be UI to help manage the guild aspects of this change so you'll defiantly be able to see guild members that have picked your guild as their WvW guild.

One issue regarding guilds and this may or may not happen with restructuring but a certain server I am on they basically are toxic to anything except afking inside smc waiting for someone to attack it. That problem being said some of us smaller guilds had to make alt guilds just to have enough claims if this issue persists in the restructuring will we be able to claim objectives outside of the wvw guild we choose? thx

[Loosmaster.8263]

@"Thelgar.7214" said:I have four accounts, two of them with both expansions and with characters in legendary/ascended gear. It looks like I'll be able to swap those two accounts to play with a different WvW guild every 8 weeks. So, I could play with Dcon on my main account and WL on my secondary account for eight weeks, then swap so I can play with WL on my main account and Dcon on my secondary account for eight weeks. And all I need to do is switch which guild is my WvW guild for each account. Is that switch going to cost me anything?

On the cost, "No". You will have to do the guild switch before the last week of the season. It will not take effect until the start of the next season.Transfers only cost on the restructure if you decide to move during the season and if the world is not full.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

@"Thelgar.7214" said:I have four accounts, two of them with both expansions and with characters in legendary/ascended gear. It looks like I'll be able to swap those two accounts to play with a different WvW guild every 8 weeks. So, I could play with Dcon on my main account and WL on my secondary account for eight weeks, then swap so I can play with WL on my main account and Dcon on my secondary account for eight weeks. And all I need to do is switch which guild is my WvW guild for each account. Is that switch going to cost me anything?

On the cost, "No". You will have to do the guild switch before the last week of the season. It will not take effect until the start of the next season.Transfers only cost on the restructure if you decide to move during the season and if the world is not full.

Except if the guild is in an alliance, and that alliance is full, the switch may keep you from playing with them. Not sure how they will prioritize, but I am sure done form of a wait list will exist for full alliances... though that is speculation.

[Thelgar.7214]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

@"Thelgar.7214" said:I have four accounts, two of them with both expansions and with characters in legendary/ascended gear. It looks like I'll be able to swap those two accounts to play with a different WvW guild every 8 weeks. So, I could play with Dcon on my main account and WL on my secondary account for eight weeks, then swap so I can play with WL on my main account and Dcon on my secondary account for eight weeks. And all I need to do is switch which guild is my WvW guild for each account. Is that switch going to cost me anything?

On the cost, "No". You will have to do the guild switch before the last week of the season. It will not take effect until the start of the next season.Transfers only cost on the restructure if you decide to move during the season and if the world is not full.

Except if the guild is in an alliance, and that alliance is full, the switch may keep you from playing with them. Not sure how they will prioritize, but I am sure done form of a wait list will exist for full alliances... though that is speculation.

I would hope an alliance I'm part of would recognize that I'm the same person and switching accounts wouldn't move me to the bottom of a list. :)

[Kovu.7560]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"hmsgoddess.3869" said:I'd like to make a suggestion in regards to alliances and number cap. As a guild leader I am in charge of making alliances that benefits my guild, that said this means I need to know how many of my guild members are choosing my guild as their WvW guild, as you can imagine one larger guilds this is a guild leader nightmare. I need to know how many are choosing my guild as their WvW guild. When the time comes, I do hope that ANET places some sort of UI that guild leaders can see as to whom is selecting their guild as the WvW guild choice. A simple 50/100 have selected this guild for WvW is fine it would at least give guild leaders a base number to foster alliances with. Just my 2 cents.

There will be UI to help manage the guild aspects of this change so you'll

defiantly

be able to see guild members that have picked your guild as their WvW guild.

There's that word again. :joy:

Image

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Thelgar.7214 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

@Thelgar.7214 said:I have four accounts, two of them with both expansions and with characters in legendary/ascended gear. It looks like I'll be able to swap those two accounts to play with a different WvW guild every 8 weeks. So, I could play with Dcon on my main account and WL on my secondary account for eight weeks, then swap so I can play with WL on my main account and Dcon on my secondary account for eight weeks. And all I need to do is switch which guild is my WvW guild for each account. Is that switch going to cost me anything?

On the cost, "No". You will have to do the guild switch before the last week of the season. It will not take effect until the start of the next season.Transfers only cost on the restructure if you decide to move during the season and if the world is not full.

Except if the guild is in an alliance, and that alliance is full, the switch may keep you from playing with them. Not sure how they will prioritize, but I am sure done form of a wait list will exist for full alliances... though that is speculation.

I would hope an alliance I'm part of would recognize that I'm the same person and switching accounts wouldn't move me to the bottom of a list. :)

:smile:Would argue they would like to do that. I am not sure they would have a choice. Would it be an automatic queue? That would be my question to the process.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Grim West.3194 said:

@"Isbot.6701" said:I have been on Ferguson's Crossing (FC) since the game came out and WvW has been my favorite game mode for the last 4+ years. Last week we had a discussion of these changes that included around 40 active FC WvW players in our discord channel.

The one thing that was very clear is that all of those who communicated wanted to continue to play together. Since then I have talked to a number of FC people and their response has been the same. They want to continue to play with the FC people that they have gotten to know over the years.

FC is mostly made up of many smaller guilds. (I came up with 25+ off the top of my head that I have seen in the last 2 weeks) and most people identify very strongly with their guild. To clarify what I mean by smaller guilds, most have 2-8 active WvW members and the larger FC guilds generally have 15-25 active WvW members.

For FC to continue to play together one of a couple of things will happen.

1) The number of guilds in an alliance is set to a high number so we can all join together as we are.2) The above doesn't happen and we at FC need to form our own "server" guild and invite everybody who wants to continue to play together.

If scenario 2 comes to pass I would ask that a 6th guild slot be added so people can stay in their current guilds and also join this new WvW guild.Thank you very much for listening to our feedback and I look forward to more information on the new system as it is finalized and released.

Able Sentry

These are good suggestions.

Don't see a reason to have limits to the amount of guilds in an alliance. Perhaps the devs can tell us why this is needed. But if they do limit the amount of guilds in an alliance then a sixth guild slot makes sense. Especially if it is exclusively for the WvW guild you represent. If a player doesn't have a WvW only guild then it would remain open. Which has the added benefit of subliminally encouraging players to choose a WvW only guild.

There is a reason and its mmr.

If you have say 30 small guilds that want to be in an alliance that means you only got 1 alliance to slot into a world.

If these where 6 alliances, you got much more flexibility as each could be put in where needed to balance against the opponents. All 6 could be on one world, or spread on 2, or 6.

This is what make the new system work for population balance... so yeah thats the reason.

The only reason we even need alliances is just because of small guilds. The new system would work just as good with just guilds and no alliances period. Problem is that forces max size guilds. Alliance allow guilds to group up, like a 5 man party. You dont want too big parties.

[archerspk.7394]

i LOVE this idea