World Restructuring FAQ

[Euryon.9248]

@SugarCayne.3098 said:

@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.

//

@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.

Not sure what the point of this is, the 2 posts you've linked have nothing to do with each other. One is about repping, the other is about computing play hours to be used to balance the first (and only the first) session in the new system.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 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.Lol why should individual players even be needed? Just join one of the guilds in the alliance. Thats how an alliance accept a new player.

If there are no more guild slots, you dont want to join one of the guilds or no one want you in their guild then why the hell should you be in the alliance?

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 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.Lol why should individual players even be needed? Just join one of the guilds in the alliance. Thats how an alliance accept a new player.

If there are no more guild slots, you dont want to join one of the guilds or no one want you in their guild then why the hell should you be in the alliance?

Functionally, you are correct. I haven't seen the answer though. Whether we can see why it would be desired or not, there are some who would want this option.

The question is whether it is an option nor not. Not whether it SHOULD BE or not.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 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.Lol why should individual players even be needed? Just join one of the guilds in the alliance. Thats how an alliance accept a new player.

If there are no more guild slots, you dont want to join one of the guilds or no one want you in their guild then why the hell should you be in the alliance?

Functionally, you are correct. I haven't seen the answer though. Whether we can see why it would be desired or not, there are some who would want this option.

The question is whether it is an option nor not. Not whether it SHOULD BE or not.

Alright I can tell you it's not an option.

I am 100% certain of that because alliances does not contain players. They contain guilds, which in turn contain the players. Alliances are for administering the guilds. Guilds are for administering the players. Thus, players join guilds, not alliances.

I am sure Anet can correct me if wrong (fairly sure they wont say anything though no matter the case :p). If alliances contain individual players the system would actually break since you set one guild as WvW. Being in an alliance outside the guild would be impossible, as it could be on another world than the guild you have have set as WvW - which in turn could be part of another alliance, which has players in other guilds which are part of other alliances. Not currently being in an guild doesnt remove the possibility of being part of one. It'd be a meltdown.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 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.Lol why should individual players even be needed? Just join one of the guilds in the alliance. Thats how an alliance accept a new player.

If there are no more guild slots, you dont want to join one of the guilds or no one want you in their guild then why the hell should you be in the alliance?

Functionally, you are correct. I haven't seen the answer though. Whether we can see why it would be desired or not, there are some who would want this option.

The question is whether it is an option nor not. Not whether it SHOULD BE or not.

Alright I can tell you it's not an option.

I am 100% certain of that because alliances does not contain players. They contain guilds, which in turn contain the players. Alliances are for administering the guilds. Guilds are for administering the players. Thus, players join guilds, not alliances.

I am sure Anet can correct me if wrong (fairly sure they wont say anything though no matter the case :p). If alliances contain individual players the system would actually break since you set one guild as WvW. Being in an alliance outside the guild would be impossible, as it could be on another world than the guild you have have set as WvW - which in turn could be part of another alliance, which has players in other guilds which are part of other alliances. Not currently being in an guild doesnt remove the possibility of being part of one. It'd be a meltdown.

You are very likely correct.

The only reason I asked is in the diagram they posted back on page one, listed individuals on worlds. Along with guilds and along with alliances. So, if you did not flag one of your guilds as a WvW guild, could you enter an alliance. Wouldn't create the guild conflict, but it's probability just assumed based on the design that you can't.

[Euryon.9248]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 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.Lol why should individual players even be needed? Just join one of the guilds in the alliance. Thats how an alliance accept a new player.

If there are no more guild slots, you dont want to join one of the guilds or no one want you in their guild then why the hell should you be in the alliance?

Functionally, you are correct. I haven't seen the answer though. Whether we can see why it would be desired or not, there are some who would want this option.

The question is whether it is an option nor not. Not whether it SHOULD BE or not.

Alright I can tell you it's not an option.

I am 100% certain of that because alliances does not contain players. They contain guilds, which in turn contain the players. Alliances are for administering the guilds. Guilds are for administering the players. Thus, players join guilds, not alliances.

I am sure Anet can correct me if wrong (fairly sure they wont say anything though no matter the case :p). If alliances contain individual players the system would actually break since you set one guild as WvW. Being in an alliance outside the guild would be impossible, as it could be on another world than the guild you have have set as WvW - which in turn could be part of another alliance, which has players in other guilds which are part of other alliances. Not currently being in an guild doesnt remove the possibility of being part of one. It'd be a meltdown.

You are very likely correct.

The only reason I asked is in the diagram they posted back on page one, listed individuals on worlds. Along with guilds and along with alliances. So, if you did not flag one of your guilds as a WvW guild, could you enter an alliance. Wouldn't create the guild conflict, but it's probability just assumed based on the design that you can't.

i think the answer is probably no, as guilds, not individuals, appear to be the components of an alliance. As noted, it could cause issues if individuals were allowed to join an alliance directly, and then after they were in one, checked that box on the guild panel that sets that guild as their wvw guild, when said guild is in a different alliance than the one they individually joined. I suspect this is not something that they plan to allow.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Euryon.9248 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 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.Lol why should individual players even be needed? Just join one of the guilds in the alliance. Thats how an alliance accept a new player.

If there are no more guild slots, you dont want to join one of the guilds or no one want you in their guild then why the hell should you be in the alliance?

Functionally, you are correct. I haven't seen the answer though. Whether we can see why it would be desired or not, there are some who would want this option.

The question is whether it is an option nor not. Not whether it SHOULD BE or not.

Alright I can tell you it's not an option.

I am 100% certain of that because alliances does not contain players. They contain guilds, which in turn contain the players. Alliances are for administering the guilds. Guilds are for administering the players. Thus, players join guilds, not alliances.

I am sure Anet can correct me if wrong (fairly sure they wont say anything though no matter the case :p). If alliances contain individual players the system would actually break since you set one guild as WvW. Being in an alliance outside the guild would be impossible, as it could be on another world than the guild you have have set as WvW - which in turn could be part of another alliance, which has players in other guilds which are part of other alliances. Not currently being in an guild doesnt remove the possibility of being part of one. It'd be a meltdown.

You are very likely correct.

The only reason I asked is in the diagram they posted back on page one, listed individuals on worlds. Along with guilds and along with alliances. So, if you did not flag one of your guilds as a WvW guild, could you enter an alliance. Wouldn't create the guild conflict, but it's probability just assumed based on the design that you can't.

i think the answer is probably no, as guilds, not individuals, appear to be the components of an alliance. As noted, it could cause issues if individuals were allowed to join an alliance directly, and then after they were in one, checked that box on the guild panel that sets that guild as their wvw guild, when said guild is in a different alliance than the one they individually joined. I suspect this is not something that they plan to allow.

That same problem theoretically would exist with a guild both in and out of the alliance that the person belongs to.

Selecting the guild at the start of a match and entering a different guild would be handled the same way. Not allowing it unless there is room, available based on world assignment and dependent on transfers.

But yeah, I don't think it would be OK, and looking at the diagram, I think they assumed it is inherent in the design.

[Swagger.1459]

@Gaile Gray.6029 Can we get this thread stickied please?

[volpenvieh.3201]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 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.

If it depends on guild size, why set a guild limit at all?

[Tyger.1637]

QUESTION: Will Alliances be able to pool resources or will it still be guild-based?Say 1 guild has been PvE and another has been WvW or 1 is still building scribing upgrades to get WvW consumables; would the Alliance be able to claim camps/towers/keeps and use the WvW consumables from all member guilds or would it still be defaulted to guild only

So the refined question would be 'Can Alliances pool WvW resources?'

As for Roleplayers; if Alliances means we can visit others' guild halls without needing an escort; you will have utterly sold us on Alliances, WvW or not.

[Klipso.8653]

@Tyger.1637 said:QUESTION: Will Alliances be able to pool resources or will it still be guild-based?Say 1 guild has been PvE and another has been WvW or 1 is still building scribing upgrades to get WvW consumables; would the Alliance be able to claim camps/towers/keeps and use the WvW consumables from all member guilds or would it still be defaulted to guild only

So the refined question would be 'Can Alliances pool WvW resources?'

As for Roleplayers; if Alliances means we can visit others' guild halls without needing an escort; you will have utterly sold us on Alliances, WvW or not.

Alliances won't be able to claim, it's still going to be guild based so it requires the guild to have those upgrades.

Alliances only let a tiny group of people get a guarantee that they will be able to play together

[Strider Pj.2193]

Is there a reason this is not stickied at least until the decision is made to switch?

@McKenna Berdrow.2759@Raymond Lukes.6305

I think it has some really vital answers that makes it easier for guild members to come and have a solid understanding of the upcoming changes.

Thanks!

[Fuel.3285]

Quoted from above:"Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world."

This statement is entirely false. Let me explain:

As someone who primarily roams/scouts; this couldn't be further from the truth. A key part of roaming/scouting is knowing who the Commander is. If I know the Commander, his/her behaviors and general playstyle; I can figure out where I should go next. I can't do this every 8 weeks as it takes time to learn a specific Commander's behavior, let alone multiple Commanders. The decisions I make are rarely based on the opposition, and almost entirely based on who is Commanding on the map I'm currently in.

A camp flip, is still a camp flip; regardless of the matchup. Unless they magically become worth more based on opposition and place, their meaning doesn't change.

OFF TOPIC

If it wasn't obvious; I'm against this in the first place. I've seen this "solution" before, and I can anticipate the outcome. WvW was messed up initially when "Free" transfers happened about 2 weeks after launch. The damage can be seen by anyone who plays WvW, even those that weren't there for that initial debacle which killed the guild I was in at the time, and broke the Titan Alliance. Yes, I was in it.

Some History:The Titan Alliance was formed for the purposes of getting all like minded individuals on servers pre-launch. Guilds were assigned to servers via size and dedication to the game mode. When the game launched everything was going well. We got the match ups we wanted and expected. Then the "free" server transfers were announced. Why? Well, one of the main reasons was opposition to any server a Titan Alliance member was on. None of the other servers could compete with us mainly do to coverage. Sound familiar? This same debate has been had, discussed, and promptly beaten into the ground before. Anet intends to repeat a past mistake that did immense damage to the game mode, again.

Conclusion:The golden rule of any WvW game is and will always be: "Servers need to be locked at all times". IF changes in population are to occur, you start at the bottom and merge up, or create a new server using the low population servers. The proposed solution is a haphazard one for an immensely complex problem.

And to the people who want this change to spite Blackgate: Wanting a change for no other reason than spite is not a good for anyone, the game mode, or the game. Blackgate is not responsible for the way things are now. Anet broke the rule stated above, and are going to do so again. And despite what larger guilds want you to think, they are the minority and PUGS are the majority. You mess with the PUGS, you mess with the mode. I should know, I've seen the gamut. I been in large guilds in multiple RvR type games, and I've pugged. (7+ years of DAoC, 4+ years of WAR, 3+ years of WoW, 2+ years of Aion, 7+ years of GW2) I know what I'm talking about.

I apologize if the above statement(s) sound harsh or hateful, but it is the truth. And no, I'm not from Blackgate - SBI for life here.

Anet, if you read this, I implore you; don't do this. You will regret it.

[Swamurabi.7890]

@"Fuel.3285" said:Quoted from above:"Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world."

This statement is entirely false. Let me explain:

As someone who primarily roams/scouts; this couldn't be further from the truth. A key part of roaming/scouting is knowing who the Commander is. If I know the Commander, his/her behaviors and general playstyle; I can figure out where I should go next. I can't do this every 8 weeks as it takes time to learn a specific Commander's behavior, let alone multiple Commanders. The decisions I make are rarely based on the opposition, and almost entirely based on who is Commanding on the map I'm currently in.

A camp flip, is still a camp flip; regardless of the matchup. Unless they magically become worth more based on opposition and place, their meaning doesn't change.

OFF TOPIC

If it wasn't obvious; I'm against this in the first place. I've seen this "solution" before, and I can anticipate the outcome. WvW was messed up initially when "Free" transfers happened about 2 weeks after launch. The damage can be seen by anyone who plays WvW, even those that weren't there for that initial debacle which killed the guild I was in at the time, and broke the Titan Alliance. Yes, I was in it.

Some History:The Titan Alliance was formed for the purposes of getting all like minded individuals on servers pre-launch. Guilds were assigned to servers via size and dedication to the game mode. When the game launched everything was going well. We got the match ups we wanted and expected. Then the "free" server transfers were announced. Why? Well, one of the main reasons was opposition to any server a Titan Alliance member was on. None of the other servers could compete with us mainly do to coverage. Sound familiar? This same debate has been had, discussed, and promptly beaten into the ground before. Anet intends to repeat a past mistake that did immense damage to the game mode, again.

Conclusion:The golden rule of any WvW game is and will always be: "Servers need to be locked at all times". IF changes in population are to occur, you start at the bottom and merge up, or create a new server using the low population servers. The proposed solution is a haphazard one for an immensely complex problem.

And to the people who want this change to spite Blackgate: Wanting a change for no other reason than spite is not a good for anyone, the game mode, or the game. Blackgate is not responsible for the way things are now. Anet broke the rule stated above, and are going to do so again. And despite what larger guilds want you to think, they are the minority and PUGS are the majority. You mess with the PUGS, you mess with the mode. I should know, I've seen the gamut. I been in large guilds in multiple RvR type games, and I've pugged. (7+ years of DAoC, 4+ years of WAR, 3+ years of WoW, 2+ years of Aion, 7+ years of GW2) I know what I'm talking about.

I apologize if the above statement(s) sound harsh or hateful, but it is the truth. And no, I'm not from Blackgate - SBI for life here.

Anet, if you read this, I implore you; don't do this. You will regret it.

The golden rule should read, Servers should be EQUAL, then locked. That is and always has been the primary issue with WvW. There's a reason why sPvP matches are 5v5 and not 5v4, 5v3, 5v2, 5v1 or even 5v0. The equivalent of which happens in WvW.

[Euryon.9248]

@"Fuel.3285" said:Quoted from above:"Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world."

This statement is entirely false. Let me explain:

As someone who primarily roams/scouts; this couldn't be further from the truth. A key part of roaming/scouting is knowing who the Commander is. If I know the Commander, his/her behaviors and general playstyle; I can figure out where I should go next. I can't do this every 8 weeks as it takes time to learn a specific Commander's behavior, let alone multiple Commanders. The decisions I make are rarely based on the opposition, and almost entirely based on who is Commanding on the map I'm currently in.

A camp flip, is still a camp flip; regardless of the matchup. Unless they magically become worth more based on opposition and place, their meaning doesn't change.

OFF TOPIC

If it wasn't obvious; I'm against this in the first place. I've seen this "solution" before, and I can anticipate the outcome. WvW was messed up initially when "Free" transfers happened about 2 weeks after launch. The damage can be seen by anyone who plays WvW, even those that weren't there for that initial debacle which killed the guild I was in at the time, and broke the Titan Alliance. Yes, I was in it.

Some History:The Titan Alliance was formed for the purposes of getting all like minded individuals on servers pre-launch. Guilds were assigned to servers via size and dedication to the game mode. When the game launched everything was going well. We got the match ups we wanted and expected. Then the "free" server transfers were announced. Why? Well, one of the main reasons was opposition to any server a Titan Alliance member was on. None of the other servers could compete with us mainly do to coverage. Sound familiar? This same debate has been had, discussed, and promptly beaten into the ground before. Anet intends to repeat a past mistake that did immense damage to the game mode, again.

Conclusion:The golden rule of any WvW game is and will always be: "Servers need to be locked at all times". IF changes in population are to occur, you start at the bottom and merge up, or create a new server using the low population servers. The proposed solution is a haphazard one for an immensely complex problem.

And to the people who want this change to spite Blackgate: Wanting a change for no other reason than spite is not a good for anyone, the game mode, or the game. Blackgate is not responsible for the way things are now. Anet broke the rule stated above, and are going to do so again. And despite what larger guilds want you to think, they are the minority and PUGS are the majority. You mess with the PUGS, you mess with the mode. I should know, I've seen the gamut. I been in large guilds in multiple RvR type games, and I've pugged. (7+ years of DAoC, 4+ years of WAR, 3+ years of WoW, 2+ years of Aion, 7+ years of GW2) I know what I'm talking about.

I apologize if the above statement(s) sound harsh or hateful, but it is the truth. And no, I'm not from Blackgate - SBI for life here.

Anet, if you read this, I implore you; don't do this. You will regret it.

I really get tired of posts that amount to "people gamed/stacked servers before, this will just be more of the same". Do you really understand how this will work? Nothing you said in your statement directly indicates how people are going to accomplish the same thing again, other than asserting that "history will repeat itself". How are we going to get the same scenario when you can at most lock in 20-25% of a single world's population? The entire problem with the current system is that the unit of permanence -- the server -- is the same as the unit used for matchups -- the world. In the new system those 2 things are decoupled, so there is no permanent stacking of a world.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@"Fuel.3285" said:Quoted from above:"

Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world.

"

This statement is entirely false. Let me explain:

As someone who primarily roams/scouts; this couldn't be further from the truth. A key part of roaming/scouting is knowing who the Commander is. If I know the Commander, his/her behaviors and general playstyle; I can figure out where I should go next. I can't do this every 8 weeks as it takes time to learn a specific Commander's behavior, let alone multiple Commanders. The decisions I make are rarely based on the opposition, and almost entirely based on who is Commanding on the map I'm currently in.

A camp flip, is still a camp flip; regardless of the matchup. Unless they magically become worth more based on opposition and place, their meaning doesn't change.

OFF TOPIC

If it wasn't obvious; I'm against this in the first place. I've seen this "solution" before, and I can anticipate the outcome. WvW was messed up initially when "Free" transfers happened about 2 weeks after launch. The damage can be seen by anyone who plays WvW, even those that weren't there for that initial debacle which killed the guild I was in at the time, and broke the Titan Alliance. Yes, I was in it.

Some History:

The Titan Alliance was formed for the purposes of getting all like minded individuals on servers pre-launch. Guilds were assigned to servers via size and dedication to the game mode. When the game launched everything was going well. We got the match ups we wanted and expected. Then the "free" server transfers were announced. Why? Well, one of the main reasons was opposition to any server a Titan Alliance member was on. None of the other servers could compete with us mainly do to coverage. Sound familiar? This same debate has been had, discussed, and promptly beaten into the ground before. Anet intends to repeat a past mistake that did immense damage to the game mode, again.

Conclusion:

The golden rule of any WvW game is and will always be: "Servers need to be locked at all times". IF changes in population are to occur, you start at the bottom and merge up, or create a new server using the low population servers. The proposed solution is a haphazard one for an immensely complex problem.

And to the people who want this change to spite Blackgate: Wanting a change for no other reason than spite is not a good for anyone, the game mode, or the game. Blackgate is not responsible for the way things are now. Anet broke the rule stated above, and are going to do so again. And despite what larger guilds want you to think, they are the minority and PUGS

are

the majority. You mess with the PUGS, you mess with the mode. I should know, I've seen the gamut. I been in large guilds in multiple RvR type games, and I've pugged. (7+ years of DAoC, 4+ years of WAR, 3+ years of WoW, 2+ years of Aion, 7+ years of GW2) I know what I'm talking about.

I apologize if the above statement(s) sound harsh or hateful, but it is the truth. And no, I'm not from Blackgate - SBI for life here.

Anet, if you read this, I implore you; don't do this. You will regret it.

The golden rule should read, Servers should be EQUAL, then locked. That is and always has been the primary issue with WvW. There's a reason why sPvP matches are 5v5 and not 5v4, 5v3, 5v2, 5v1 or even 5v0. The equivalent of which happens in WvW.

Locking them actually will only create more dysfunction. Unless you mean for 8 weeks. Alliances will cause population shifts and people will stop playing if they dislike the matchup: see JQ, MAG, all of T-2 NA.

That being said, with the next 8 weeks, people have the ability to change, or BE changed depending on the size and activity.

[Chaba.5410]

@Fuel.3285 said:As someone who primarily roams/scouts; this couldn't be further from the truth. A key part of roaming/scouting is knowing who the Commander is. If I know the Commander, his/her behaviors and general playstyle; I can figure out where I should go next. I can't do this every 8 weeks as it takes time to learn a specific Commander's behavior, let alone multiple Commanders. The decisions I make are rarely based on the opposition, and almost entirely based on who is Commanding on the map I'm currently in.

I both roam and command. There is nothing wrong with getting introduced to new people. It is what you did at the beginning before you knew anyone. When server links started, I added new people to my contacts list who were making callouts and marked them as scouts. I'd pm them and ask them to keep me updated so they feel supported. When I saw someone new tagged up, I would do the same and mark them as tag and help scout for them. The primary reason for doing this is because people come and go. Long time celebrity commander leaves for a break for a few months or quits the game and you'd be completely lost without having built up your knowledge and made connections with others. With restructuring, same as with server links, over time you'll have a larger pool of contacts for that in-game stability you are seeking as teams change.

[Kovu.7560]

Eh. In all honesty tags are pretty predictable from a roamer's standpoint.You don't need to know a tag that well to know that they'll generally target keeps & towers and will generally only snag camps if they're conveniently in their path. Semi-fight oriented commanders will generally defend and recapture paper keeps but will often ignore the south towers on home bl to return to their fight or w/e they were doing, and will generally prefer to avoid prolonged sieges. (They're boring.) I say "semi" because there are hardcore fight-oriented tags that'll ignore stuff just about entirely, unless there's a potential fight involved, a convenient EWP and no map que either on the map they're going to or the map they're leaving.Of course every player is different, but I have at least a couple thousand hours of roaming & scouting under my belt and the patterns are apparent.

If you want to roam effectively, flip camps ahead of the tag so they're not on enemy RI when the tag gets there and scout in areas of the map the tag is not heading in the direction of (again, not hard to discern).

There's also this whacky thing called communication. You could talk to the player currently tagged.

~ Kovu

[Fuel.3285]

Quoted:"The golden rule should read, Servers should be EQUAL, then locked. That is and always has been the primary issue with WvW. There's a reason why sPvP matches are 5v5 and not 5v4, 5v3, 5v2, 5v1 or even 5v0. The equivalent of which happens in WvW."

You're one of those people who thinks 50/50 balance with a human element is an achievable goal aren't you? Here's the truth: it is NOT an achievable goal. You can only ever get close enough. This isn't PvE where A.I. can be tailor made for specific skill sets. You chance of winning in WvW is proportional to your effort. It is not Arena Nets job to hand you wins, or scenarios you might win in. Earn them; like everybody else.

To another point, the scenario can and WILL repeat. I've seen it before. A server's population isn't what's needed for this to happen, only the most dedicated players are required. In WvW you only every see about 20-25% of the population consistently. All this is doing is removing the random PUGS who filter in and help on occasion or add to the extra body to the Zerg. To summarize: 20-25% is more than enough.

To your last point. No, they are not decoupled. In the current system your server's performance is based on the players with in it, unless there is some serious botting going on the needs Anets attention, your server doesn't play for you. Active players/guilds are on the higher tier servers. This doesn't change. If you play once a week for 3 hours, you get a world and opponents who do the same. Think of it as a mirror. What you do personally, as opposed to a group, is what you're going to be facing. Its just being applied at a lower level than before with more variables, hence the 'granular' terminology Anet used. This can be better or worse depending on who is in question. This also introduces the problem of player's caring about their individual metrics rather than that of the teams. So, expect people to leave guilds/alliances for underperformance based on that basis. This applies to guilds in relation to alliances too. While applicable now, the impact will be far more severe in the 'purposed' system.

Quoted:"I really get tired of posts that amount to "people gamed/stacked servers before, this will just be more of the same.".

And do you reasonably believe this 'new' mode can't? It's far easier to stack what is coming, than what is.

Yes, the Titan Alliance did stack, but not in the context you supplied. The guild I was in at the time could not be placed on a server with another guild for various competitive reasons. This rule was honored through out to make sure fairness. We ensured that competition was to be had, as we also, like everybody else, wanted fair match ups. The server transfers are what allow bandwagoning to happen. This nullified the very thing the Alliance set out to avoid in the first place. The bandwagaoners were all the people/guilds who wanted easy wins, or hated losing. This was also in the tiering month after launch to determine what servers would end up where in a tier list. A tier list made with data; rendered inaccurate by Anet's own hands, and still in effect to this very day. SBI in particular at the end of this was placed in T1 shortly after a mass exodus from SBI and paid transfers being reinstated. We eventually settled in T4 before we could start winning again. All at the same pace it is now and without linking. For all the hate linking gets, it did save WvW for many servers.

You probably don't know this, but once, Henge was in Blackgate's position, JQ was as well. Henge still hasn't recovered from the bandwagoners to this day. I doubt there are even players on Henge who even know this about their own server anymore. Most of the bottom tier servers, at launch, were not there. They were victimized by the bandwagoner's just as SBI, JQ, IOJ, and HoD were. This resulted in mass exodus' on those servers; resulting in a population imbalance to big to fix without merges. (See megaservers and linking).

I understand people's frustration at what has happened. I truly do. But, there is a right way, and wrong way, to fix these things. Granted, no fix can ever restore what has been lost. The mode that Anet is making is akin to Battlefield, not a WvW game. If that is what people want, then so be it. But myself and others, will likely show ourselves the door when that time comes as it is not what we bought this game for in the first place.

@"Strider Pj.2193"The point of locking servers is to prevent bandwagons/stacking from occurring in the first place. That is the point. Once the door is opened, in can't be shut. A "Pandora's Box" scenario if you will.

The best solution will remain to merge the bottom tiers into new servers. If those servers were reconstructed based on the their WvW needs (PvE uses megaservers so it won't affect them), Reduces their issues in all areas, their guilds and communities take less of an blow, and it removes linking at the same time.

Finally, shame on you Anet.

This system is not 'purposed', you're looking to us to fill any gaps you missed before installing this mess. The fact it's posted in the forums means, likely, an Alpha version is already built or close to it. You know this could blow up and are looking to the players to minimize the risk and potential blame deflection in case it does. This FAQ is even further evidence of this. Call me a cynic, but something stinks.

[Korgov.7645]

Q: Will there be any record at all to prove that I/my guild/my alliance won a season?

[Dawdler.8521]

@Fuel.3285 said:To another point, the scenario can and WILL repeat.True, but here's the truth about balance: maybe it'll get close enough.

[Swamurabi.7890]

@Fuel.3285 said:Quoted:

You're one of those people who thinks 50/50 balance with a human element is an achievable goal aren't you? Here's the truth: it is NOT an achievable goal. You can only ever get close enough. This isn't PvE where A.I. can be tailor made for specific skill sets. You chance of winning in WvW is proportional to your effort. It is not Arena Nets job to hand you wins, or scenarios you might win in. Earn them; like everybody else.To another point, the scenario can and WILL repeat. I've seen it before. A server's population isn't what's needed for this to happen, only the most dedicated players are required. In WvW you only every see about 20-25% of the population consistently. All this is doing is removing the random PUGS who filter in and help on occasion or add to the extra body to the Zerg. To summarize: 20-25% is more than enough.

I don't think balance for WvW is achievable, but I do think that it is a goal that should always be worked towards. We've seen in NA how fitting 21 chunks into 7 matches with no restrictions on chunk size didn't work. We've also seen how fitting 21 chunks into 4 matches with partial limitation of chunk size hasn't worked. But I do know that as the number of chunks increases and the limitation of the size of those chunks decreases, you will eventually get to a point that's GOOD ENOUGH.

And do you reasonably believe this 'new' mode can't? It's far easier to stack what is coming, than what is.

By changing the number of chunks and the size of the chunks it's easier to destack what is coming than what it currently is. If alliance max is 1000 and guild is 500 I can see them changing alliance max to 500 and guild to 200, or alliance to 300 and guild to 80, JUST FOR WVW, to eliminate stacking and creating more chunks. All of this would get WvW closer and closer to balance than anything before. It's obvious from past behavior that the players actions are self centered and are destructive to the game. It's Anet's job to limit that destructive behavior

The best solution will remain to merge the bottom tiers into new servers. If those servers were reconstructed based on the their WvW needs (PvE uses megaservers so it won't affect them), Reduces their issues in all areas, their guilds and communities take less of an blow, and it removes linking at the same time.

You cannot merge lower tier into higher tiers and achieve balance, you will eventually get to a point where prime time is queued and the lowest off time is outmanned. Anet has already said that BG has better coverage and linking servers together still doesn't match that coverage advantage.

[Fuel.3285]

Quoted:"You cannot merge lower tier into higher tiers and achieve balance, you will eventually get to a point where prime time is queued and the lowest off time is outmanned. Anet has already said that BG has better coverage and linking servers together still doesn't match that coverage advantage."

You misunderstand. Let me clarify.

I didn't mean merge the lower tier servers into higher ones. I mean, make new servers, ones that do not exist now, with those populations. The higher tier servers would be untouched. Anet has already shown us they know the servers statistics. Reallocating the bottom tiers into fresh servers under a new name based on that data would address the problems they have to a degree and do less damage over all. That is what I'm getting at. Anet could probably fill gaps in the newer servers from the higher tier servers like Blackgate to open them up a bit for newer players (to the game). Moving players around should be something only Anet does. As you said; players are selfish, which is reason enough.

Servers now only exist for WvW. They have no other purpose. The solution Anet proposed is WvW 'megaservers' for lack of better definition, which I'm against, as it destroys the core concept behind a WvW game mode entirely.

[bambi.6214]

Will there be any way of predicting which alliances will be linked together in upcoming "tournaments"? If yes, will this information be accessible to players?

[Strider Pj.2193]

@"Samug.6512" said:Will there be any way of predicting which alliances will be linked together in upcoming "tournaments"? If yes, will this information be accessible to players?

I truly hope not.