World Restructuring

[Warrior.5347]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"SkyShroud.2865" said:He mentioned "multifaceted or single purpose guild". Something gamers that played for more than a decade can easily understand but others may find it hard to.

If I were to put it into logic and science. I would use Dunbar's number and define community.

Community, in general speaking, is a group of people having thus working towards a common goal or values or beliefs, and helping each other along the way. Dunbar's number is a theory on the cognitive limit on numbers of people regards to stable social relationships.

In the old days of mmorpg, many, if not all guilds are multifaceted. Some may be a bit more pvp or pve oriented but nevertheless, multifaceted (pvx) by default. Most of the old mmorpgs guilds have very low capacity, capping slightly more than 100. This, according to Dunbar's number, is the minimum max amount of people that you can form a stable social relationships with; we have to consider real life relationships as well. With that say, you can see that the old mmorpgs emphasis strongly on guild community and bonds.

Now, moving on to the multi guilds culture. The boundary of multifaceted become blurred. Multifaceted players will join a single purpose guild even if the common interest is different by default, the multifaceted players' interests is not the same as single interest players. It may overlap but definitely not the same. Still, you might think it isn't a issue because the multifaceted players still can do the same thing as the single interest players. However, that will eventually put the community to test because of the Dunbar's number. Multifaceted players will join multiple guilds, not just one. You can even say he is in multiple communities. This means that multifaceted players cannot, by theory, manage to maintain stable social relationships for all the communities he is part of. Not only that, the communities he is part of may have conflicts in activities thus he will choose to forgo one to join the other activities at that point or many points of time. After those, can he really be considered as member of the community by definition and Dunbar's number?

The same applies for single purpose players joining multifaceted guild or multiple single purpose guilds, and multifaceted players joining multifaceted guilds for a single purpose.

Regardless, gw2 is multi guilds culture, nothing gonna change.

SourceWhat is community? -

http://appalachianmagazine.org/podcasts/dave/id/449

Dunbar's Number -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

TL;DR you can still join only one 100 man guild if you want to, nothing is forcing you to join multiple guilds.

But it really doesnt matter how one argue here, when someone say "change my mind" that means they have already made up their mind and never gonna change their mind.

Certainly everyone can do as they so choose it's the game mechanic which goes back to my origional post being dumb and spoiled players into complacency and casual af. Not hating on regular casuals hence the "af". I see players have become literal and metaphorical "kittens", lol. Rawr. However, my gripe isnt with the hardcore or the casual its more the mechanic and it's effects to my understanding.

Part of the change my mind bit is sort of a troll, my mind can change based on good reasoning, of which I haven't read any yet. Only thing that makes a lot of sense are SkyShrouds' posts. I won't change people's mind either. I'm just creating a bit of discord from the generalized for and against arguments of the restructuring.

Being a veteran MMO player I have and can see both sides so don't see me as an elitist and refer to my first two paragraphs and read it in it's entirety.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Warrior.5347" said:Certainly everyone can do as they so choose it's the game mechanic which goes back to my origional post being dumb and spoiled players into complacency and casual af. Not hating on regular casuals hence the "af". I see players have become literal and metaphorical "kittens", lol. Rawr. However, my gripe isnt with the hardcore or the casual its more the mechanic and it's effects to my understanding.

Part of the change my mind bit is sort of a troll, my mind can change based on good reasoning, of which I haven't read any yet. Only thing that makes a lot of sense are SkyShrouds' posts. I won't change people's mind either. I'm just creating a bit of discord from the generalized for and against arguments of the restructuring.

Being a veteran MMO player I have and can see both sides so don't see me as an elitist and refer to my first two paragraphs and read it in it's entirety.If you can see both sides and the current mechanics of the guilds system already allow you to do either way you desire on how guilds should work then what does it matter? Imposing your restrictions of what a guild should be on the general population and on the basis that "multiple guilds are dumb" is neither a for or against argument of the WvW restructure.

[Warrior.5347]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Warrior.5347" said:Certainly everyone can do as they so choose it's the game mechanic which goes back to my origional post being dumb and spoiled players into complacency and casual af. Not hating on regular casuals hence the "af". I see players have become literal and metaphorical "kittens", lol. Rawr. However, my gripe isnt with the hardcore or the casual its more the mechanic and it's effects to my understanding.

Part of the change my mind bit is sort of a troll, my mind can change based on good reasoning, of which I haven't read any yet. Only thing that makes a lot of sense are SkyShrouds' posts. I won't change people's mind either. I'm just creating a bit of discord from the generalized for and against arguments of the restructuring.

Being a veteran MMO player I have and can see both sides so don't see me as an elitist and refer to my first two paragraphs and read it in it's entirety.If you can see both sides and the current mechanics of the guilds system already allow you to do either way you desire on how guilds should work then what does it matter? Imposing your restrictions of what a guild should be on the general population and on the basis that "multiple guilds are dumb" is neither a for or against argument of the WvW restructure.

Just because I can see both sides doesn't mean I can't lean to one side. It matters because that seems to be an against the argument for the restructuring of woe is my community and woe is my server and woe is my pve, pvx, roam, rp, pvp, raiding, wvw guilds all across different guilds seems non-sensical. The mechanic and its effects are what I am trying to better understand and my current understanding is that it's dumb and made the community not have to put forth any effort into actually creating an actual guild community or give the illusion of community as a whole in the context of Guild Wars 2. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself or extrapolate and elaborate the same points. It's not my personal belief of restrictions, single guild joins are an actual game mechanic across every single MMORPG, GW2 is the only multi-guild system to my knowledge and yeah I again think it was dumb to have that mechanic in the first place and made things much more complicated for what is trying to do now.

I think when a new world is formed it should just bring you and your whole guild into the world. If you guild is pvx mark it PVX to be matched with other similar sized PVX guilds if your guild only PvEs mark it so and be matched with other sizable PvE guilds and WvW can just be an aside. If you your guild is prepared to WvW mark it for WvW to compete. That way no one is forcing anyone to play WvW or make the change WvW centered.

[Redponey.8352]

Any News? any deadlines? :(

[Euryon.9248]

@Warrior.5347 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Warrior.5347 said:Certainly everyone can do as they so choose it's the game mechanic which goes back to my origional post being dumb and spoiled players into complacency and casual af. Not hating on regular casuals hence the "af". I see players have become literal and metaphorical "kittens", lol. Rawr. However, my gripe isnt with the hardcore or the casual its more the mechanic and it's effects to my understanding.

Part of the change my mind bit is sort of a troll, my mind can change based on good reasoning, of which I haven't read any yet. Only thing that makes a lot of sense are SkyShrouds' posts. I won't change people's mind either. I'm just creating a bit of discord from the generalized for and against arguments of the restructuring.

Being a veteran MMO player I have and can see both sides so don't see me as an elitist and refer to my first two paragraphs and read it in it's entirety.If you can see both sides and the current mechanics of the guilds system already allow you to do either way you desire on how guilds should work then what does it matter? Imposing your restrictions of what a guild should be on the general population and on the basis that "multiple guilds are dumb" is neither a for or against argument of the WvW restructure.

That way no one is forcing anyone to play WvW or make the change WvW centered.

No one is or ever will "force" someone to play WvW, nor will the change in worlds force someone who doesn't want to wvw suddenly have to start playing wvw. That statement makes no sense to me.

The change is wvw centered, as it should be. The only effect it will have on non-wvwers is that they will need a new mechanic for grouping RP'ers with other RP'ers when the load into PvE maps. Outside of that, this change has nothing to do with either PvP or PvE.

I really don't understand your issue with the multiple guild structure. I like that we can have multiple guilds and I don't care what other MMOs do or do not allow. I like being able to see callouts in one guild for a Spirit Vale run while another guild is talking about SMC and a third is looking for T4 fractal buddies. That gives me options and makes my gaming experience richer. Forcing me to choose only one of those guilds to participate in would be a negative, not a positive.

[Warrior.5347]

@Euryon.9248 said:

@Warrior.5347 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Warrior.5347 said:Certainly everyone can do as they so choose it's the game mechanic which goes back to my origional post being dumb and spoiled players into complacency and casual af. Not hating on regular casuals hence the "af". I see players have become literal and metaphorical "kittens", lol. Rawr. However, my gripe isnt with the hardcore or the casual its more the mechanic and it's effects to my understanding.

Part of the change my mind bit is sort of a troll, my mind can change based on good reasoning, of which I haven't read any yet. Only thing that makes a lot of sense are SkyShrouds' posts. I won't change people's mind either. I'm just creating a bit of discord from the generalized for and against arguments of the restructuring.

Being a veteran MMO player I have and can see both sides so don't see me as an elitist and refer to my first two paragraphs and read it in it's entirety.If you can see both sides and the current mechanics of the guilds system already allow you to do either way you desire on how guilds should work then what does it matter? Imposing your restrictions of what a guild should be on the general population and on the basis that "multiple guilds are dumb" is neither a for or against argument of the WvW restructure.

That way no one is forcing anyone to play WvW or make the change WvW centered.

No one is or ever will "force" someone to play WvW, nor will the change in worlds force someone who doesn't want to wvw suddenly have to start playing wvw. That statement makes no sense to me.

The change

is

wvw centered, as it should be. The only effect it will have on non-wvwers is that they will need a new mechanic for grouping RP'ers with other RP'ers when the load into PvE maps. Outside of that, this change has nothing to do with either PvP or PvE.

I really don't understand your issue with the multiple guild structure. I like that we can have multiple guilds and I don't care what other MMOs do or do not allow. I like being able to see callouts in one guild for a Spirit Vale run while another guild is talking about SMC and a third is looking for T4 fractal buddies. That gives me options and makes my gaming experience richer. Forcing me to choose only one of those guilds to participate in would be a negative, not a positive.

I'm mainly referring to people who are using the multi-guild system and their "communities" across multiple guilds and multiple servers as an against argument for the WvW restructure in which they do feel forced to WvW and like everything revolves around WvW now and they the casuals would be torn asunder. I don't care what the mechanic is or could or should be or for it to change, my point is that it's dumb when used as a negative to the restructuring. Like you said it doesn't matter or affect the player at all as you have mentioned. You are right it does and can diversify and expand your experince which is great I'm not trying to limit you. But as I said formerly people be like woe my 5 guilds across 5 servers would be torn apart by the restructuring, which I think is dumb and makes the multi-guild mechanic dumb if it worked like that.

[Lord of the Fire.6870]

@"SkyShroud.2865" said:He mentioned "multifaceted or single purpose guild". Something gamers that played for more than a decade can easily understand but others may find it hard to.

If I were to put it into logic and science. I would use Dunbar's number and define community.

Community, in general speaking, is a group of people having thus working towards a common goal or values or beliefs, and helping each other along the way. Dunbar's number is a theory on the cognitive limit on numbers of people regards to stable social relationships.

In the old days of mmorpg, many, if not all guilds are multifaceted. Some may be a bit more pvp or pve oriented but nevertheless, multifaceted (pvx) by default. Most of the old mmorpgs guilds have very low capacity, capping slightly more than 100. This, according to Dunbar's number, is the minimum max amount of people that you can form a stable social relationships with; we have to consider real life relationships as well. With that say, you can see that the old mmorpgs emphasis strongly on guild community and bonds.

Now, moving on to the multi guilds culture. The boundary of multifaceted become blurred. Multifaceted players will join a single purpose guild even if the common interest is different by default, the multifaceted players' interests is not the same as single interest players. It may overlap but definitely not the same. Still, you might think it isn't a issue because the multifaceted players still can do the same thing as the single interest players. However, that will eventually put the community to test because of the Dunbar's number. Multifaceted players will join multiple guilds, not just one. You can even say he is in multiple communities. This means that multifaceted players cannot, by theory, manage to maintain stable social relationships for all the communities he is part of. Not only that, the communities he is part of may have conflicts in activities thus he will choose to forgo one to join the other activities at that point or many points of time. After those, can he really be considered as member of the community by definition and Dunbar's number?

The same applies for single purpose players joining multifaceted guild or multiple single purpose guilds, and multifaceted players joining multifaceted guilds for a single purpose.

Regardless, gw2 is multi guilds culture, nothing gonna change.

SourceWhat is community? - http://appalachianmagazine.org/podcasts/dave/id/449Dunbar's Number - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Its a bit late as always with me^^

I can only set a point how I see it somethings may not be usually like in other guilds/servers

The first thing is I'm only in 1 guild this is because I know the guilds leaders from real life and in other MMO I was this system didn't existed some of our guild leaders are in other guilds too but this is just for using their stuff exception is Jenny who plays in other Guilds for RP.

I was also once a guild leader from there I can say more then 10 you can't bind to your guild directly others will just feel to be left out except someone of you 10 other people taking care off them.

Wvw on our sever is very closed up its a community inside the server which borrows the server name. They are all in one Teamspeak server with this I mean all the WvW Guilds don't get me wrong they have public zergs from time to time but their are more then often discussion about the TS use because for the public channel you need to register to see them and everyone in it. This can to led to things like I experienced and you wander many weeks around and thinking how hard you can be trolled by those guys not knowing it. ~.~

I know why because off spies and not pleased people but those will always find a way in but the next topic with it is the day I ran with some and was in the TS I can only say there is a certain amount of alcohol consume in WvW you also see this in the team chats from time to time.

This brings me up to the question how on earth should random wvw players who do this for skins and some stuff for the guild or whatever play with those guys with the new system it can be only be worse.

In some way this is also maybe a explanation why the numbers of active wvw is peer server is so different (In opposite to they just lost too much)

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Lord of the Fire.6870" said:This brings me up to the question how on earth should random wvw players who do this for skins and some stuff for the guild or whatever play with those guys with the new system it can be only be worse.

Are you suggesting that just like what happens every single day now with commanders saying "open tag on home bl, join ts.server.com!" to randoms on the map (or in teamchat)... cant possibly happen after the restructure... because reasons?

The only practical change that will occur - since its still the same people playing - is that the message change to ts.alliance.com. If they even bother changing it. I am fairly sure some servers now will just reform as community guilds/alliances under the same name.

[Lord of the Fire.6870]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Lord of the Fire.6870" said:This brings me up to the question how on earth should random wvw players who do this for skins and some stuff for the guild or whatever play with those guys with the new system it can be only be worse.

Are you suggesting that just like what happens every single day now with commanders saying "open tag on home bl, join ts.server.com!" to randoms on the map (or in teamchat)... cant possibly happen after the restructure... because reasons?

The only practical change that will occur - since its still the

same people playing

- is that the message change to ts.alliance.com. If they even bother changing it. I am fairly sure some servers now will just reform as community guilds/alliances under the same name.

No what I'm saying with this is if I remember correctly randoms who wan't to play wvw will randomly added to a running fraction. What I mean with this is the line between wvw community players and the rest of the players become even more pronounced so new players will have a hard time to join them also alliances can fly apart so what are you doing then ?

[Dawdler.8521]

@Lord of the Fire.6870 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Lord of the Fire.6870 said:This brings me up to the question how on earth should random wvw players who do this for skins and some stuff for the guild or whatever play with those guys with the new system it can be only be worse.

Are you suggesting that just like what happens every single day now with commanders saying "open tag on home bl, join ts.server.com!" to randoms on the map (or in teamchat)... cant possibly happen after the restructure... because reasons?

The only practical change that will occur - since its still the

same people playing

- is that the message change to ts.alliance.com. If they even bother changing it. I am fairly sure some servers now will just reform as community guilds/alliances under the same name.

No what I'm saying with this is if I remember correctly randoms who wan't to play wvw will randomly added to a running fraction. What I mean with this is the line between wvw community players and the rest of the players become even more pronounced so new players will have a hard time to join them also alliances can fly apart so what are you doing then ?

But will it hurt randoms? Just look at EoTM. Yeah its not WvW and of course its pretty pointless since pips was introduced, but its "allied" color matchup didnt stop people from playing it for years. It never hurt randoms despite people just randomly joining. It probably had more randoms than WvW.

The main flaw with EoTM is that it isnt real WvW and only got one instanced map, making it impossible to organize for servers and guilds. Not to mention the volatile nature of color based sides, they change every week.

Guess what system takes this concept, make it real WvW, add functions for organizing players and guilds and extend the life of generated sides to 8 weeks?

[SkyShroud.2865]

I actually have a hard time understanding what are being said.

[keramatzmode.1906]

Do people even read the full post?You get to assign ONE . ONE WvW GUILD . WvW guilds are objective focused, they log on their primary active time, and have a purpose. To win wvw, and most of the time, they always to 100% rep it. And crux of the problem being people in your server are mixed in skills, people who hates bringing workable zerg, and people who do not want to join teamspeak. With the server merge, it made more problems since they had to hand out and revoke teamspeak/discord permissions every time the server merge changes. This again, create a "team" without a permanent voice servers, and a place to communicate.

People cry about the "community" or whatever to be lost. They are never lost, you guys just didn't care much about it. But I can say, some of the more top tier servers, the commanders and guild leaders, have already planned ahead with their communities for the upcoming alliance. Because they care about this game mode. The community never went away, its just you who never cared about it in the first place until anet proposes an alliance system. Unless, you are scared of being left out because you can't do your solo things in the first place, like playing around without contributing to win and only cares about pips.

Problem with WvW guilds to recruit new people, is due to the server merge changing, and sometimes me included, hates to run with a guild after a certain while with their culture, and had to change servers to join another guild. Not to mention the gem prices to team up with other guilds and to perform better in WvW.

This system can give a drive to the alliances, to perform better and probably have a leaderboard system.

I can theorise that, this split system allows you to rep automatically upon logging into WvW maps. It won't ruin any kind of you multifacet pvx guild that you join to prance around discord and guild chat to get on top of the guild social hierarchy. And pretty sure anet will add different typology setup of guilds later on such as PvP and PvE.

[Eurantien.4632]

For those worried about this killing their server communities, just like there is a button to have a guild be your WvW guild and you're more likely to play with them could there also be a "server" button? That way people who use that would be more likely to be paired with people from their own server in the algorithm? Thus maintaining a sense of community for some

Or just make that the default?

[Dawdler.8521]

@keramatzmode.1906 said:I can theorise that, this split system allows you to rep automatically upon logging into WvW maps.

Why would you need that? As Anet described it, guild rep has nothing to do with your set WvW guild. Either you rep your guild... or you dont. Just like now.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@keramatzmode.1906 said:I can theorise that, this split system allows you to rep automatically upon logging into WvW maps.

Why would you need that? As Anet described it, guild rep has nothing to do with your set WvW guild. Either you rep your guild... or you dont. Just like now.

Exactly.As it should be. Repping a guild may have more to do with upgrades and guild priorities for claiming.

[ShionKreth.1542]

How about one or more 'static' worlds that don't reassign you a new server every two months - for people who like having a server community and couldn't care less about wvw? Worst case scenario it'd just show how many people prefer a stable world and don't want to be shuffled around every two months, best case scenario... everyone's happy?

[Dawdler.8521]

@ShionKreth.1542 said:How about one or more 'static' worlds that don't reassign you a new server every two months - for people who like having a server community and couldn't care less about wvw? Worst case scenario it'd just show how many people prefer a stable world and don't want to be shuffled around every two months, best case scenario... everyone's happy?You mean like a large amount of people thats always the same when joining WvW, a community?

... thats an alliance.

You are describing an alliance.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

I will def be quitting wvw once this is implemented and I play quite a bit. Too bad but I just don't want to play without server cohesion and guilds/alliances don't cut it, especially if I don't get into any.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:I will def be quitting wvw once this is implemented and I play quite a bit. Too bad but I just don't want to play without server cohesion and guilds/alliances don't cut it, especially if I don't get into any.Yes unfortunetly the entire alliance system depends on you being in an alliance and if you're not in one WvW will fall apart completely.

[Tiny Doom.4380]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:I will def be quitting wvw once this is implemented and I play quite a bit. Too bad but I just don't want to play without server cohesion and guilds/alliances don't cut it, especially if I don't get into any.

This is the straight line to end all straight lines. Must...resist...

[Voltekka.2375]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:I will def be quitting wvw once this is implemented and I play quite a bit. Too bad but I just don't want to play without server cohesion and guilds/alliances don't cut it, especially if I don't get into any.

Are you, perchance, on BG?

[Diku.2546]

@Voltekka.2375 said:

@"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:I will def be quitting wvw once this is implemented and I play quite a bit. Too bad but I just don't want to play without server cohesion and guilds/alliances don't cut it, especially if I don't get into any.

Are you, perchance, on BG?

---

Guilds/Alliances used in this design would allow the highest form of Match-Up Manipulation...which kills a competitive game mode in the long term.

Anet is going down the wrong path with this "complex" re-vamp of WvW that will regretfully be painful to modify or upgrade later.

---

I Agree with Jumpin.Lumpix.6108 that Guilds/Alliances don't cut it, but over-stacked server that's been entitled to the # 1 WvW Rank position for over the past 5 years doesn't cut it too.

If you look at my past posts (I've made 11 in total so far - including this post)...I'm providing an alternative that

FIXES the Top 3 Chronic Problems of WvW since it ORIGINALLY launched which are:

1. Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups
2. Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds
3. Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves

I'll strongly advocate for a Pure King of the Hill design for both NA & EU servers through the re-purposing of an already existing game mechanice (Server-Guesting).

The re-purpose & re-design basically removes the flawed Fixed Tiers from the WvW game mode that's been at the heart of the problem since the game originally launched.

We need to make a "BG-Ranked" server into a highly rewarded WvW destination for all players to want to attack, but with weekly limits on How Many & Which servers players can fight on.

---

Let players pick their own match-ups on who they want to fight, but also have players deal directly with the consequence of their choices (i.e. Long waiting queues).

Once a "BG-Ranked" server get tired of being the weekly pinata...they're allowed to fall in rank...where a different server will rise to take its place.

A Pure King of the Hill match-up design naturally cycles this coveted # 1 Ranked WvW position without heavy coding. Tear down the Fixed Tiers!

Any Server that wants to be Ranked # 1 has to earn it by fighting All others servers for this weekly privilege.

Without a Fixed Tier....no server is "Forced" into an unfair Match-Up with a "BG-Ranked" server that predictably turns into a meaningless no-win battle that gets boring.

Imagine where servers Don't Have to Tank anymore. NO TANK FOR YOU!!!

---

Let the 800 pound gorilla in the room stand on their own blood, sweat, and Tiers.

Pun intended above. :)

WvW needs this simple change to allow it to be a competitive game mode that allows players to be emotionally vested in a stable & persistent "team' server.

ANet...you're throwing away your opportunity to be the Owner for ALL the eSport Teams for an annual SuperBowl event where you also own the equipment, training fields, and special event venues. What are you thinking?

Yours truly,Diku

p.s.Any Vote for Helpful or Thumbs Up would be appreciated to help tell ANet they should re-consider their Work In Progress before it's too late.

No Soup For You

[Warrior.5347]

@"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:I will def be quitting wvw once this is implemented and I play quite a bit. Too bad but I just don't want to play without server cohesion and guilds/alliances don't cut it, especially if I don't get into any.

Can you elaborate as to why it doesn't cut it? I see wild statements made on something that hasn't even happened yet without any reason behind it. Perhaps that's the doomsday mentality that happens with any change. You want server cohesion because you are some lonely/antisocial pug/roamer. Parden my assumption since you mentioned "especially if you don't get into any", which I don't see why not unless you are just super annoying and headlined no guild wants you, thus you depend on a server.

[Warrior.5347]

@Diku.2546 said:

@Voltekka.2375 said:

@"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:I will def be quitting wvw once this is implemented and I play quite a bit. Too bad but I just don't want to play without server cohesion and guilds/alliances don't cut it, especially if I don't get into any.

Are you, perchance, on BG?

---

Guilds/Alliances used in this design would allow the highest form of Match-Up Manipulation...which kills a competitive game mode in the long term.

Anet is going down the wrong path with this "complex" re-vamp of WvW that will regretfully be painful to modify or upgrade later.

---

I Agree with Jumpin.Lumpix.6108 that Guilds/Alliances don't cut it, but over-stacked server that's been entitled to the # 1 WvW Rank position for over the past 5 years doesn't cut it too.

If you look at my past posts (I've made 11 in total so far - including this post)...I'm providing an alternative that

FIXES the Top 3 Chronic Problems of WvW since it ORIGINALLY launched which are:

1. Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups
2. Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds
3. Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves

I'll strongly advocate for a Pure King of the Hill design for both NA & EU servers through the re-purposing of an already existing game mechanice (Server-Guesting).

The re-purpose & re-design basically removes the flawed Fixed Tiers from the WvW game mode that's been at the heart of the problem since the game originally launched.

We need to make a "BG-Ranked" server into a highly rewarded WvW destination for all players to want to attack, but with weekly limits on How Many & Which servers players can fight on.

---

Let players pick their own match-ups on who they want to fight, but also have players deal directly with the consequence of their choices (i.e. Long waiting queues).

Once a "BG-Ranked" server get tired of being the weekly pinata...they're allowed to fall in rank...where a different server will rise to take its place.

A Pure King of the Hill match-up design naturally cycles this coveted # 1 Ranked WvW position without heavy coding. Tear down the Fixed Tiers!

Any Server that wants to be Ranked # 1 has to earn it by fighting All others servers for this weekly privilege.

Without a Fixed Tier....no server is "Forced" into an unfair Match-Up with a "BG-Ranked" server that predictably turns into a meaningless no-win battle that gets boring.

Imagine where servers Don't Have to Tank anymore. NO TANK FOR YOU!!!

---

Let the 800 pound gorilla in the room stand on their own blood, sweat, and Tiers.

Pun intended above. :)

WvW needs this simple change to allow it to be a competitive game mode that allows players to be emotionally vested in a stable & persistent "team' server.

ANet...you're throwing away your opportunity to be the Owner for ALL the eSport Teams for an annual SuperBowl event where you also own the equipment, training fields, and special event venues. What are you thinking?

Yours truly,Diku

p.s.Any Vote for Helpful or Thumbs Up would be appreciated to help tell ANet they should re-consider their Work In Progress before it's too late.

No Soup For You

Can you elaborate on why you think Alliances won't cut it? Because my reasoning is stacked alliances will only vs other stacked alliances in the ideal system. An alliance would be hard pressed to tank unless they unclaim WvW status which I don't see any reason to tank, to beat on PvXers?

You system still brings with it the need to stack servers in order to overtake the #1 seed, like JQ, TC, SoS rose to compete with BG and where are they now? It still leaves the door open for server drama and exodus. Sounds like more server manipulation to me and the headache to research, recruit, and retain guilds for time zones and purposes still prevailing if a server wants to overtake stacked servers. Also while dealing with server caps. Bottom servers are still gonna bottom then propelled at the whim of WvW guilds who deem their server greener then abandoned when it's not.

BG is an anomaly in which all WvWers bandwagon to due to it's early and constant success, thus making it a perpetual WvW server with a higher WvW population. It would be hardpressed for hardcore WvW guilds to find and cultivate a server like BG again in my opinion because history hasn't been kind i.e. JQ, TC, SoS.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Warrior.5347 said:

@"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:I will def be quitting wvw once this is implemented and I play quite a bit. Too bad but I just don't want to play without server cohesion and guilds/alliances don't cut it, especially if I don't get into any.

Can you elaborate as to why it doesn't cut it? I see wild statements made on something that hasn't even happened yet without any reason behind it. Perhaps that's the doomsday mentality that happens with any change. You want server cohesion because you are some lonely/antisocial pug/roamer. Parden my assumption since you mentioned "especially if you don't get into any", which I don't see why not unless you are just super annoying and headlined no guild wants you, thus you depend on a server.

BG has a high concentration of spvp, players (good players in my opinion since spvp requires the most skill). For me personally, i feel like the wvw community is not one i really like to socialize with, and I feel this is true on every server I have seen. So once we eliminate the familiarity I have with the few people I'm ok with (removing server cohesion) and the fact that now I'm going to be forced to play with people of other servers (which will not be skilled spvp players on the whole), it will make wvw insufferable for me, because then I will be dealing with people I don't want to socialize with and whom are not all that great at pvp in my opinion. This will completely turn me off to wvw. Now i get it that people will simply say its because I want to win - Honestly I really just like playing with people who don't make very many mistakes when they play, as that affects my enjoyment of the game mode since its a team activity.

You can call it elitism or whatever else but its just not enjoyable, and I like it that our unorganized pugs are so devastating due to simply having player skill. BG wipes plenty of times so I dont really mind losing, I wouldn't even mind if we get trounced but, playing with people i don't know whom will be of the same attitude of people i already currently play with and dislike, plus now they aren't all that great, its just going to turn me off to the game mode completely. I have seen BG wipe much larger squads, sometimes even multiple zerg squads that are 2v1ing and its not because "BG is stacked' that, thats occuring. Its because the people on BG are more skilled and they play a lot of Spvp. I get that you want to break it up, and maybe that will work, maybe it won't, but for me its going to be a huge downgrade in gameplay, and the real reason they want to break up BG isn't because it has premier coverage 24/7 (maybe this used to be the case, but it isn't anymore), its because it has a high concentration of good players that know what they are doing and other servers don't like it.

One of the reasons I know this is true is because 2 of BG's top raiding guilds recently joined another server that we now fight against, and they continuously lose against BG Zergs, even with those top BG raiding guild commanders commanding the other servers zergs, even when its an even match in terms of zerg sizes, or if their zerg is slightly larger then BG's, the other servers are still wiping fairly consistently, all because the skill of BG pugs is simply higher on the whole. This is all the proof I need that its a skill issue and not a coverage issue.

Frankly if 24/7 coverage was the issue and other servers are upset about BG's ability to get PPT's and thus the weekly scoring and server tier placement, none of that has to do with zvz which is all that people really care about in wvw. You don't even get anything for winning the weekly matchup against other severs. As a testament to how little they care about who actually wins the weekly matchup, this change to servers that they are proposing, will make the mechanic of which server is #1 all but irrelevant anyways, so it shows how little people care about this mechanic in general already, despite saying that the sole reason for this change is to break up BG's 24/7 coverage so that BG dosen't get all those PPT's and get rank 1 on the server leaderboard. None of this is the issue at hand, that people are upset about when it comes to BG, the real issue is the concentration of skilled players that nobody dare talk about, not that its ranked as #1 on the wvw scoreboard.

I dunno what the solution is, part of me feels like they should just redo wvw completely, because i get that people don't like fighting BG. The flip side however is that making servers generic so that it becomes a non-cohesive empty (as in hollow) game mode like doing pve meta events currently are, + getting rid of all acquaintances that might not be in my guild that I am used to seeing and working together with, and now ontop of the fact that I will be playing with other guilds that I have fought against, some of which i absolutely disdain. + my impression of the fact that other servers are just not as skilled and ill have to play with players who make careless mistakes over and over, which gets old; from a selfish me point of view (as I can only speak for myself, but I have seen others echo my sentiments) it will make my gameplay much less fun then it currently is, and I just don't see the point of continuing playing once they change it.