Jump to content
  • Sign Up

World Restructuring


Gaile Gray.6029

Recommended Posts

All we just need is a fun and competitive massive gamemode that allows hardcore player and casual gamers to play with fun.
The major issue is the lack of fun and objectives in WvW... Regular players are leaving because of this.

2 Big points that need change are :

Few specialization possibilities1)Specializations archetype is not that well suited for WvW because it forces you to take some specialization over others because of one or two traits. Old specialization system was more complexe but it allowed more flexible build and gave more possibility => More fun :D, Maybe a major rework would revitalize this gamemode and bring back old regular players in this gamemode.

Lack of interest in Regular WvW population2) Anet should more focused on regular WvW players and associated communities. They are the WvW heart, they have made and carry on this gamemode for years. This is through these communities and players that casual gamers and beginners in WvW get charmed by this gamemode. Theses regulars players have taught and helped many beginners and casual gamers.They can give good and fun moment to new player and show them that Massive Pvp isnt only for hardcore players.

I have led many Pick up player (PUG) over 3 years and that was a great experience and i loved that because of fun moment and fights with them.Now all of these have nearly disappear because now with re-linking, server's heart (server communities) have been eroded to dust and people that join WvW doesnt care about playing with each others and get focused only on loot ...

MAKE WvW GREAT AGAIN

We need major change and not waiting for a year to have change....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what?

Elitism and biases built in to 'inviting' into an alliance from the get go? Yikes, and I mean yikes.

WvW was supposed to bring people together for (hobby - wise) for a good cause.

Anti-Woman biases will be insanely fed by 'inviting' only in many time zones where VPNs rule and the player whose country they chose to play in, isn't being honoredby many - and most of those are very anti-female and even more anti-communication.

One point I'm starting to appreciate at this point, is that Alliances, unlike Servers, gives players the chance to accept or deny players. Being a resident of Kaineng, I've seen our server been bandwagoned a few times, our entire community/culture trampled under bandwagoners that only cares about using us to be the next big thing and then dump it, letting us deal with the leftovers. And knowing that there isn't a single thing we can do about it, because lets face it, no player can stop another player from joining a server. In this regard I'm looking forward to the Alliances, because at least we have something we can build a community around...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"atheria.2837" said:Wait, what?

Elitism and biases built in to 'inviting' into an alliance from the get go? Yikes, and I mean yikes.

WvW was supposed to bring people together for (hobby - wise) for a good cause.

Anti-Woman biases will be insanely fed by 'inviting' only in many time zones where VPNs rule and the player whose country they chose to play in, isn't being honoredby many - and most of those are very anti-female and even more anti-communication.

One point I'm starting to appreciate at this point, is that Alliances, unlike Servers, gives players the chance to accept or deny players. Being a resident of Kaineng, I've seen our server been bandwagoned a few times, our entire community/culture trampled under bandwagoners that only cares about using us to be the next big thing and then dump it, letting us deal with the leftovers. And knowing that there isn't a single thing we can do about it, because lets face it, no player can stop another player from joining a server. In this regard I'm looking forward to the Alliances, because at least we have something we can build a community around...

Curious why is this an elitist thing ? In the example I gave, a casual server was actually more or less "invaded" by elitists, trying to make a server into a hardcore server, and brush the existing fairly casual community (by comparison) under the rug ?

The idea here is that it can go in every direction. I mean you could just as well have a "casual" alliance that refuses any "hardcore" or "elite" players, is that any more or less biased/elitist than the other way around?


And what does any of this has to do with "anti-woman bias" ? I mean, what the heck is that even?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like a reasonable way to address balance issues in populations and play times, but I can't help but feel people will lose the sense of "patriotism" they might have towards their "home server", if it becomes a transient thing. Even if you're with your guild and alliance, drifting from world to world loses the sense that you're fighting alongside others for a "homeland", and pushes you into only caring about your guild/alliance.

Still, it's a tough puzzle to solve. It's not really fair to pit high population worlds against low population ones, or ones that can only field a solid fighting force during part of the day. I remember much worse back in the days of Shadowbane (!), when big guilds would find out when your keep was most lightly defended and schedule their attacks for that time, and there wasn't much you could do about it. Not fun to log in and discover you got wiped out while everyone was sleeping.

Perhaps factoring in how often someone plays WvW would help. By that, I mean when the algorithm to shuffle players (and guilds, and alliances) around to new "world" groupings runs, people who play WvW more consistently might be more likely to "stick" to the world they're already in, whereas the more casual players with a weaker connection to it would be more likely to shift around to balance population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@joneirikb.7506 said:

@"atheria.2837" said:Wait, what?

Elitism and biases built in to 'inviting' into an alliance from the get go? Yikes, and I mean yikes.

WvW was supposed to bring people together for (hobby - wise) for a good cause.

Anti-Woman biases will be insanely fed by 'inviting' only in many time zones where VPNs rule and the player whose country they chose to play in, isn't being honoredby many - and most of those are very anti-female and even more anti-communication.

One point I'm starting to appreciate at this point, is that Alliances, unlike Servers, gives players the chance to accept or deny players. Being a resident of Kaineng, I've seen our server been bandwagoned a few times, our entire community/culture trampled under bandwagoners that only cares about using us to be the next big thing and then dump it, letting us deal with the leftovers. And knowing that there isn't a single thing we can do about it, because lets face it, no player can stop another player from joining a server. In this regard I'm looking forward to the Alliances, because at least we have something we can build a community around...

Curious why is this an elitist thing ? In the example I gave, a casual server was actually more or less "invaded" by elitists, trying to make a server into a hardcore server, and brush the existing fairly casual community (by comparison) under the rug ?

The idea here is that it can go in every direction. I mean you could just as well have a "casual" alliance that refuses any "hardcore" or "elite" players, is that any more or less biased/elitist than the other way around?

And what does any of this has to do with "anti-woman bias" ? I mean, what the heck is that even?

Didnt you get the memo? Everything is anti-woman now.Sorry for mansplaining while manspreading. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Heibi.4251" said:On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

It will prevent individual alliances from being able to effectively dominate multiple time zones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Heibi.4251" said:On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?

500 people is a ton of people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like for 1 person to name 1 guild that has 500 active members for wvw.Wait, ok let's try 400.Maybe 300?Ok ok 200?For sure there's gotta be some with at least 100 right?500 people even for a community guild is quite a lot to carry into a world.Anyone prepare a community guild yet and reach that high? anyone?

Let's get a list before we start inflating max cap numbers for imaginary maxed out guilds. I say active because you can certainly can get 500 members with a ton of them haven't played in years, but they don't count if they're not on to list their wvw guild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Heibi.4251" said:On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

Make WvW guild limit 100. and the max guild pve/pvx stay at 500. Only 100 people can designate your guild as wvw. done, now 2 of them together make an alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Blaeys.3102" said:It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BlueMelody.6398 said:

@"Blaeys.3102" said:It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

It is definitely not nonsense. The people I play with on the 1-2 days I do go into WvW play with a lot of other hardcore WvW players - and among their existing guilds, they definitely number at least 500 players (not all play at once or are even very active, but they will not want to be left out). Me - and the 20 or so other members of my guild that only go into WvW a few days a week - would have to take the place of some of those hardcore players in order to be in their alliance. And their alliance would be the only one we are interested in. We have been playing with some of those people - in our casual way - for YEARS now. And I know that isn't a unique case. It is the obvious (to players if not to devs) problem we are going to run into if this system goes live. Alliances and WVW guilds will have to make some very tough decisions among their groups of friends.

Call it nonsense all you want. You obviously aren't in a situation where this will be a factor, and for that, I am glad - but others will be.

Anet needs to do better than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blaeys.3102 said:

@Blaeys.3102 said:It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

It is definitely not nonsense. The people I play with on the 1-2 days I do go into WvW play with a lot of other hardcore WvW players - and among their existing guilds, they definitely number at least 500 players (not all play at once or are even very active, but they will not want to be left out). Me - and the 20 or so other members of my guild that only go into WvW a few days a week - would have to take the place of some of those hardcore players in order to be in their alliance. And their alliance would be the only one we are interested in. We have been playing with some of those people - in our casual way - for YEARS now. And I know that isn't a unique case. It is the obvious (to players if not to devs) problem we are going to run into if this system goes live. Alliances and WVW guilds will have to make some very tough decisions among their groups of friends.

Call it nonsense all you want. You obviously aren't in a situation where this will be a factor, and for that, I am glad - but others will be.

Anet needs to do better than this.

If you're going to restrict yourself to getting into a particular hard-core guild as a casual player, then you are creating your own problem. You're asking anet to stop doing something that will improve the game for many people for the sake of a minority who refuse to look for other casual players to ally with. There will be plenty of non-elitist, non-hardcore alliances out there for you. Stamping your feet and insisting that you must play with only these particular players is a very narrow viewpoint.

You were new to the game once, you didn't know any of those people. You met them and became friends with them. Don't lock yourself into thinking you can only play with people you've met in the past few years. Meeting new people is how you picked up those existing friendships in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BlueMelody.6398 said:

@Blaeys.3102 said:It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

It is definitely not nonsense. The people I play with on the 1-2 days I do go into WvW play with a lot of other hardcore WvW players - and among their existing guilds, they definitely number at least 500 players (not all play at once or are even very active, but they will not want to be left out). Me - and the 20 or so other members of my guild that only go into WvW a few days a week - would have to take the place of some of those hardcore players in order to be in their alliance. And their alliance would be the only one we are interested in. We have been playing with some of those people - in our casual way - for YEARS now. And I know that isn't a unique case. It is the obvious (to players if not to devs) problem we are going to run into if this system goes live. Alliances and WVW guilds will have to make some very tough decisions among their groups of friends.

Call it nonsense all you want. You obviously aren't in a situation where this will be a factor, and for that, I am glad - but others will be.

Anet needs to do better than this.

If you're going to restrict yourself to getting into a particular hard-core guild as a casual player, then you are creating your own problem. You're asking anet to stop doing something that will improve the game for many people for the sake of a minority who refuse to look for other casual players to ally with. There will be
plenty
of non-elitist, non-hardcore alliances out there for you. Stamping your feet and insisting that you must play with only these particular players is a very narrow viewpoint.

You were new to the game once, you didn't know any of those people. You met them and became friends with them. Don't lock yourself into thinking you can only play with people you've met in the past few years. Meeting new people is how you picked up those existing friendships in the first place.

You obviously don't want to understand the situation. It has nothing to do with finding a particular kind of group - it is about wanting to keep a group of friends together a couple of nights a week in this game mode - friends that I know by name today - without forcing them to choose between their hardcore wvw relationships and with people like me and my guild. Those people Ive met in the past few years actually mean something to me. I hate that this system will force them to make these kinds of decisions. It is just unacceptable in any form.

Again, I respect that you have a different opinion about how the game works, but, for me, those friendships aren't something I want to replace. The idea that they will have to give up playing with their hardcore WvW friends to include my guild is unacceptable. The idea that if we might not be a part of their alliance because of the ridiculously low cap, which means there is a chance we might have to fight against them in WvW, is also unacceptable.

For people like that (and I know there are plenty of them out there), that only leaves one option - WvW wont be a part of the game for us anymore. And that should be unacceptable to ArenaNet. It seems like they are looking for any way they can to push casual players out of large portions of the game.

ArenaNet has to do better than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Heibi.4251" said:
On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?

500 people is a
ton
of people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.

Let's say we wish to have 10 guilds for an alliance. We give each guild 50 slots for players to fill and hopefully give them room to recruit or add members who return at a later date. We hit our cap immediately. If one guild thinks they don't need 50 slots and gives some back, but then suddenly discovers that they need them back it is now too late since the other guilds may have used up the slots. There won't be 500 players all on at once, and not every day/night either. Of those 500 players their times will be spread out over the week.

By limiting that number to such a low number friends who show up in the a guild who have not yet been added to the slots allowed are now left out. This will split not only servers up, but guilds as well. This is a game killer overall. The server allowed all members of a guild to most likely be on the same server and be on the same side if they went to WvW. With the system being considered this will no longer be the case. Guilds will be separated by this alliance system.

ANeT you really need to do some more thinking on this. I'd like to see this alliance system implemented with as little pain to actual guilds as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Heibi.4251 said:

On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?

500 people is a
ton
of people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.

Let's say we wish to have 10 guilds for an alliance. We give each guild 50 slots for players to fill and hopefully give them room to recruit or add members who return at a later date. We hit our cap immediately. If one guild thinks they don't need 50 slots and gives some back, but then suddenly discovers that they need them back it is now too late since the other guilds may have used up the slots. There won't be 500 players all on at once, and not every day/night either. Of those 500 players their times will be spread out over the week.

By limiting that number to such a low number friends who show up in the a guild who have not yet been added to the slots allowed are now left out. This will split not only servers up, but guilds as well. This is a game killer overall. The server allowed all members of a guild to most likely be on the same server and be on the same side if they went to WvW. With the system being considered this will no longer be the case. Guilds will be separated by this alliance system.

ANeT you really need to do some more thinking on this. I'd like to see this alliance system implemented with as little pain to actual guilds as possible.

Which again begs the question... how many 50 man WvW guilds that want to be together do you know? Really?

I can barely name 5 "larger" guilds (ie those that can field 15+ active people in a raid) on my entire server and I can guarantee you most of them wouldnt work together in an alliance. That's also linked servers, so we're looking at 2 servers...

IMO you're giving a scenario that doesnt exist in practice and one that the alliances actively work to prevent - too much stacking. It's the same thing players have complained about for years and want to reduce, especially raiding guilds so they can "fight" (or at least that's what they say). I could also easily say well if 50 guilds with 100 players each want to play together, they cant under alliances, that's bad and limiting! But the very point of alliances is to make smaller chunks of players. Instead of one massive 2500+ man chunk like the current servers, Anet wants five 500 man chunks. The cap is there for a reason.

Also in your specific scenario and if we're assuming active players and raiding guilds, even at a "limiting" 10 guilds with 50 people in each you just created an alliance that would DOMINATE any current T1 matchup on its own. That's how many people 500 really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?

500 people is a
ton
of people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.

Let's say we wish to have 10 guilds for an alliance. We give each guild 50 slots for players to fill and hopefully give them room to recruit or add members who return at a later date. We hit our cap immediately. If one guild thinks they don't need 50 slots and gives some back, but then suddenly discovers that they need them back it is now too late since the other guilds may have used up the slots. There won't be 500 players all on at once, and not every day/night either. Of those 500 players their times will be spread out over the week.

By limiting that number to such a low number friends who show up in the a guild who have not yet been added to the slots allowed are now left out. This will split not only servers up, but guilds as well. This is a game killer overall. The server allowed all members of a guild to most likely be on the same server and be on the same side if they went to WvW. With the system being considered this will no longer be the case. Guilds will be separated by this alliance system.

ANeT you really need to do some more thinking on this. I'd like to see this alliance system implemented with as little pain to actual guilds as possible.

Which again begs the question... how many 50 man WvW guilds that want to be together do you know? Really?

I can barely name 5 "larger" guilds (ie those that can field 15+ active people in a raid) on my entire server and I can guarantee you most of them wouldnt work together in an alliance. That's also linked servers, so we're looking at 2 servers...

IMO you're giving a scenario that doesnt exist in practice and one that the alliances actively work to
prevent
- too much stacking. It's the same thing players have complained about for years and want to reduce, especially raiding guilds so they can "fight" (or at least that's what they say). I could also easily say well if 50 guilds with 100 players each want to play together, they cant under alliances, that's bad and limiting! But the very point of alliances is to make smaller chunks of players. Instead of one massive 2500+ man chunk like the current servers, Anet wants five 500 man chunks. The cap is there for a reason.

Also in your specific scenario and if we're assuming active players and raiding guilds, even at a "limiting" 10 guilds with 50 people in each you just created an alliance that would DOMINATE any current T1 matchup on its own. That's how many people 500 really are.

I thing the main problem would be for e.g.. in our guild we have 84 Players and there are only 15 active atm. so should i choose the 15 active one and if the inactive get´s back tell them maybe we can play together in 2 months? So basically it´s rly something twisted up.I would rather see the cap of 1000 Ppl since it´s less then the actual worlds and would mean enough space for the inactive too. And to keep it more balanced just work with the map cap instead.

E.g. you have 1k players but only 200 can join the wvw since of the map caps ( 50 ea map for e.g.). So there would be 2 positive affects first the map of the enemy could be filled the same way since 50 ppl is way lower then the actual one and also helps to reduce the lags occurring if 3 server smash each other e.g. in stone mist.

I know that would mean they can´t play all on the same map but since an alliance would consist of more guilds they can talk to each other and picking an map if they want.

@Dawdler.8521 said:Also in your specific scenario and if we're assuming active players and raiding guilds, even at a "limiting" 10 guilds with 50 people in each you just created an alliance that would DOMINATE any current T1 matchup on its own. That's how many people 500 really are.

I think you refers here to an alliance with the top guilds in it, if so i can tell you in the past happened the same the top guild stuck on an server all together and had problems to find others to fight, therefore some had to leave the server and pay a lot of gold/gems for it, now they would have the opportunity to change server after two weeks by joining another alliance and that´s for free. So i think if thy would be inserted in gvg they wont stuck up like the ppl fears of.At least that´s what i expired in my wvw Guild, and i believe it wont be different if you are playing in an wvw guild that is a progressive one.

And even if you don´t refer to top players, ppl trends to play together with the ones speaking the same language so there wont be 500 ppl online 24/7.My experience is it´s 7pm to 10pm maybe 11pm the most playing and some in the morning before working (at least on my server the ppl are so)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Marcel.1857" said:E.g. you have 1k players but only 200 can join the wvw since of the map caps ( 50 ea map for e.g.). So there would be 2 positive affects first the map of the enemy could be filled the same way since 50 ppl is way lower then the actual one and also helps to reduce the lags occurring if 3 server smash each other e.g. in stone mist.

That makes absolutely no sense. Whether you have two 500 man alliances or one 1000 man alliances, you still dumped the same amount of people into WvW. What you suggest only reduce the caps, letting less players play - which goes against the point you're trying to make, to get more people to play together.

Will alliances make guilds to clean the rooster? Maybe. Is that so bad? If you have 15 active players in your 84 man guilds maybe it's about time. Lots of guilds have inactive players, that's fine. But it's not like you need someone that hasnt logged on for like 2 years. I'm sure you can loose some of those 69 players. Send them a mail, thank them for their time, encourage them to look you up if they ever start playing the game again cause you can always reinvite them.

Or you could bypass the inactive "fat" completely simply by making a specific alliance guild. In theory, if it works like we suspect and if WvW rep is seperate from guild rep it should be incredibly simple.

Create a new guild, invite the 15 active players. Set that guild as your WvW guild and/or join an alliance with that guild. Never rep it, only rep the old guild. Boom done deal. You now have an alliance guild that only take 15/500 slots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?

500 people is a
ton
of people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.

Let's say we wish to have 10 guilds for an alliance. We give each guild 50 slots for players to fill and hopefully give them room to recruit or add members who return at a later date. We hit our cap immediately. If one guild thinks they don't need 50 slots and gives some back, but then suddenly discovers that they need them back it is now too late since the other guilds may have used up the slots. There won't be 500 players all on at once, and not every day/night either. Of those 500 players their times will be spread out over the week.

By limiting that number to such a low number friends who show up in the a guild who have not yet been added to the slots allowed are now left out. This will split not only servers up, but guilds as well. This is a game killer overall. The server allowed all members of a guild to most likely be on the same server and be on the same side if they went to WvW. With the system being considered this will no longer be the case. Guilds will be separated by this alliance system.

ANeT you really need to do some more thinking on this. I'd like to see this alliance system implemented with as little pain to actual guilds as possible.

Which again begs the question... how many 50 man WvW guilds that want to be together do you know? Really?

I can barely name 5 "larger" guilds (ie those that can field 15+ active people in a raid) on my entire server and I can guarantee you most of them wouldnt work together in an alliance. That's also linked servers, so we're looking at 2 servers...

IMO you're giving a scenario that doesnt exist in practice and one that the alliances actively work to
prevent
- too much stacking. It's the same thing players have complained about for years and want to reduce, especially raiding guilds so they can "fight" (or at least that's what they say). I could also easily say well if 50 guilds with 100 players each want to play together, they cant under alliances, that's bad and limiting! But the very point of alliances is to make smaller chunks of players. Instead of one massive 2500+ man chunk like the current servers, Anet wants five 500 man chunks. The cap is there for a reason.

Also in your specific scenario and if we're assuming active players and raiding guilds, even at a "limiting" 10 guilds with 50 people in each you just created an alliance that would DOMINATE any current T1 matchup on its own. That's how many people 500 really are.

You keep forgetting the time zones. There's NA(Pacific to Eastern), EU time zone and SEA. Not all of them play during the same time. An alliance will be built across time zones not as a bulk of players. I gave the example of 50 players per guild as a sample of what might happen to actual guilds once the system is implemented in such a fashion as 500 max per alliance. My concern is that players will most surely be left out because of the low limit of players in an alliance system. Currently we can have way more than 500 spread across multiple time zones. Certain servers are stacked to cover all times(i.e. Black Gate), but others aren't. Those stacked servers have way more than two 500 guild-worth of guilds in them. Which is why they remain in the top tiers. Limiting them to two guild populations of 500 each in an alliance(1000 total) will actually limit the coverage to some degree. There's definitely more than 1000 players on the top tier servers who cover WvW time zones. I'm just trying to salvage some of the Server Comrade-re that already exists. ANeT seems to be overlooking that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Heibi.4251 said:

On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.

I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?

500 people is a
ton
of people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.

Let's say we wish to have 10 guilds for an alliance. We give each guild 50 slots for players to fill and hopefully give them room to recruit or add members who return at a later date. We hit our cap immediately. If one guild thinks they don't need 50 slots and gives some back, but then suddenly discovers that they need them back it is now too late since the other guilds may have used up the slots. There won't be 500 players all on at once, and not every day/night either. Of those 500 players their times will be spread out over the week.

By limiting that number to such a low number friends who show up in the a guild who have not yet been added to the slots allowed are now left out. This will split not only servers up, but guilds as well. This is a game killer overall. The server allowed all members of a guild to most likely be on the same server and be on the same side if they went to WvW. With the system being considered this will no longer be the case. Guilds will be separated by this alliance system.

ANeT you really need to do some more thinking on this. I'd like to see this alliance system implemented with as little pain to actual guilds as possible.

Which again begs the question... how many 50 man WvW guilds that want to be together do you know? Really?

I can barely name 5 "larger" guilds (ie those that can field 15+ active people in a raid) on my entire server and I can guarantee you most of them wouldnt work together in an alliance. That's also linked servers, so we're looking at 2 servers...

IMO you're giving a scenario that doesnt exist in practice and one that the alliances actively work to
prevent
- too much stacking. It's the same thing players have complained about for years and want to reduce, especially raiding guilds so they can "fight" (or at least that's what they say). I could also easily say well if 50 guilds with 100 players each want to play together, they cant under alliances, that's bad and limiting! But the very point of alliances is to make smaller chunks of players. Instead of one massive 2500+ man chunk like the current servers, Anet wants five 500 man chunks. The cap is there for a reason.

Also in your specific scenario and if we're assuming active players and raiding guilds, even at a "limiting" 10 guilds with 50 people in each you just created an alliance that would DOMINATE any current T1 matchup on its own. That's how many people 500 really are.

You keep forgetting the time zones. There's NA(Pacific to Eastern), EU time zone and SEA. Not all of them play during the same time. An alliance will be built across time zones not as a bulk of players. I gave the example of 50 players per guild as a sample of what might happen to actual guilds once the system is implemented in such a fashion as 500 max per alliance. My concern is that players will most surely be left out because of the low limit of players in an alliance system. Currently we can have way more than 500 spread across multiple time zones. Certain servers are stacked to cover all times(i.e. Black Gate), but others aren't. Those stacked servers have way more than two 500 guild-worth of guilds in them. Which is why they remain in the top tiers. Limiting them to two guild populations of 500 each in an alliance(1000 total) will actually limit the coverage to some degree. There's definitely more than 1000 players on the top tier servers who cover WvW time zones. I'm just trying to salvage some of the Server Comrade-re that already exists. ANeT seems to be overlooking that issue.

And that is a perfect summary of the point of the alliance system. One alliance shouldn't be able to control a matchup. Alliances will need to work with other (likely one other) alliance and the non allied guilds and individuals to be successful.

Non of the communities that are left are made up of what they started with. People will meet new players, work with or die beside other new players.

Just like they had to do when they moved servers, or linked with servers, or welcomed new guilds and players onto their world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The risk is timezone stacking alliance. I won't be surprise if some people decided to make a alliance solely consist of a single timezone. If is prime time, not a big deal since prime time is huge. But if is off hours, it will be extremely destructive since off hours is well, pretty small. 500 is more than enough for off hours to timezone stack and destroy the balance completely. When that kind of alliance do form, it makes you wonder whats the point of blowing up anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SkyShroud.2865 said:The risk is timezone stacking alliance. I won't be surprise if some people decided to make a alliance solely consist of a single timezone. If is prime time, not a big deal since prime time is huge. But if is off hours, it will be extremely destructive since off hours is well, pretty small. 500 is more than enough for off hours to timezone stack and destroy the balance completely. When that kind of alliance do form, it makes you wonder whats the point of blowing up anyway.

This^^

Is why there should not be rewards for 'winning'. Any alliance that fields a large number of SEA or OCX guilds will merge into any other alliance with world forming and likely control any matchup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...