World Restructuring

[Dawdler.8521]

@Heibi.4251 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Heibi.4251 said:

@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.

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.

No I dont. I give no regards to timezones, because a world is not an alliance. What you do is you keep forgetting that an alliance is not the entire world. A world is 2500+ players, or 5+ alliances/max capped guilds worth. There is plenty of room to spread out players playing at different times, just like how the servers work today.

Again, the very point of limiting the alliance size is to not have a sizeable group of players that can cover everything, in order to better match total population averages of each world.

[fewfield.7802]

@Menzo.2185 said:

@"fewfield.7802" said:Do you really think that most of main wvw player play wvw because of these fancy machanics ?I don't think, I know.

You can see a result as the population in the red border. No one wants to go there.Who is "no one"???? Your empty server perhaps.

The fun part of wvw is massive scale pvp. I can play wvw for 5-6 hrs if i have some decent fights like Blob vs Blob. But i cant even play more than 20 mins against sieges and players hugging tower/keep.Youo ARE not the majority of the WvW players. Speak for yourself.

You are not the majority as well.

[LordMadman.5812]

@"Redponey.8352" said:I dont really think those changes will make great again WvW as it was previously.

Actually there is no MMO that provide such dynamic gameplay and combat system with a massive amount of people with a minimum of latency.Why regular WvW player leave the gamemode? because it has became poor in gameplay/build, less variability in build.I dont mean that other alternative build are not viable. i mean that one or maybe two build outperform totally all other alternative. This push people to play this "meta build" instead of try several alternative.

I have talk with many of friends that have already left the game because of this...

The Major point of this gamemode is F U N but actually with this non possibility to play with my friend several alternative without totally outperfom by others .

We went in a vicious cycle, that regular player doesnt want to get involve to help new player in WvW and left the game, and then started the decrease of population in WvW.

One major point that will bring a lot of people back in WvW , is to make a great and huge balance that allow us to play different way (not in number of people) but in Build composition. this change wont bring new content but will use all the content already developed.

For example, i loved play core guardian build in WvW but without firebrand specialization in WvW , you're completly behind in DPS/ Support (heal buff) and even in selfsustain.Same issue with necro, most of all necro , you will check in WvW are scourge (except people who doesnt own PoF) and are in celestial or condi/tank. is it a healthly gamemode? no, we need VARIABILITY in MetaBuild . Just look at the past, GW1 was the greatest PvP game ever made because it has completly separate skill (pve/PvP)it have a lot of skills and possibility to counterplay an other build (it means variability).

I think just using the recipe that made GW1 great may help to recover the issue of population in WvW.

GW1 was great since you could have secondary classes of anything, but it was a huge balance nightmare for Arenanet. I actually run a regular guardian in WVW and do great, but it's more for roaming.

[Nate.3927]

I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Nate.3927 said:I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

Dont really need Anet for that. Just look at your own server. How many 500 man WvW guilds do you see? Do any of them actually field more than 20-25 people? The answer might be yes... Maybe 1 guild. Probably the community guild. Might even be 2 if you got a link.

And thats most likely representative of all servers.

[Nate.3927]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Nate.3927 said:I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

Dont really need Anet for that. Just look at your own server. How many 500 man WvW guilds do you see? Do any of them actually field more than 20-25 people? The answer might be yes... Maybe 1 guild. Probably the community guild. Might even be 2 if you got a link.

And thats most likely representative of all servers.

what I meant is, we can all say that, and we're probably right, BUT it's more official and believable if actual statistics gets released.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Nate.3927 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Nate.3927 said:I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

Dont really need Anet for that. Just look at your own server. How many 500 man WvW guilds do you see? Do any of them actually field more than 20-25 people? The answer might be yes... Maybe 1 guild. Probably the community guild. Might even be 2 if you got a link.

And thats most likely representative of all servers.

what I meant is, we can all say that, and we're probably right, BUT it's more official and believable if actual statistics gets released.

The first world creation is going to be.... interesting.

After that, it will be .. let's say fairly accurate. It will be able to be gamed but meh, the current system can and is being gamed so there is that.

Guild sizes will matter for the initial creations. So if a guild has all 450 of the moments select them as their WvW guild, and the choose to be in an alliance, then there will only be able to be 50 more in the alliance.

If they don't select them as their guild, they will be placed in another world. Which, if they then select the guild, it would force them to wait until the next world creation OR they could pay to transfer to the world, (if open) but it still won't let them in the 'alliances' unless the 500 alliance cap hasn't been met.

At the next world creation, guilds may face a choice of whether to kick some of these players, or change alliances.

[Tehologist.5841]

I wished it worked like competitive battles in guild wars, had 3 factions instead of server vs server. Have an area with 5, 5 man parties per side and actual matches instead of zergs with pugs.

Kurzick 4 life.

[Aeolus.3615]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@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.

Players will have to manage their groups in time zones or try to stack every ones time zones for mass manipulation.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@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.

Players will have to manage their groups in time zones or try to stack every ones time zones for mass manipulation.

But let's think of an alliance of guilds of SEA players if 250, and an OCX of 250.

That alliance will be full.

But a WORLD will be made up of two alliances and other guilds.

Likely that SEA and OCX alliance would be with an alliance of other time zones.. Ie NA or EU. Thus making any world that SEA/OCX alliance is on, fairly difficult to beat.....

[Aeolus.3615]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@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.

Players will have to manage their groups in time zones or try to stack every ones time zones for mass manipulation.

But let's think of an alliance of guilds of SEA players if 250, and an OCX of 250.

That alliance will be full.

But a WORLD will be made up of two alliances and other guilds.

Likely that SEA and OCX alliance would be with an alliance of other time zones.. Ie NA or EU. Thus making any world that SEA/OCX alliance is on, fairly difficult to beat.....

For what was explained to me there would be something equivalent to links inside the alliance or like u said there actually will be several groups to make one world :\, so yeah that's what im waiting to happen :.Theres actually a way to design a game mode where the number of players wont matter, but the game wont be a ktrain based on high population vs lower population, wich somehow is what Anet wants.

The truth is i fear that the alliances system is just a rebrand with what we have now with a options for guilds on the mega server stack at their own will....

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@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.

Players will have to manage their groups in time zones or try to stack every ones time zones for mass manipulation.

But let's think of an alliance of guilds of SEA players if 250, and an OCX of 250.

That alliance will be full.

But a WORLD will be made up of two alliances and other guilds.

Likely that SEA and OCX alliance would be with an alliance of other time zones.. Ie NA or EU. Thus making any world that SEA/OCX alliance is on, fairly difficult to beat.....

For what was explained to me there would be something equivalent to links inside the alliance or like u said there actually will be several groups to make one world :\, so yeah that's what im waiting to happen :.

Sort of.... Most of what I have seen from the Deb's is no more than 2 alliances per world, and those alliances won't be able to pick each other.

Also, the 'non alliance' guilds and players that will fill up the remaining 50-60% of the world population will also not be able to directly choose the alliance they play with.

Theres actually a way to design a game mode where the number of players wont matter, but the game wont be a ktrain based on high population vs lower population, wich somehow is what Anet wants.

The truth is i fear that the alliances system is just a rebrand with what we have now with a options for guilds on the mega server stack at their own will....

There is some truth to that, but for those guilds that like to play on different worlds and servers, that will happen every 8 weeks.

Communities, for better or worse, will be defined by your guild and possibly your alliance.

[Aeolus.3615]

@Strider Pj.2193, in terms of communities i have talked with some players on TS and map chat "we" dont feel anything going to change about that, NSP will still be NSP :\ and i assume other servers will still be other servers, basicly what this comes to help is the recruitment of players and possible guilds to the alliance of that world.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:Sort of.... Most of what I have seen from the Deb's is no more than 2 alliances per world, and those alliances won't be able to pick each other.I havent read anything about such a limit. Plus, it wouldnt actually work at all to limit it unless you hardcap the amount of alliances that exist (cant have more than worlds x2). Thats not really how alliances work, is it?

Otherwise I pity the poor world that gets a 10 man alliance someone created to see how the alliance system works and a 20 man/3 guild roaming alliance (still recruiting!) combined with 2470+ random pugs to flesh it out because there can only be 2 alliances. Also most of those pugs will have to be Anet created bots cause we need to fill more than 1 world.

[shiri.4257]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:Sort of.... Most of what I have seen from the Deb's is no more than 2 alliances per world, and those alliances won't be able to pick each other.I havent read anything about such a limit. Plus, it wouldnt actually work at all to limit it unless you hardcap the amount of alliances that exist (cant have more than worlds x2). Thats not really how alliances work, is it?

Otherwise I pity the poor world that gets a 10 man alliance someone created to see how the alliance system works and a 20 man/3 guild roaming alliance (still recruiting!) combined with 2470+ random pugs to flesh it out because there can only be 2 alliances. Also most of those pugs will have to be Anet created bots cause we need to fill more than 1 world.

I hope those ANet created bots are like the hylek. The KDR I get from havocing with the hylek far surpasses any pug comp.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:Sort of.... Most of what I have seen from the Deb's is no more than 2 alliances per world, and those alliances won't be able to pick each other.I havent read anything about such a limit. Plus, it wouldnt actually work at all to limit it unless you hardcap the amount of alliances that exist (cant have more than worlds x2). Thats not really how alliances work, is it?

Otherwise I pity the poor world that gets a 10 man alliance someone created to see how the alliance system works and a 20 man/3 guild roaming alliance (still recruiting!) combined with 2470+ random pugs to flesh it out because there can only be 2 alliances. Also most of those pugs will have to be Anet created bots cause we need to fill more than 1 world.

That is true.

Went back and was reference the initial diagram which I do not think it has more than 2.

But in the update, it was noted that they are looking at how many alliances.

So I think that is still being fleshed out.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:Sort of.... Most of what I have seen from the Deb's is no more than 2 alliances per world, and those alliances won't be able to pick each other.I havent read anything about such a limit. Plus, it wouldnt actually work at all to limit it unless you hardcap the amount of alliances that exist (cant have more than worlds x2). Thats not really how alliances work, is it?

Otherwise I pity the poor world that gets a 10 man alliance someone created to see how the alliance system works and a 20 man/3 guild roaming alliance (still recruiting!) combined with 2470+ random pugs to flesh it out because there can only be 2 alliances. Also most of those pugs will have to be Anet created bots cause we need to fill more than 1 world.

That is true.

Went back and was reference the initial diagram which I do not think it has more than 2.

But in the update, it was noted that they are looking at how many alliances.

So I think that is still being fleshed out.

The design theory assumed max sized alliances (at 500) and one alliance being roughly 20% of a current server (2500+), with alliances not forming a majority of the world (ie 2 max sized alliances or its a majority). It wasnt a nod at how many alliances a world would be limited to afaik, just theoretical maxes (its actually the

lowest

amount, assuming a "full" world).

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:Sort of.... Most of what I have seen from the Deb's is no more than 2 alliances per world, and those alliances won't be able to pick each other.I havent read anything about such a limit. Plus, it wouldnt actually work at all to limit it unless you hardcap the amount of alliances that exist (cant have more than worlds x2). Thats not really how alliances work, is it?

Otherwise I pity the poor world that gets a 10 man alliance someone created to see how the alliance system works and a 20 man/3 guild roaming alliance (still recruiting!) combined with 2470+ random pugs to flesh it out because there can only be 2 alliances. Also most of those pugs will have to be Anet created bots cause we need to fill more than 1 world.

That is true.

Went back and was reference the initial diagram which I do not think it has more than 2.

But in the update, it was noted that they are looking at how many alliances.

So I think that is still being fleshed out.

The design theory assumed max sized alliances (at 500) and one alliance being roughly 20% of a current server (2500+), with alliances not forming a majority of the world (ie 2 max sized alliances or its a majority). It wasnt a nod at how many alliances a world would be limited to afaik, just theoretical maxes (its actually the

lowest

amount, assuming a "full" world).

That makes sense. I went on the (incorrect) assumption that the alliances would all be close to max.

Thank you for helping to clarify that for me

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Nate.3927 said:I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

[Nate.3927]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Nate.3927 said:I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Nate.3927 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Nate.3927 said:I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

You clearly don't understand how small non-prime timezone is.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Nate.3927 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Nate.3927 said:I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

You clearly don't understand how small non-prime timezone is.

Which, agreed, is the biggest potential 'exploit' of the new system.

I really don't care unless they are going to attach rewards to winning matchups. If that happens, then we have the same problem, potentially worse, then we did with transfers for tournaments.

If there is not attachment of rewards to winning, then those that stack one of those two time zones with only gain Karma... if they want to beat down doors, gl to them.

[Henky.8426]

The biggest issues we are facing in our player group is the fact some are americans and some are europeans meaning its difficult to play optimally.If you remove the NA/EU split or at least make the transfer free that would allow us to be automatically matched in the appropriate worlds if we wish to play together.Right now playing with international friends is either permanently suboptimal for either americans or europeans in the group or very expensive.

[Turk.5460]

@Henky.8426 said:The biggest issues we are facing in our player group is the fact some are americans and some are europeans meaning its difficult to play optimally.If you remove the NA/EU split or at least make the transfer free that would allow us to be automatically matched in the appropriate worlds if we wish to play together.Right now playing with international friends is either permanently suboptimal for either americans or europeans in the group or very expensive.

Currently people who play in a region that is not where they live are choosing to risk having a higher ping or greater lag. It would probably be more detrimental to the game mode/population and cause loads of frustration if that type of interference were to be forced on players.

[Nate.3927]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Nate.3927 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Nate.3927 said:I think somewhere between 500-750 is good for an alliance, as others have said you want to make the chunk big enough to maintain community, but small enough to make balancing easier. I have many friends on other servers, on the occasion that we are linked together, then we play together. When we are not, we hunt each other down. You can still be friends even if you're not on the same world.

I think what might help people is if Anet releases some statistics on how many guilds exactly have their Guild Missions set to WvW AND have player numbers in the 300-500 range where the majority goes into WvW on a regular basis. For example if there exists a guild whose Guild Mission is set to WvW and have 450 players, but only 100 actually go into WvW on a weekly or daily basis, then really that's not a 500 member guild.

Well, if the large guild want to, they can just create a wvw-only sister guild just for their wvw players to select as wvw guild. Of course technically that eat up another slot.WvW guild isn't that hard to run either and I am sure any large real pvx guild leaders, if they really want to, can easily build up a large 500-man active wvw guild. Fortunately, I believe the leaders find no fun in that since the whole purpose of creating a large guild is to able to play all game modes while having social environment of consistent faces.

However, the real concern shouldn't be any kind of 500-man active wvw guild but rather, a combined 500-man active alliance of same timezone, especially non-prime timezones since we don't really have much people in non-prime.

Of course, some people downplay that concern, I am interested to see if such alliance really get formed and if it does get formed, how the players gonna react to it and how anet gonna handle it.

bear in mind even if it is 500 active, that's not 500 in WvW everyday for hours each day, the majority of those maybe in WvW for an hour a day or less with a smaller minority in WvW for 3-4 hours or more each day. If anything an alliance made up of a single PvX guild would be weaker in real terms to an alliance made up of multiple smaller WvW focused guilds. That's where the WvW playtime considerations will take effect in future. Where the algorithm balances around both raw numbers and playtime.

You clearly don't understand how small non-prime timezone is.

I play OCX and SEA. I live in Australia, I've tagged and roamed both against TIME and on the same side as TIME. I know exactly how small non-prime timezones are. We don't have 500 dedicated WvW players who all like each other enough to get into an alliance together long term in our timezone. And on the positive side we have enough people with brains across the different OCX/SEA guilds who can say "hey, let's not stack because it will be boring and then everyone will quit". At no point did I say "500 people who play WvW everyday won't make a difference". What I am saying is "500 people on paper is not 500 actual dedicated WvW players that play WvW everyday". The biggest OCX focused WvW guild I have ever been in had ~370 people on the roster at it's peak, of those ~300 were people who consider themselves as WvW players. The most we were ever able to pull into WvW concurrently is ~35 and of those only ~15 were people who spend 3-4+ hours in WvW each day, and not all at the same time. The rest drop in and drop out based on irl responsibilities or PvE interests.