SugarCayne.3098

Repping has nothing to do with the metrics and no effect on alliances. It hinges entirely on which guild you set as your "wvw guild", which you can rep 100% of the time or 0%. There is nothing to exploit here that isn't already in the system. Yes. And it can be manipulated. Matches are determined by the participation activity of members of any given guild. Don’t like a match? Switch your chosen WvW Guild and play in another. And so on.... No, repping has NO effect, which is what your original contention was. Activity levels will be analyzed in and of themselves, without regards to who you rep x% of the time. I don't know where you are pulling this nonsense from. Repping and setting your wvw guild have no relationship. Of course you will be able to switch your selected wvw guild and potentially play with another alliance in the next session, assuming that alliance isn't full. You can't alliance-hop willy nilly in the middle of the season, although they may provide for gem-cost transfers to non-full worlds. People will obviously move and change guilds as this progresses. The alliance cap itself is going to heavily dampen any real effects of stacking or gaming. The current system is far more subject to manipulation than the one they're working on, and I really don't understand the strident opposition to the change on the basis of sky-is-falling fears of gaming.// Your play time will only apply to the guild you select as your WvW guild. You can only select one guild per account. If you play with multiple account then the play time of each account would be applied to the guild that was selected on that account. This would in effect mean if you have one account and play with two different guilds the total play time for the account will be applied to the guild that you pick. If you are saying that your play time will change as a result of not being able to join your other rally then it will take some time to adjust to your new play hours.

Repping has nothing to do with the metrics and no effect on alliances. It hinges entirely on which guild you set as your "wvw guild", which you can rep 100% of the time or 0%. There is nothing to exploit here that isn't already in the system. Yes. And it can be manipulated. Matches are determined by the participation activity of members of any given guild. Don’t like a match? Switch your chosen WvW Guild and play in another. And so on.... No, repping has NO effect, which is what your original contention was. Activity levels will be analyzed in and of themselves, without regards to who you rep x% of the time. I don't know where you are pulling this nonsense from. Repping and setting your wvw guild have no relationship. Of course you will be able to switch your selected wvw guild and potentially play with another alliance in the next session, assuming that alliance isn't full. You can't alliance-hop willy nilly in the middle of the season, although they may provide for gem-cost transfers to non-full worlds. People will obviously move and change guilds as this progresses. The alliance cap itself is going to heavily dampen any real effects of stacking or gaming. The current system is far more subject to manipulation than the one they're working on, and I really don't understand the strident opposition to the change on the basis of sky-is-falling fears of gaming.You switch alliance guild for next matchup. You say you can do that above. Even suggest you can do this mid game for a fee. Remove the word rep. It seems to create confusion. Extrapolate. How will Anet determine matchmaking? Don’t look at it as a single player moving, think an entire guild. And because these alliances will be much smaller, the greater the impact. Anything that lets a player impact metrics will be exploited. Some will do it to ensure their rivals have nobody to fight for eight weeks. Others will do it to surge an alliance and give false metrics for next matchmaking. Just because I can already see the exploits is not a sky is falling reaction. I think some folks are refusing to consider these issues because it negates the proposal. Or they just haven’t considered how it will be exploited. The point is that if players have the option to choose guild A B or C as their WvW Guild, and can arbitrarily change that, it will be exploited.

Repping has nothing to do with the metrics and no effect on alliances. It hinges entirely on which guild you set as your "wvw guild", which you can rep 100% of the time or 0%. There is nothing to exploit here that isn't already in the system. Yes. And it can be manipulated. Matches are determined by the participation activity of members of any given guild. Don’t like a match? Switch your chosen WvW Guild and play in another. And so on....

Yup. Pretty much sums it up. Great choice of words.

You do realize that by saying guilds will be used for population metrics it will increase the “must represent 100% of the time” factor for most big guilds? And if they don’t like their pairings? Do not represent. You are creating a massive problem with that. It will be exploited.

Better still, they “implement this new system” in NA only, and see which style is working better a year later. My vote is on EU and single servers. You must actually be from BG as they are the only ones opposed.Nope. EU. And really quite pissed we are suffering for NA’s inability to spread out.

I’m curious how you see this not repeating itself. The most dedicated will become one alliance and dominate. Could just be called BG 2.0.

Better still, they “implement this new system” in NA only, and see which style is working better a year later. My vote is on EU and single servers.

And all those guys will join the same alliance and we will have the exact same issues in WvW -- well except for a large chunk of loyalists gone.

Okay? Enjoy your random placement? You choose that. If you want it to be not so random, take active steps to be where you want to be with friends, family, guildies, people you want to play with. You have some months, maybe a year to get it figured out. Get on that buddy. Out of context that's a great response. Try pairing it with the rest of the comment.

^ best post in this thread so far Yeah, complain in the EU forums which are not moderated at all. xD But yeah, it seems like the major problem of the NA Servers is the reason why everyone on the EU servers is getting punished. @Thea Cherry.6327 said: ^ best post in this thread so far Yeah, complain in the EU forums which are not moderated at all. xD But yeah, it seems like the major problem of the NA Servers is the reason why everyone on the EU servers is getting punished. The problem is very obvious on the NA servers, but it's not like this could not become an issue for EU servers. It was just a month ago Kodash had to blackout/NOT play in order to do anything, and Desolation was rotting in T4/5 until their recent link which they shot up to T1. It's just more common in NA because T1 is a dead tier where virtually nothing can compete with Blackgate.That’s only because NA players came over. I’m an NA player, but I joined EU four years ago. I’ve seen the shift. And they went to kodash for some reason. Arrow carts I assume.

Stop punishing EU for NA’s problems.

Not how it works. You don't have to pay to transfer anywhere if you and your buddies come together and alliance/guild with one and other before hand. Paying to transfer is you changing your mind about it. You have months, maybe a year, to get it all figured out. Get to it. Oh? You're saying that you get put into one alliance, hate it, you can move freely elsewhere? Or will there be a transfer fee? You get put in with a bunch of guilds you really don't like, and you're stuck or you move. They're not going to have a 25 person "alliance" .. they'll fill it up. You won't have a choice, unless you have moved your chess pieces and stacked your alliance The alliance is just another name for a server. I don't think people get that. Only it gives guilds more power. Think about that. Then think about the history of this game. And I'm also thinking there will be a transfer fee. And lots of revenue, because very few people will be happy with first choices. You dont get "put into an alliance" you either decide to join a guild and that guild gets into an alliance and then u play with all those people, or you just RNG it as a pug cuz u dont care, either way u chose who you play with or simple u just dont care enough to actually join a WvW group u want to play with in which case there is absolutely no point on you posting this since you are the one choosing not to play with people you enjoy..... as a pug you don’t care. The start of an inclusive gaming environment. And it hasn’t even launched. Just re-read this response. I said what if you have a small guild and you don’t have an alliance. You will get placed randomly. If you dislike your placement, pay to transfer or don’t play for eight weeks. It takes away choice, and gives it only to the most stacked servers, I mean alliances. In the end, it resolves nothing, but alienates a core group.

Not how it works. You don't have to pay to transfer anywhere if you and your buddies come together and alliance/guild with one and other before hand. Paying to transfer is you changing your mind about it. You have months, maybe a year, to get it all figured out. Get to it. Oh? You're saying that you get put into one alliance, hate it, you can move freely elsewhere? Or will there be a transfer fee? You get put in with a bunch of guilds you really don't like, and you're stuck or you move. They're not going to have a 25 person "alliance" .. they'll fill it up. You won't have a choice, unless you have moved your chess pieces and stacked your alliance The alliance is just another name for a server. I don't think people get that. Only it gives guilds more power. Think about that. Then think about the history of this game. And I'm also thinking there will be a transfer fee. And lots of revenue, because very few people will be happy with first choices.

Maybe that’s what Anet wants ..to be finally rid of the demands from wvw players. This feels like a shortsighted money-grab. Lots of income from server transfers ... every eight weeks.