Jump to content
  • Sign Up


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Excuse my ignorance--are you saying you can just align a guild you lead to another without some form of acceptance? I thought there has to be a mutual agreement, just like adding a player to the guild and that player having to accept the invite. The primary guild is one that I lead, so I don't mind reaching out for an alliance, but I'm going on the assumption that these larger WvW guilds would only be aligning themselves with other larger WvW guilds. If they accept the alliance, then that's all fine and dandy, for sure. I guess I am thinking worst case scenario and carrying that personal level
  2. I've already mentioned what the guild slots are for in an earlier post. You must not have wasted that much time on the thread. Besides, I asked for a civil discussion. Not some passive-aggressive responses that add zero value to the thread. Take that to reddit or elsewhere.
  3. The argument is that you were never forced to have to devote a guild slot to a WvW guild while still playing with friends and community members. Unless one of the five guilds we're in aligns themselves with other guilds within the current server we're in, we have to remove one of those five guild slots and add a WvW guild in its replacement. Something I'd rather not do as I use the current five guilds I have for various other reasons that are equally as important to me. I get that this is more about me, myself, and I, but that is kind of the topic of discussion from my OP. A sacrifice has to b
  4. That is sort of how it feels like in a sense, yeah. Hence why I don't do EotM. I've mentioned it earlier in that I'm already at guild cap. I can't join another guild to play with some of the familiar faces I see in my server today. I say some because I enjoy playing with members of a couple different guilds in my server. With the current system, I can login, join a map, and have the freedom of choice to link up with any one of the various guild squads without having to represent them. If I'm not roaming, I'll follow one out of three or four guilds that I enjoy the strategy of. I can't
  5. I don't quite understand. Anytime I'm online, and I've been online at any given part of the day, there are always enemies to fight. If this is an issue with low-pop servers, there are other fixes instead of changing the structure for every one and every server. "What will happen with me" is the premise to my OP. That was the intention of my post. I wanted to read convincing points about why I should change my views on this alliance system because the current system (again, to me) is not broken and works just fine. I already see a couple of valid points on the overall longevity of WvW wit
  6. I think this resonates with my feelings already and actually makes for an interesting point about population. Could it actually cause people being less engaged and active in WvW? I guess it wouldn't matter since this alliance system would just fix itself, removing a world each time the population decreases to a certain threshold. If alliances went live right now, with everything that we know to date, being an "unwanted" filler or random discourages me from wanting to play that aspect of the game. I'm also sure that if I'm feeling this way, others are too.
  7. These are all good reads. I think these three posts above sum up what I'm mostly gathering from this change. The alliance system only seems to be beneficial long-term with populations increasing or decreasing from server to server. That part certainly makes a lot of sense to me. Though in a perhaps selfish kind of outlook, I have yet to read any benefits to me as the player or players that are in similar situations. That's the main issue. I don't have space between my primary guild, 2x storage guilds, and two other guilds for other interests outside of WvW. I've had this "set-up" for
  8. At the end of the day, I suspect this is kind of the main factor. This change is appealing to those that are WvW focused and are already in WvW-only guilds. I get that aspect, but I don't have to agree or respect it. Players that like to dabble in everything aren't going to be overly fond of the change.
  9. Providing a brief bump. Let us know if you're interested in a casual, feel-good, friendship and open-ended focused guild!
  10. I thought it was 3 guilds per alliance. If it is unlimited, that'll be handy. Though I can imagine that the 500 member limit could hit its cap quite quickly. I haven't inquired about any alliances, but we've been looking at some alternatives anyway that we can hopefully all collectively agree on. I'll keep that in mind, however.
  11. That's right. Although we're all together in one guild and roam together a few times during the week for a few hours, others will link up with larger zerg guilds at other times. When alliances go live, they'll have to decide if they want to dedicate themselves to us or to that zerg guild rather than just being able to play with both with the current server style. That's what I'm referring to about the ultimatum. I'm the guild leader of the guild we're all in so I'm reluctant to want to dedicate myself elsewhere and said friend is just one person in that zerg guild of (probably) well over 100 p
  12. I'm curious to see what ArenaNet has in stores for people that already are at max guilds. Even if it's not a grand-scale issue, I'm sure others are in the same boat as me in that I have a primary guild I represent say 90% of the time and then a few others for very specific needs whether that be a storage/bank guild, Friday night raid guild, family/kid guild, and perhaps a meta world-event guild. I face a similar issue in that I don't have space for a WvW mega guild, nor do I *really* want to be in one. I suppose that's the double-edged sword for me in why alliances put a sour-taste in my mouth
  13. OK, this makes more sense. While I don't love the concept, I certainly see the value in the numbers of 24 < 1000, or whatever that number would be. It could make for more unique match-ups. Though I suppose if there are a few top-tier powerhouse alliances, a few mid-tier alliance, and a few weaker-tier alliances, in time, wouldn't the match-ups sort of become less dynamic as they are with servers anyway? Until people shift themselves to new guilds or alliance, of course.
  14. I'm not opposed to that at all. In fact, I sort of prefer it, but I guess the issue is (A) how's it really any different than just keeping the server system as-is and (B) assuming that I am correct in the 500-person alliance limit, that "server guild" would fill up extremely fast.
  15. I'm not entirely sure I understand or follow the first point so much, but I do appreciate the part about server population levels on the second part. Though couldn't alliances pose as the same issue as server population levels? Theoretically, if you were to join a WvW mega guild to play with friends and you have a friendly just coming into the game, that WvW mega guild or alliance might be at its 500-person cap, thus not being able to play anyway. Whether it be the current server system or the alliance system, the only way to link up with this new friend would be to switch servers or switch gu
  • Create New...