Euryon.9248

Possibly, but realistically, 500 friends? lol :) No, the transferring player is not necessarily friends with all 500 alliance members. However, breaking up a large long-standing community into at least 5 or 6 separate alliances will force many players to buy transfers. OR, maybe they can make do with a couple hundred of their closest friends and make some new ones too. Why would they have to buy transfers to a world that may be full anyway for an 8-week period?

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.Not sure what the point of this is, the 2 posts you've linked have nothing to do with each other. One is about repping, the other is about computing play hours to be used to balance the first (and only the first) session in the new system.

Personal bank guilds, guilds made by people in same country/region to stay in touch while playing in their main guild etc. You're missing the point. The question isn't "when would it be a moot point to set the wvw flag" (e.g., personal bank guild), but when would it have costs or negative repercussions to set the flag to wvw. So far I haven't seen any dev supply any such reason. Why should it have costs?Not suggesting that it should. I'd be fine if every guild could mark itself as a wvw guild. And if there are no other ramifications to doing so, why wouldn't they?

Personal bank guilds, guilds made by people in same country/region to stay in touch while playing in their main guild etc. You're missing the point. The question isn't "when would it be a moot point to set the wvw flag" (e.g., personal bank guild), but when would it have costs or negative repercussions to set the flag to wvw. So far I haven't seen any dev supply any such reason. I think you have a misunderstanding, its the players that choose which guild is their 'wvw' guild. You can be a member of 5 different guilds that do wvw, but you can only have one flagged as your wvw guild which will determine your matchup. So I don't quite get your question here. The only thing that matters on the guild entity level is what alliance they are a part of, and that members that have flagged that guild as their 'wvw' guild go with that alliance from matchup to matchup. Each individual player will have to make their own choice as to what guild they flag to. So I really don't get why there should be any cost or repercussion. That wasn't the original question that was being asked. The poster wanted to know why a given guild would not choose to set itself as a "wvw guild". Obviously there is not much point to doing so if the guild is nothing but a personal bank guild, but for any given guild that may be PvX and not necessarily wvw-focused, is there any drawback/cost/penalty/repercussion for setting your guild as a wvw guild so that the members of your guild can be grouped and join an alliance? That is the information being sought, and which, afaik, we haven't gotten a direct answer to yet. There may not be an answer until the implementation is further down the road. The question wasn't about individuals choosing which guild to set as their one wvw guild.

If you mean the low-level experience of running around solo, with a havoc guild, or in a zerg -- you're mostly right, this proposal isn't about changing the specifics of on-the-ground gameplay. It will drastically change the framework, but it's not going to "ruin" or even significantly change havoc groups or solo roaming other than for T4 and maybe T3 players used to roaming around off hours with zero opposition. Those players will probably find more people on the map than they are currently accustomed to. But in a general sense, this isn't about updating maps/objectives/etc.

Personal bank guilds, guilds made by people in same country/region to stay in touch while playing in their main guild etc. You're missing the point. The question isn't "when would it be a moot point to set the wvw flag" (e.g., personal bank guild), but when would it have costs or negative repercussions to set the flag to wvw. So far I haven't seen any dev supply any such reason.

Pretty much sums it up. Wanting the best gear after putting in only a fraction of the time and effort that those who have already earned the gear is the definition of entitlement here.

I"m fairly certain they have said that setting this flag will NOT affect your GMs in any way. Largely PvE guilds that have PvE set as their GM focus will be able to keep that even if checking the WvW guild box.

Agreed. The one thing I don't want to see is an artificially low guild cap combined with an inability to add any more guild slots. I think that could cause some real issues for some people. My hope continues to be that any guild cap for a single alliance is set at a high number only to prevent the most extreme cases (200-500 guilds consisting entirely of 1-2 people, for example).

Just my thoughts: 1) I would say no, because that opens up a potential loophole/exploit for loading a world2) If the first guild is a guarantee (100%) then the 2nd guild would be completely irrelevant because it would never come into play, at least not for the person doing the selecting. Unless you mean this as a mechanism for getting OTHER people in the 2nd guild into the world where the first guild's alliance is set? I would have the same objection to that as to the first argument, i.e. potential exploiting to stack a world.

If you read the changes more carefully, you'll realize that making an alliance with every other guild on the server will be impossible. An alliance will be at most 20-30% of a server, and will almost certain eventually face off against another alliance that used to be part of the same server. Stacking an entire world won't be possible.

This thread still going? I assumed the complainers were trolling. Stamping your feet and asking for B-i-S gear at a far faster rate than the veterans had to put in to get it is unrealistic, trollish, and somewhat juvenile. Put in your time and you will get the gear. Stop demanding instant gratification and EZ mode progression when this game's gear grind is already among the least time-intensive out there.

They've already said that you can't exceed the alliance cap by adding new members to a guild in a capped alliance. So this won't be possible. Once that alliance hits 500 (e.g.) people, any guild in it will not be able to add new members (for wvw purposes) without removing an existing wvw member. Has no effect on guildies who haven't chosen the guild as their wvw guild, but any new guild members will have to play on a non-full world until the alliance makes room for them.

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.

That's somewhat irrelevant though. If you have 10-20 guilds that want to ally, there's nothing stopping them from forming conglomerate guilds whose only purpose is to dodge the alliance guild cap. As long as they don't exceed the alliance population, what difference does it make? Whether an alliance consists of people in 1 or 20 guilds isn't going to affect their abilities or the world population.

No one has said or suggested that map caps will be any larger than they are currently, afaik. It appears that the various worlds will be approximately the same size as a mediuim or large server currently is, and any given alliance will comprise no more than 20-25% of that world's population, which is why "stacking" alliances would be far less effective than stacking servers currently is, and probably hardly worth the effort to game. I'm sure people will try because, well, people, but I doubt they will ever succeed in creating anything like the BG megalith we currently have.

I don't think anyone has answered this directly, but the answer should be no. There would be alliance or not-alliance; alliance would be guaranteed to stay together, not-alliance would be more or less random as to whether it ends up on the same server. If you're talking about an alliance on the NA servers and a "sister" alliance on the EU servers -- I have seen no indication that the wvw worlds will ever cross the NA-EU server gap. They will still be completely separate pools of players.

Yes, the new system will allow ALL of your guildmates, regardless of current server, to play together in an alliance once the new system hits. If you don't ally with other guilds, you will largely have different allies for each 8-week session, but everyone in your guild will always be together on the same side.

I would hope each player would only be counted once. They should probably just set alliance population caps without capping the amount of individual guilds. Seems like an unnecessary restriction unless I’m missing something. *snipped for brevity I agree that guild restrictions only make sense for the most extreme examples; the strawman being tossed about was the alliance of 500 1-man guilds. Excepting a ridiculous case like that, I suspect (and hope) that guild restrictions would almost never come into play and that any given alliance is capped on players rather than guilds. I can't think of a good reason why you couldn't have 50 10-man guilds in an alliance while another would have a single 500-man wvw guild.

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.

What do you want, a new player to be instantly able to fully gear themselves in the best possible gear? That's not how MMO's work, and this one is less grindy than most. If you're new, you need to learn how to play in whatever gear you can acquire before expecting a full monty haul gearset. Exotics to ascended is barely 5-10% difference, it will not make that much of a difference no matter how many times you stamp your feet and claim otherwise. A good player in exotics will almost always beat a mediocre player in ascendeds (excepting mirages, which are too OP, but that's a different story).

Do you only "talk and do things" with people on your server right now? You never do any PvE or PvP with people outside your server? If you're "not a wvw enthusiast" that makes me think you primarily PvE/PvP, and those things won't change a whit. This sounds like yet another Chicken Little post about things that will never come to pass.

After unlocking the Incomplete Catalytic Converter for Hope IV collection, I participated in the tower events in DS. On first run I got the Axemaster, but on subsequent runs I did not get either the Blademaster or Stavemaster cores despite participating in the killing of both. I was present from 100% - 0% of the Blademaster's health, and from 53% to 0% of the Stavemaster's health. Neither was rewarded, even though I did as much or more participation with them as I did with the Axemaster.