Mr Green.4157

I doubt the alliances will be large enough to contain every guild on a server as full as Blackgate. You'll end up with multiple alliances made up of various guilds on Blackgate that can be separated to allow for more balanced matchups.

I agree with you. I know of many others who do not want to join a guild but enjoy running with them and these people are not low-skilled newbies at all. Now, they will mainly be used as fillers and thrown into the dailies people. How do you satisfy their expectations? Have you never been in a guild with a 'friends' role? Just ask them "Yo, I enjoy running with you, can you invite me and give me a 'friend' role so I can stick with your alliance?" I know plenty of roamers who're members in bigger guilds and regularly cloud with them. What's the massive aversion towards joining guilds? You're assuming every guild is like... ☆ 100% REP ☆ ONLY PLAY WHEN COMMANDER IS ONLINE OR GKICK ☆ 5g/raid GUILD TAX OR GKICK ☆ NO ROAM ONLY MEGABLOB OR GKICK ☆ PM SSN FOR INVITE ☆. There are plenty of guilds who go casual for fights and almost every guild I know people in will let friends in. Yeah, there are some freak cases, but I can only name like 3-4 of those out of all the guilds in NA. Like, can you just name a guild your and your friends run with without wanting to join, who won't let you in if you just ask? Believe it or not, everything that you posted on the guild rules are true. lol. 100% rep; run only zerkers/maruaders; play this day and time only, commit to x days; no xx class allowed; call out every single skill you put on the battlefield; no voice-comm on button press allowed; gold tax; no girls allowed; no this and no that. And then of course you have to deal with toxicity where the elitists will determine that it is your fault the group lost the last fight. That being said, I am glad something is being done to balance the population (fingers crossed). I just want to point out that this is going the step of PVE raids and there will be a bunch of people who will lose out. -snip- If they don't like you enough to do that that means they don't care if you are following them or not or don't know you. Which raises the question, are you following them because you like the people or because you like the bags? the entire point is that these 2 sentences matter now more so than ever. It's a game, not everyone wants PVE raid system. Those who think this way are liekly not even on these forums.My point is that if people want to be able to play together there are options for that. if you just want the bags then there will always be tags to follow and blob behind.

Because who is going to want to play on the losing side over playing on their server? If your server is massively undermanned at a given moment, wouldn’t you rather join a random server that has a balanced fight? And if that doesn’t appeal to you, can you truly not imagine anyone would choose the balanced fight?at any given time there may be as many as 8 servers getting beaten very badly assuming one server from each matchup is dominating. so which of the 8 is the one that gets the bandwagon at the cost of the other 7? And when everyone from the other losing servers flocks to the one server that becomes the bandwagon what are the people in the winning servers supposed to do sit there looking at empty bls? or abandon their winning server to help their enemy beat them?

I agree with you. I know of many others who do not want to join a guild but enjoy running with them and these people are not low-skilled newbies at all. Now, they will mainly be used as fillers and thrown into the dailies people. How do you satisfy their expectations? Have you never been in a guild with a 'friends' role? Just ask them "Yo, I enjoy running with you, can you invite me and give me a 'friend' role so I can stick with your alliance?" I know plenty of roamers who're members in bigger guilds and regularly cloud with them. What's the massive aversion towards joining guilds? You're assuming every guild is like... ☆ 100% REP ☆ ONLY PLAY WHEN COMMANDER IS ONLINE OR GKICK ☆ 5g/raid GUILD TAX OR GKICK ☆ NO ROAM ONLY MEGABLOB OR GKICK ☆ PM SSN FOR INVITE ☆. There are plenty of guilds who go casual for fights and almost every guild I know people in will let friends in. Yeah, there are some freak cases, but I can only name like 3-4 of those out of all the guilds in NA. Like, can you just name a guild your and your friends run with without wanting to join, who won't let you in if you just ask? Believe it or not, everything that you posted on the guild rules are true. lol. 100% rep; run only zerkers/maruaders; play this day and time only, commit to x days; no xx class allowed; call out every single skill you put on the battlefield; no voice-comm on button press allowed; gold tax; no girls allowed; no this and no that. And then of course you have to deal with toxicity where the elitists will determine that it is your fault the group lost the last fight. That being said, I am glad something is being done to balance the population (fingers crossed). I just want to point out that this is going the step of PVE raids and there will be a bunch of people who will lose out.The entire point of the alliance system seems to be to give those who want to play together but don't want to join one single guild a means to do so. If the guild you are following likes you they should allow you into their alliance as that is what alliances are for. If they don't like you enough to do that that means they don't care if you are following them or not or don't know you. Which raises the question, are you following them because you like the people or because you like the bags?

Because who is going to want to play on the losing side over playing on their server?

I think you can use this to argue against the idea of setting a home server too. Let me try. What about the players that don't want to join servers but like playing with certain individuals on different servers? Or like to run around with certain servers but don't want to join any one servers? I feel we are being forced to join a server or get thrown into the manure pile. What do you know it worked. well being that at launch we joined servers and there was no other option your point is moot. good try at trolling tho. Well why weren't we given that option I wonder? Perhaps, and I'm just spit balling here, there are times in the course of the life of a game where certain game functions harm the experience of the game. We weren't allowed to be serverless nomads at launch because it would cause population imbalances that would make the game less fun for everyone. Does that sound familiar? at launch we had no choice cuz it was a new game. it was alright you chose usually where your gw1 guild xfered to. or friends from gw1. but after 5 yrs of playing and losing server identity and not being able to play with certain people cuz youre not in their guild isnt right. there are many people like me that like to play with certain guilds but dont want to join certain guilds. i for one to want to be thrown into a mess of strangers where I can't trust them in battle. i feel like the individual player is getting the boot continually by anet. cant just cater to the sheeple but ignore the individual. unless the intention of anet is to have mindless zombies and everybody eventually gets bored and quits.Can't we use the same argument for not closing servers though? I want to play with friends on server x server x should therefor not be closed so I can always play with friends on server x.

I agree with you. I know of many others who do not want to join a guild but enjoy running with them and these people are not low-skilled newbies at all. Now, they will mainly be used as fillers and thrown into the dailies people. How do you satisfy their expectations? Maybe what you could do is create a guild who's sole purpose is to be the guild for every like minded person on your server and convince the guild you like to follow to let you into their alliance as they know you and want you to be able to keep joining them? or have one of those guilds create a rank for you without any perms in their guild just so you can mark it and stay with them. My point is if you and these guilds want to stay together there are options.

I think you can use this to argue against the idea of setting a home server too. Let me try. What about the players that don't want to join servers but like playing with certain individuals on different servers? Or like to run around with certain servers but don't want to join any one servers? I feel we are being forced to join a server or get thrown into the manure pile. What do you know it worked. well being that at launch we joined servers and there was no other option your point is moot. good try at trolling tho.Well why weren't we given that option I wonder? Perhaps, and I'm just spit balling here, there are times in the course of the life of a game where certain game functions harm the experience of the game. We weren't allowed to be serverless nomads at launch because it would cause population imbalances that would make the game less fun for everyone. Does that sound familiar?

I think you can use this to argue against the idea of setting a home server too. Let me try. What about the players that don't want to join servers but like playing with certain individuals on different servers? Or like to run around with certain servers but don't want to join any one servers? I feel we are being forced to join a server or get thrown into the manure pile. What do you know it worked.

How is it supposed to foster stronger communities if a few guilds can lock up a server and exclude others out? How do you think you will be able to recruit people for your guilds? Why do you think everyone wants to be ruled by some nutcase in a video game? Some guilds and players, so full of egos that don't seem to understand Militias fuel guilds. No militia=no guilds. Ah but you can pick the nutcase who leads you. This makes them your democratically elected nutcase and if you stop liking that nutcase then you can leave that nutcases alliance and democratically elect yourself a new nutcase in a new alliance of every other guild that hated the old nutcase. Don't you need to wait every 8 weeks to do that?From what I understand only if your new alliance requires that you transfer servers to a full server. If the new alliance is on the same server that the old one is on then during the first seven weeks you can do all the alliance switching you want. If the new alliance is on a different open server then you can just transfer to the new server. The only time you can't do it is the last week as everything is locked that week.

How is it supposed to foster stronger communities if a few guilds can lock up a server and exclude others out? How do you think you will be able to recruit people for your guilds? Why do you think everyone wants to be ruled by some nutcase in a video game? Some guilds and players, so full of egos that don't seem to understand Militias fuel guilds. No militia=no guilds. Ah but you can pick the nutcase who leads you. This makes them your democratically elected nutcase and if you stop liking that nutcase then you can leave that nutcases alliance and democratically elect yourself a new nutcase in a new alliance of every other guild that hated the old nutcase. Why would you want to be lead by a nutcase? Why do you think players should have control over the actions of others?I suppose it would be a good idea to make sure your guild and alliance aren't run by nutcases before you join then. Or you could not join any guild / alliance and then never have to worry about being led by any nutcases ever again as with this new system there won't even be any server based war councils full of nutcases to rule over your head.

How is it supposed to foster stronger communities if a few guilds can lock up a server and exclude others out? How do you think you will be able to recruit people for your guilds? Why do you think everyone wants to be ruled by some nutcase in a video game? Some guilds and players, so full of egos that don't seem to understand Militias fuel guilds. No militia=no guilds. Ah but you can pick the nutcase who leads you. This makes them your democratically elected nutcase and if you stop liking that nutcase then you can leave that nutcases alliance and democratically elect yourself a new nutcase in a new alliance of every other guild that hated the old nutcase.

It seems like you didn't understand the meat of the example in the dev's post. SoS is only "putting in work" because they have a link that helps them achieve that: Borlis Pass. The dev said it is difficult for them to create teams that have the coverage profile of BG because the world linking system is not granular enough. So for example CD has the population but not the coverage. Anet was able to seemingly do it with the SoS and BP link, but their real goal is to be able to do that for all teams. The proposed system would create the granularity needed to achieve that goal. So TBT, Gal, TSYM, Rx, Doc, Caos are all on BP? The only two guilds I know on BP are Joy and CL both of which are former BG guilds. Talking about population and coverage here, not guilds! You have to look at the entire forest, not just specific trees. Yes and you've had 50 man blobs at 4am EST, while BG is dead. Continue talking about coverage please.By dead you're talking what 10 people across all four maps? because that is what a dead time zone looks like.

From what I understand and I could be wrong I don't think they will weigh all alliances equally. Your alliances active hours are what matters so joining an alliance should be more centered around ensuring you get to play with the guilds you want to play with. Which means that if they are a guild you like there is a point to joining the alliance even if they are like your guild.

This is a hard fact that will be ignored by the ignorant It is also a hard fact that battlegroups was an idea first hinted at before server links and before T1 was as it is today, meaning that this announcement has nothing to do with today's BG. Yet anet felt the need to point us out by name, even though we aren't the problem? They're just feeding into the propaganda built on pillars of salt Your server alone is winning against four other servers. Any other server matched up against you without a link would lose, most likely without winning a skirmish. How is that not stacked? Open the link, we are not even close to the top population. All we have are dedicated players that stay logged in for extended periods of time.Open this link https://wvwstats.com/grapher?server=Henge%20of%20Denravi&data=keeps This is the current t4 matchup. There are points throughout each day where one serve will own 7 or 8 keeps. This is what population imbalance looks like and this is why Blackgate is considered a stacked server. Blackgate has enough coverage on it's own that through every time zones it never experience this. Look through the other graphs you'll see the same thing whenever there is a population imbalance. Yet your server without links doesn't experience this. You are stacked because you have enough people in every time zone to always take advantage of your opponents down time not because you have the highest population in any one time zone.

This is a hard fact that will be ignored by the ignorant It is also a hard fact that battlegroups was an idea first hinted at before server links and before T1 was as it is today, meaning that this announcement has nothing to do with today's BG. Yet anet felt the need to point us out by name, even though we aren't the problem? They're just feeding into the propaganda built on pillars of saltYour server alone is winning against four other servers. Any other server matched up against you without a link would lose, most likely without winning a skirmish. How is that not stacked?

If five small guilds form an alliance will their maximum guild size be limited compared to a solo guild to keep the alliance population from exceeding the maximum amount? If so how will that work?