Strider Pj.2193

so if gear won't carry a player, what would be wrong about nullifying the gear advantage? Build diversity, slight tweaks in numbers can make a player more valuable. I can do that for a while in exotic. Food is easily available, and usually dropped by commanders. Infusions? Cheap as hell in the WvW vendor. If yo think that total bump of what.... 50 points if it's max ascended, is that much of a difference, maybe this isn't your game mode.I am sure a raiding group would love to have you.

so if gear won't carry a player, what would be wrong about nullifying the gear advantage? Build diversity, slight tweaks in numbers can make a player more valuable. I can do that for a while in exotic. Food is easily available, and usually dropped by commanders. Infusions? Cheap as hell in the WvW vendor. If yo think that total bump of what.... 50 points if it's max ascended, is that much of a difference, maybe this isn't your game mode.

No. They aren't only wvw based on that click. NOW, the Guild Leader may decide to kick people that don't frequent WvW, but that was something currently possible, so, likely most people wont experience this.

Well, what is interesting is many of the people who have said winning doesn't matter are now excited about the chance of... winning...?

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 know cayne. Was being sarcastic. Reading through the thread, if you listen to the most vocal, they have stated multiple times that the only people opposed are from BG.

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.

Let's be careful, however, not to overstate the actual numbers or the importance of the metric. The quote was (in addition to more active play hours), was in fact, BG population is double (not including links). That means minus links, BG's population is at minimum double that of any other population. If we are talking about NA, I'm going to assume that say MAG, YB, and SOS are next in line for population, but at minimum, BG's population doubles theirs. Now when you add the very links of those 3 servers, we have Bolis Pass, Anvil Rock, and Devona's Rest. In order for YB, Mag, or SoS to match BG's population, those 3 servers on their own must have an equal population to YB, Mag, and SoS. Obviously this isn't the case because they are links. That means BG still outnumbers the servers even with their links. That's why it's crystal clear they keep winning Look at it this way, grading on the curve with BG as an example. BG's population is 100, that means that Mag, SoS, and YB are around a population of 50. Borlis pass, Anvil Rock, and Devona's Rest are links and don't obviously have a population close to 50. It might be somewhere between 20-30. That means adding them to the other 3 servers, brings the total population up to 70 - 80. BG's population is still 100, still outnumbers the competition, and falls completely in line with the "30% bigger" comment. Individual play hours are a moot point because of this. All it means is BG can slack off and still win; but the fact they play longer hours just exacerbates the problem. Now you can't fault a player for playing longer hours, but you certainly can fault a server for over-stacking themselves and buying guilds en mass.Double the AVERAGE. Might want to fix that. Not ALL of the worlds. And there was nothing saying BG was THE most populated world in game.

Good point, reposted for awareness. Every time zone is only a small portion of a day, so they dominate this timezone and loose all others? In the end this looks like a bad deal to me: No opponents to fight, and no coverage to win. just to add 'world creation: at the start of every season our new World Restructuring system will use recent statistics, based on similar predicted participation, skill, and coverage, to create worlds filled with alliances, guilds, and unaffiliated players.' This would suggest that if a alliance of OCX guilds was to be made, then the system would not put many players that play OCX times on the same world.. thats what i think it would do, same goes with NA and the others. So, you would suggest that the system remove guilds from alliances to ensure balance? No i'm not suggesting that what i think there saying is.. lets say a alliance of 500 people playing OCX timezone will be put into a world.. then the system would put lets say 500 people or guilds or another alliance playing OCX timezone on another world that will face that world. thats what i think it's saying Yes. That would be the intent. I think the point someone had was if 3/4 of the OCX people (and I don't think it would happen, just that it could) form their own alliance, then any world that they were on would have a marked advantage, much like what people are complaining about now with T1. ah, probably.. i must of misread the post.. who knows then.. still early doors and maybe they will have something new in the future to stop this? :PIt's one of my issues with the proposal. I like the idea of more consistent activity. That will be great for the havoc group I run with. But people aren't seeing the significant possibility to coverage disparity in this, that as we are talking about WvW 'meaning something again' (translation:winning may matter) the JQs, BGs of the world will exist again. It will be different people and guilds, but make no mistake, the system will be gamed. Unless there is a process to split guilds from alliances to ensure more even coverage, done by the adults in the room (i.e. Anet) then the stacking will begin again.

Good point, reposted for awareness. Every time zone is only a small portion of a day, so they dominate this timezone and loose all others? In the end this looks like a bad deal to me: No opponents to fight, and no coverage to win. just to add 'world creation: at the start of every season our new World Restructuring system will use recent statistics, based on similar predicted participation, skill, and coverage, to create worlds filled with alliances, guilds, and unaffiliated players.' This would suggest that if a alliance of OCX guilds was to be made, then the system would not put many players that play OCX times on the same world.. thats what i think it would do, same goes with NA and the others. So, you would suggest that the system remove guilds from alliances to ensure balance? No i'm not suggesting that what i think there saying is.. lets say a alliance of 500 people playing OCX timezone will be put into a world.. then the system would put lets say 500 people or guilds or another alliance playing OCX timezone on another world that will face that world. thats what i think it's sayingYes. That would be the intent. I think the point someone had was if 3/4 of the OCX people (and I don't think it would happen, just that it could) form their own alliance, then any world that they were on would have a marked advantage, much like what people are complaining about now with T1.

Good point, reposted for awareness. Every time zone is only a small portion of a day, so they dominate this timezone and loose all others? In the end this looks like a bad deal to me: No opponents to fight, and no coverage to win. just to add 'world creation: at the start of every season our new World Restructuring system will use recent statistics, based on similar predicted participation, skill, and coverage, to create worlds filled with alliances, guilds, and unaffiliated players.' This would suggest that if a alliance of OCX guilds was to be made, then the system would not put many players that play OCX times on the same world.. thats what i think it would do, same goes with NA and the others.So, you would suggest that the system remove guilds from alliances to ensure balance?

It's been stated that any transfer within season will not take effect until the next season. It needs to remain that way to minimize gaming the system.

According to the post you will just be randomly assigned to a world for the duration of that matchup season (8 weeks). So, if you really enjoy running with a certain person or guild then you'll want to join their guild or alliance. I don't really want to join their guilds. I'm a more casual player and this seems to hurt those people. I like to join the guilds I know now from time to time. I am not saying this is a bad idea but it seems like I'll just be thrown into a world where I don't know people and the matchup might be terrible. If you're a casual player that likes to join from time to time then pretty much nothing is changing for you. It would be the same thing if most of the guilds on your current server transferred off to somewhere else and you were left following totally new and different guilds that had transferred onto the server. Well that isn't true. I know the commanders and people on my server. Most of whom I probably won't see when this happens. Or at least there is the potential of losing contact with those people. That is a huge loss and change for me personally. For the record I realize that the 1 person like myself might just have to bear it. Just vocing my concerns that I see so far. If you like a certain person, you can add them to your friends and join their guild/alliance. Not sure I understand. I can join their alliance without being in a guild with them? I am a solo casual player who likes to join different active commanders when I am able to play.If the alliance leader lets you in. Of course, you'll need to play their way or you'll be removed from the alliance.

Can an alliance be big enough that they are effectively a world?

No. Only players who set that guild as their WvW guild will count towards that guilds WvW population. Please consider keeping the max number of guilded and alliance players on a given world to 2/3 or around that. Otherwise, mega guilds and mega alliances are going to effectively dominate.

The current design is that there will be a new tab in the guild panel where guilds can create and manage Alliances. The guild that created the Alliance can kick guilds from the alliance. We have also discussed that no one can kick guilds from an Alliance. Instead anyone can leave an Alliance and form a new one. Isn't that a contradiction?

Thats going to ruin wvw for a lot of people, this essentially makes it meaningless as there is no reason to play for your server. No reason to defend, upgrade, scout, or do anything. It will basically turn into an eotm style ktrain. I guess they want everyone to do nothing but trade towers for karma.Prepare for the greatest exploitation of this game (and game format) to date.The T1 guilds are just going to ally with themselves or create 1-5 mega guilds so that they can stack on the same world.Pretty much all the militia folks, regardless of skill and play time, will end up in no man's land. I should not have to join a mega (forced 100% rep) wvw guild to play...but it's gonna happen. Guess us militia folks will play in the basement tier and ktrain too.And those guilds will force rep, as during the next 8weeks, you will be left behind

You do realize you're playing a game called Guild Wars 2, not I play alone but still want to play with specific people wars 2 right? You are quoting the title yet ignoring the lore.

There-in lies the problem with alliances. No one should be able to kick a guild, form a new alliance if you don't like it. Well, I don't think the original thread explained how that might work so that's why I asked. Maybe it would require a majority vote from guild leaders or something. That would be....., destructive

There-in lies the problem with alliances. No one should be able to kick a guild, form a new alliance if you don't like it.

Players are mostly being evaluated with play hours. We are also looking into commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels. Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance? Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full. Got it. Would that be at the expense of individual players?

Players are mostly being evaluated with play hours. We are also looking into commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels. Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance?

Distribution (theoretically) of players based on skill, but not guilds. Guilds that form an alliance would go together. That seems... wrong..

Well then. Honestly seems more guild centric. Hopefully individual players won't get bumped by large groups of guilds that form an alliance. I would hate to see one 'World' made up of just 'guilds'.

Would be good to add 2-4 mystic coins to the repeatable diamond chests....