Strider Pj.2193

Absolutely. traits to fit your play style, and slot skills mean more than that stat difference.

You can get full Ascended without ever having to leave WvW. And it doesn’t take that long, and once someone has a set of Ascended Armor they can either upgrade it to Legendary, or Just statswap it to another Stat set. If players want Standardized gear Anet made them a gamemode specifically designed around just that and it’s not WvW. Doesn't have to be "Standardized" (I think you mean what sPvP have). And, yes takes very long time as it is now, I need 1 year to get a full set or longer even, but I doubt that is possible without leaving WvW.A full year to get ascended?? What are you playing?

It exists to a point if you have karma...

So.... this format would allow someone to mix maurauders and grieving and soldiers into the same build? While allowing same person to slowly reduce the soldiers to add more maurauders in? There IS a standardized system. It's called the stats WvW uses.... which is all of them.

This... I have 4 Ascended pieces, 2 Legendary, Legendary weaps and Ascended trinkets all with infusions. I really look good. They will not keep you alive much longer than Exotic if you don't have situational awareness!!! yes they will, believe it or not They will? You've stated you don't have them, yet you know they will keep you alive longer... I had fully ascended before the recent meta change. Fun fact your full Ascended doesn’t magically disappear when Meta changes and Stat swap is a thing that is extremely cheap. ^^^ THIS. It is a cheap conversion. Then work on a new set.https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Ascended_equipment And there is the wiki link.

This... I have 4 Ascended pieces, 2 Legendary, Legendary weaps and Ascended trinkets all with infusions. I really look good. They will not keep you alive much longer than Exotic if you don't have situational awareness!!! yes they will, believe it or not They will? You've stated you don't have them, yet you know they will keep you alive longer... I had fully ascended before the recent meta change. Fun fact your full Ascended doesn’t magically disappear when Meta changes and Stat swap is a thing that is extremely cheap.^^^ THIS. It is a cheap conversion. Then work on a new set.

As much as this process hurts people like you, if it goes through AND you want to play with people that you play with now, ask one or two of the more casual guilds (that stresses less about TS) for an invite. Likely those that have been with you on TC know you. I have seen at least two or three larger guild leaders post here from TC. My experience with them from the past was always quite positive.

Agreed! McKenna wrote earlier that devs expect an alliance would have guilds split off if the alliance gets full, but without the info of how many WvW members a guild has, it would make such an activity a guessing game. But then, that would be a requirement to be allowed into the alliance. Full disclosure. Or as the alliance leader don't take them in. If it proves to be false, kick them. You misunderstood the request. All that is needed is a simple number: 50/100. It doesn't have to say who. What I hear you saying is you would rather a guessing game and prevent guilds from being able to manage their rosters however they see fit. Guilds already kick members who go inactive, but not all guilds do that.i don't want the guilds to have to do that. If your suggestion is that the guild leader and guild members can see how many have selected their guild for WvW I am definately in favor of that. I am not in favor of the alliance leader being able to see that. There should be some risk in the process for an alliance leader. And if they can't trust the guilds under them to be forthcoming then maybe they need new guilds.

Agreed! McKenna wrote earlier that devs expect an alliance would have guilds split off if the alliance gets full, but without the info of how many WvW members a guild has, it would make such an activity a guessing game. But then, that would be a requirement to be allowed into the alliance. Full disclosure. Or as the alliance leader don't take them in. If it proves to be false, kick them.

This... I have 4 Ascended pieces, 2 Legendary, Legendary weaps and Ascended trinkets all with infusions. I really look good. They will not keep you alive much longer than Exotic if you don't have situational awareness!!! yes they will, believe it or notThey will? You've stated you don't have them, yet you know they will keep you alive longer...

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?