Alliances and battle guild roster management

[Chaba.5410]

This topic came up during Mighty Teapot's stream today and there was an answer provided by Raymond.  Just putting it out here on the forum now so it is "official".

For this upcoming beta, a player picks one of their guilds to be their "battle" guild, or guild for WvW team making purposes.  Without other functionality, this creates an issue: it removes fine-grained control a guild has over their roster.  This becomes important when alliances are created since alliances will have a limited number of player slots.  So myself and others were asking in the stream chat about this and it eventually got addressed.  The bottom line is Anet is going to need feedback from guild leaders on what we think we need or what issues we see with regards to roster management.

So what is exactly the problem?

Imagine a guild of 100 players.  Twenty of that guild's members play together regularly in WvW.  The other members may be PvE players who occasionally hit up WvW whenever there's a bonus week.  They make an alliance with another guild and expect to fill around 20 slots in the alliance.  When team formation occurs, suddenly the PvX guild adds 50 players to the alliance even though 30 of them won't be playing WvW, only 20.  Now the other guilds in the alliance are upset that slots are being unexpectedly wasted.  This won't matter so much to small alliances far from the cap, but it will definitely cause problems for large alliances.

The current team formation function relies too much on individual players to be responsible and that is never a certainty.  No guild leader wants to be kicking members out of their guild just to ensure they don't fill alliance slots. (Smarter alliance leaders at this point would have an 80/20 rule on available alliance slots.)  My first thought would be to add a rank permission to allow picking the guild as the battle guild.  There may be other solutions.

Another roster-related issue that will probably come up is that guilds are going to need to know ahead of team and alliance formation how many players they are actually bringing to an alliance.  Imagine an alliance where one season a guild has 100 players.  They expect to have 100 players in the next season, but it turns out they have 200 who get placed on the same team because it's a new expansion release and everyone wants to jump into WvW to check it out.  It puts the alliance with other guilds over their alliance cap.  Now what?

Thanks for listening to my TED talk.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[Sviel.7493]

The cleanest solution to this problem is probably allowing the Alliance managers to allocate a number of slots to each guild.  The guild would then have to be able to restrict who is allowed to designate it as a WvW guild.

edit: It might be better if the guild leader could check a list of people in some Alliance panel to allow in.  Anyone who designates that guild as their WvW guild makes the list, but only people approved by the leader are added to the alliance if the guild is low on slots.  That way, there wouldn't be redundant functionality in guilds that don't have this issue.

Casual WvW guilds could have free designation, but any guild joining an alliance is probably a little more WvW focused.  Otherwise, the WvW core should probably just make/join a different guild.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Sviel.7493

[Chaba.5410]

14 minutes ago, Sviel.7493 said:

The cleanest solution to this problem is probably allowing the Alliance managers to allocate a number of slots to each guild.  The guild would then have to be able to restrict who is allowed to designate it as a WvW guild.

That sounds viable.

[Leo.3428]

Would it be simpler to manage if individuals, not guilds, joined alliances (seen as WvW-only guilds)? Or would it make it worse and lead more easily to alliance saturation? I've been trying to imagine scenarios since the beta was announced but the only solution might be to just try it.

[Junkpile.7439]

What if i don't wanna join any guild? Can i get pips from eotm?

[Zikory.6871]

5 minutes ago, Junkpile.7439 said:

What if i don't wanna join any guild? Can i get pips from eotm?

No                     

[Junkpile.7439]

Are these guilds that we join WvW guilds? Most of wvw guilds players have blocked me. 😭

[Dawdler.8521]

8 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

So what is exactly the problem?

Imagine a guild of 100 players.  Twenty of that guild's members play together regularly in WvW.  The other members may be PvE players who occasionally hit up WvW whenever there's a bonus week.  They make an alliance with another guild and expect to fill around 20 slots in the alliance.  When team formation occurs, suddenly the PvX guild adds 50 players to the alliance even though 30 of them won't be playing WvW, only 20.  Now the other guilds in the alliance are upset that slots are being unexpectedly wasted.  This won't matter so much to small alliances far from the cap, but it will definitely cause problems for large alliances.

This example make zero sense. Guilds join alliances, not players, unless Anet has changed their ideas.

The guild leader would join the alliance with all 100. Whether each individual member is going to play WvW is irrelevant, they end up on the same world regardless.

Does this mean wasted slots? Yes!

People will have to rethink how WvW and PvE guilds work. This issue in the example is fixed by having all 100 in a PvE guild, but only 20 of the 100 are in another WvW guild and second guild is the actual alliance member. Under the assumption that sizes arent fixed (up to cap) that 20 man could add 5, 20, 40, whatever more members from the PvE guild like how it normally work today.

For those asking whether ot would be "better" for individuals to join alliances... That is a guild. You can do that too. Its not a question of whats better or worse.

 

Personally I think that guilds should join with a reserved slotspace, changeable by the alliance leader (can add, guild leaders can remove). That way a 100 man guild can say, we want 150 slots because we will be recruiting. And a 50 man guild can say kitten 30 people left for another alliance we set us to 25 slots and free up 25 for another guild in the alliance.

[andymcollie.7602]

13 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

People will have to rethink how WvW and PvE guilds work. This issue in the example is fixed by having all 100 in a PvE guild, but only 20 of the 100 are in another WvW guild and second guild is the actual alliance member. Under the assumption that sizes arent fixed (up to cap) that 20 man could add 5, 20, 40, whatever more members from the PvE guild like how it normally work today.

 

In my eyes it looks like some players are going to need more Guild Slots for separate game modes     ie PvP WvW  raid etc

[Dawdler.8521]

18 minutes ago, andymcollie.7602 said:

In my eyes it looks like some players are going to need more Guild Slots for separate game modes     ie PvP WvW  raid etc

Yes and no. Just like inventory, bank, templates, character etc slots (hell even armory) some players will never have enough. Give them 10 slots and people will be back on the forums with omgIneed15worstgameever. 

I dont see any point in expanding nor any drawback so I have no strong opinion either way.

[SweetPotato.7456]

You guys talk as if solo players don't exist.

[displayname.8315]

Solo players don't need to worry about this stuff. 

 

If matchmaking goes well they don't need to worry about being stuck in a match that isn't for them.

[Deedrick.4372]

Also this is not taking into account you have to declare a WvW guild. If you don't declare an alliance then you are a random as far as match making goes. Who know if you only have 20 people in a guild of 300 declaring it there WvW guild, it might still only count 20 towards alliances.

 

Should really stop assuming how its going to work, and wait and see, then kitten and ask for corrections. That is the point of rolling out betas and getting feed back instead of dumping it all at once and saying deal with it.

[Babytater.6803]

Didn't Raymond mention that time spent in WvW per player was also taken into account when matchmaking alliances? Not just pure number of players.

[nthmetal.9652]

Why do we need to discuss this topic in the first place? Obviously you cannot simply take players in guilds into account for the forming of alliances 1 to 1. And Anet knows that, because we have the very same issue at this moment, when determining whether servers get a link or whether they cound as full.

What needs to happen instead is that each player in a guild is assigned a WvW activity score, based on the activity they spend in WvW, and use that score to calculate alliances and guild sizes instead of simply the guild roster. Simply keep using what we already have and apply it to alliances. Instead of going for a 1 to 1 guild size calculation determine activity scores for each guild, and use this to determine guild size and thus alliance size.

Edited September 17, 2021 by nthmetal.9652

[Aeolus.3615]

12 hours ago, Junkpile.7439 said:

Are these guilds that we join WvW guilds? Most of wvw guilds players have blocked me. 😭

 

Most only ktrain anyway...

[Chaba.5410]

7 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

The guild leader would join the alliance with all 100. Whether each individual member is going to play WvW is irrelevant, they end up on the same world regardless.

You misunderstand it seems.  The guild leader does not join an alliance with all 100 members.  Only the players who chose that guild as their battle guild will join the alliance.  The other members who did not tick the box will be placed onto a team as solo players.

 

7 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

People will have to rethink how WvW and PvE guilds work. This issue in the example is fixed by having all 100 in a PvE guild, but only 20 of the 100 are in another WvW guild and second guild is the actual alliance member. Under the assumption that sizes arent fixed (up to cap) that 20 man could add 5, 20, 40, whatever more members from the PvE guild like how it normally work today.

Let me understand.  You're saying that the WvW players in a PvX guild all need yet another guild slot and duplication of effort?

How does this solve the removal of fine-grained control over a single guild's roster?  One could go further and ask how does this help players manage their alliance rosters?

I'm really asking how is what you suggest a QoL fix rather than a workaround for missing functionality?  Why are we using sledgehammers of kicking people from guilds when a screwdriver of guild perms is all that's needed?  It isn't up to us to decide how someone is going to run their guild.  The better solution is to give players the tools they need and are looking for.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, nthmetal.9652 said:

Why do we need to discuss this topic in the first place? Obviously you cannot simply take players in guilds into account for the forming of alliances 1 to 1. And Anet knows that, because we have the very same issue at this moment, when determining whether servers get a link or whether they cound as full.

What needs to happen instead is that each player in a guild is assigned a WvW activity score, based on the activity they spend in WvW, and use that score to calculate alliances and guild sizes instead of simply the guild roster. Simply keep using what we already have and apply it to alliances. Instead of going for a 1 to 1 guild size calculation determine activity scores for each guild, and use this to determine guild size and thus alliance size.

Teams, like server "population", are activity based yet guilds are based on the number of players.  Alliances, by extension of being formed from guild rosters, end up also based on the number of players.  The original proposal for alliances describe them also as having a cap of 500 players, not playhours.  So there's this interaction that occurs between playhours and number of players.  That's why the topic needs to be discussed.

My guess is then that the team formation code would calculate the total play hours of each "linking unit" (solo player, solo guild, or alliance) and put them together until there are a desired number of teams all with roughly the same total play hours.  It's like server linking, but with smaller units of playhours to mix and match.

Maybe having alliance sizes based on the playhours of the players in a guild, pushing down the chain where the conversion from number of players to playhours, would be better.  It isn't implemented yet so there's that possibility still.  The only drawback I can see to that is it creates an incentive for alliance leaders to harass individuals into playing a limited number of hours so they can have a larger number of players in their alliance.

 

[Dawdler.8521]

22 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

You misunderstand it seems.  The guild leader does not join an alliance with all 100 members.  Only the players who chose that guild as their battle guild will join the alliance.  The other members who did not tick the box will be placed onto a team as solo players.

Except the entire guild would join the alliance. If one season some members are random, they could still select that guild as WvW guild, cant they? Which mean they automatically get into the alliance.

How does the alliance leader decide whether it's 20 members or 100 members when those members can literally "sneak in" at any time? That means the alliance for all intents and purposes put up 100 slots for that guild just because it has 100 members, unless it's all full.

If the alliance does not want a member of that guild in the alliance, would they have a choice to refuse or do they have to kick the entire guild? A player cannot select his own guild as a wvw guild because the alliance wont let him (again, assuming it's not full which is a natural limit)? That would be... awkward. Hence, the only logical thing is that the entire guild join and either reserve a set amount of slots or take up the full guild rooster. Each member doesnt have to have it as a wvw guild, but all slots still need to be reserved.

If a guild member can be in an alliance *and* guild members can choose that guild as a WvW but *not* be in the alliance, that means a world could technically have 500x500 players, lol. Since 1 guild member in the alliance automatically mean the other 499 players in his guild are on the same world, even if the alliance is already full of other players so they "cant get in" when selecting their WvW guild.

Quote

Let me understand.  You're saying that the WvW players in a PvX guild all need yet another guild slot and duplication of effort?

How does this solve the removal of fine-grained control over a single guild's roster?  One could go further and ask how does this help players manage their alliance rosters?

I'm really asking how is what you suggest a QoL fix rather than a workaround for missing functionality?  Why are we using sledgehammers of kicking people from guilds when a screwdriver of guild perms is all that's needed?  It isn't up to us to decide how someone is going to run their guild.  The better solution is to give players the tools they need and are looking for.

QoL fixes lol what? We are speculating about a system we know nothing about. We dont even know the core system to argue anything is QoL fixes to it. But of course it helps players manage their rosters - I literally describe how it could help alliances manage individual guild size allocation. 

What tools are the players looking for? Seems no one knows. Most people still think that an alliance is a world.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Chaba.5410]

2 hours ago, Babytater.6803 said:

Didn't Raymond mention that time spent in WvW per player was also taken into account when matchmaking alliances? Not just pure number of players.

Yes, there's a point at which the "linking unit" gets converted from player numbers to player hours like what is done with server size calculations now.  Playhours has been a better way of providing population balance between teams than player numbers.

[Chaba.5410]

5 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Except the entire guild would join the alliance. If one season some members are random, they could still select that guild as WvW guild, cant they? Which mean they automatically get into the alliance.

How does the alliance leader decide whether it's 20 members or 100 members when those members can literally "sneak in" at any time? That means the alliance for all intents and purposes put up 100 slots for that guild just because it has 100 members, unless it's all full.

If the alliance does not want a member of that guild in the alliance, would they have a choice to refuse or do they have to kick the entire guild? A player cannot select his own guild as a wvw guild because the alliance wont let him (again, assuming it's not full which is a natural limit)? That would be... awkward. Hence, the only logical thing is that the entire guild join and either reserve a set amount of slots or take up the full guild rooster. Each member doesnt have to have it as a wvw guild, but all slots still need to be reserved.

If a guild member can be in an alliance *and* guild members can choose that guild as a WvW but *not* be in the alliance, that means a world could technically have 500x500 players, lol. Since 1 guild member in the alliance automatically mean the other 499 players in his guild are on the same world, even if the alliance is already full of other players so they "cant get in" when selecting their WvW guild.

QoL fixes lol what? We are speculating about a system we know nothing about. We dont even know the core system to argue anything is QoL fixes to it. But of course it helps players manage their rosters - I literally describe how it could help alliances manage individual guild size allocation. 

What tools are the players looking for? Seems no one knows. Most people still think that an alliance is a world.

You didn't watch the stream, did you?

[Dawdler.8521]

3 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

You didn't watch the stream, did you?

I skimmed through it earlier and it seems they have no idea how it's going to work in practice. So what's the question?

[Chaba.5410]

15 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I skimmed through it earlier and it seems they have no idea how it's going to work in practice. So what's the question?

Skimmed?  That explains why the things you've written have no basis, like the idea that an entire guild roster joins the alliance.  I'd rather have a discussion around what has been actually said and written by Anet.

It was a good interview.  Grouch puts it up front that this is not being delivered as a "cadillac" feature with everything already done so that may give you the impression that they have no idea, but it's just not true that they have no ideas.  They're putting the ideas out there as it's being worked on and tested on the live game.  Here's a clip of the part about roster management.  It actually starts about 01:58:20 into the stream.

https://clips.twitch.tv/DistinctLittleLatteShadyLulu-DD2iOeGQUaSxQY0E

Edited September 17, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[Dawdler.8521]

5 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Skimmed?  That explains why the things you've written have no basis, like the idea that an entire guild roster joins the alliance.  I'd rather have a discussion around what has been actually said and written by Anet.

It was a good interview.  Here's a clip of the part about roster management.  It actually starts about 01:58:20 into the stream.

https://clips.twitch.tv/DistinctLittleLatteShadyLulu-DD2iOeGQUaSxQY0E

How is that any different from what I wrote?

I argued the reason why the entire guild would need to join - and ideas on how to manage it's size once joined. Anet doesnt know the limitations themselves. They literally say it.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Chaba.5410]

10 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

How is that any different from what I wrote?

I argued the reason why the entire guild would need to join - and ideas on how to manage it's size once joined. Anet doesnt know the limitations themselves. They literally say it.

You mean the reason like "If a guild member can be in an alliance *and* guild members can choose that guild as a WvW but *not* be in the alliance, "?

But that isn't at all part of what's been proposed!

Edited September 17, 2021 by Chaba.5410