Alliances and battle guild roster management

[Dawdler.8521]

7 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

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!

... which means there must be some sort of limitations... some sort of rules... which Anet says there have to be... and I said there have to be too hence the reasoning and argument what those rules could be.

Am I correct? Who knows. Speculation.

But what would you argue happen in the two following scenarios:

20 out of 100 members have their WvW guild in Alliance X, which has 200 slots available. 80 guild members now choose the guild as their WvW guild too. What happens?

20 out of 100 members have their WvW guild in Alliance X, which has 20 slots available. 80 guild members now choose the guild as their WvW guild too. What happens?

Edited September 17, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[kash.9213]

On 9/17/2021 at 6:35 AM, displayname.8315 said:

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.

A lot of solo players go hard when they do play but have limited time. Their stats that decide placement likely wont place them with the people they normally vibe with. Solo players definitely need to be worried about this stuff.

Edited September 22, 2021 by kash.9213

[Chaba.5410]

4 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

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

Solo players will get placed onto teams based on match-making rules outside of the guild and alliance structures.  This topic is not about solo players so I don't understand your post.

[kash.9213]

9 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Solo players will get placed onto teams based on match-making rules outside of the guild and alliance structures.  This topic is not about solo players so I don't understand your post.

Anything that has to do with WvW population involves solo players. They're also only solo in the sense that they're not making scheduled dates in large guilds for the most part, that doesn't mean they have no concern about where they'd be placed, it would be the opposite. Why not make the guilds that are allied together random?

Edited September 17, 2021 by kash.9213

[Chaba.5410]

3 hours ago, Deedrick.4372 said:

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.

The only assumption being made is assuming that what's been said by Anet in the past about how certain things are going to work is still the model being worked on and discussed until some change is announced.

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

6 minutes ago, kash.9213 said:

Anything that has to do with WvW population involves solo players. They're also only solo in the sense that they're not making scheduled dates in large guilds for the most part, that doesn't mean they have no concern about where they'd be placed, it would be the opposite. Why not make the guilds that are allied together random?

Then go make a thread about WvW population rather than off-topic posts on a thread about battle guild roster management!

Edited September 17, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[Dawdler.8521]

25 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

The only assumption being made is assuming that what's been said by Anet in the past about how certain things are going to work is still the model being worked on and discussed until some change is announced.

 

Neither of those points deal with alliances though.

[Chaba.5410]

37 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Neither of those points deal with alliances though.

Then you didn't read the posts just like you didn't really watch the stream.  LMFAO.

 

"does total guild member count towards how much "space" a guild takes up in an Alliance?"

Edited September 17, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[Xenesis.6389]

So let's break this down so that it's clear.

 

Alliance = 500 players.

A guild of 100 joins an alliance, but only 20 are wvw regulars.

30 more players from said guild decides to mark that guild as their "battle" guild.

But they only show up like once every 6 months for wxp bonus week.

So effectively 30 slots are being used up in the alliance for casuals.

 

Is that right?

 

So what do you expect anet to do?

They could increase alliance space to 1000 players to accommodate more casuals, which imo don't think they should do. Or place hard restriction of every guild where only max 50 players per guild can mark the guild as their "battle" guild, thereby avoiding responsibility of trimming the guild, and adding a justification for those 30 to be included while maybe screwing over guilds who may have more than 50 to carry in alliances.

 

I mean in the end this is more of a player issue than system issue. Why should the entire system be expanded or changed with special rules to accommodate players who only bother to show up one week every what 6 months?

 

The best solution would be the 20 hardcore wvw players make their own guild to join the alliance, the 30 that only play on bonus weeks, well those 30 can still play with each other on those weeks or whenever they decide to play, and you all can still be in the same guild. And if any of those other 70 guild members decide to be more hardcore wvw players they can always join the other guild with the roster of 20.

 

 

 

[Zikory.6871]

There just needs to be an option in the guild ranks to allow players to select the guild as the WvW guild. Large PvX guild can limit the number and would have to just work that out with their Alliance and players. 

[Chaba.5410]

23 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

The best solution would be the 20 hardcore wvw players make their own guild to join the alliance, the 30 that only play on bonus weeks, well those 30 can still play with each other on those weeks or whenever they decide to play, and you all can still be in the same guild. And if any of those other 70 guild members decide to be more hardcore wvw players they can always join the other guild with the roster of 20.

 

It's not the best solution.  It's a heavy-handed sledgehammer of a workaround for missing functionality.  It's duplication of guild roster management from one guild to now two guilds - extra administrative overhead and requires all players to have an extra guild slot.  No guild leader wants to be kicking members from their guild over this.

23 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Why should the entire system be expanded or changed with special rules to accommodate players who only bother to show up one week every what 6 months?

I don't understand the question.  Without giving guild leaders additional tools to manage their rosters, those super-casual players are already accommodated.

 

23 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

I mean in the end this is more of a player issue than system issue.

Yes, smarter alliance and guild leaders would have some sort of 80/20 rule where say if the max cap is 500 players, they'd plan to fill 80% of those slots with their hardcore players and leave open wiggle room of 20% for the casuals (and you'd need to know ahead of time who the hardcore and casuals actually are).  That kind of player side action can't even occur right now because there's nothing in the system for it.

The wider view is that good systems (especially in sandbox style) give players the tools to manage and create these things, not impose things.  What tools do we need?

Edited September 17, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[Xenesis.6389]

11 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

It's not the best solution.  It's a heavy-handed sledgehammer of a workaround for missing functionality.  It's duplication of guild roster management from one guild to now two guilds - extra administrative overhead and requires all players to have an extra guild slot.  No guild leader wants to be kicking members from their guild over this.

I don't understand the question.  Without giving guild leaders additional tools to manage their rosters, those super-casual players are already accommodated.

 

Yes, smarter alliance and guild leaders would have some sort of 80/20 rule where say if the max cap is 500 players, they'd plan to fill 80% of those slots with their hardcore players and leave open wiggle room of 20% for the casuals (and you'd need to know ahead of time who the hardcore and casuals actually are).

The wider view is that good systems give players the tools to manage and create these things, not impose things.  What tools do we need?

 

How's that any different than trying to impose an 80/20 rule? There's still going to be people who may get left out. If you're happy with an 80/20 what's stopping you and your alliance from imposing that rule? You don't need anet to code tools for you. Alliances can set their own rules in regards to guilds and their rosters, the only limit they should have is the 500 cap. So it's a player issue, figure it out amongst your alliance/guild leaders.

 

Just sounds like to me you're trying to avoid telling those 30 players no, because anet!

[Chaba.5410]

11 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

How's that any different than trying to impose an 80/20 rule? There's still going to be people who may get left out. If you're happy with an 80/20 what's stopping you and your alliance from imposing that rule? You don't need anet to code tools for you. Alliances can set their own rules in regards to guilds and their rosters, the only limit they should have is the 500 cap. So it's a player issue, figure it out amongst your alliance/guild leaders.

 

Just sounds like to me you're trying to avoid telling those 30 players no, because anet!

Maybe let me put it in terms you can understand.

It's like having to kick players from the guild because the guild leader has no control over who can change the guild emblem or withdraw donated gold and items from the treasure trove and stash or place decorations or admin lower ranks.  The only thing that can be done to prevent that chaos is to kick them from the guild or form a new guild of players who promise not to edit the guild emblem.

Is that a player issue or a systems issue?  How's your "solution" work out now?  How many guild slots do players need for every missing roster management function?

Edited September 17, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[Xenesis.6389]

3 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Maybe let me put it in terms you can understand.

It's like having to kick players from the guild because the guild leader has no control over who can change the guild emblem or withdraw donated gold and items from the treasure trove and stash or place decorations or admin lower ranks.  The only thing that can be done to prevent that chaos is to kick them from the guild or form a new guild of players who promise not to edit the guild emblem.

Is that a player issue or a systems issue?  How's your "solution" work out now?

 

I mean if you have a bad apple in your guild, do you not want to kick them? 🙂

 

OK ok next solution let anet add a guild rank permission that allows the member to pick the guild as their battle one. So you make a new rank and promote whomever you want in your alliance into that rank. Anet are now the bad guys for restricting 10 of the 30 casuals from joining somehow.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Then you didn't read the posts just like you didn't really watch the stream.  LMFAO.

 

"does total guild member count towards how much "space" a guild takes up in an Alliance?"

They still dont deal with the management of alliances. He says that only those that mark their guild as wvw count toward the population, true. But you still havent answered the scenarios I posed and how they would work. Here is another that would be interesting to see your take on:

What if an alliance leader has a guild where 20 out 100 have it as active WvW guild and 150 slots available... but then the alliance leader is talking with another guild of all 120 members to join because he knows he has 150 slots. Easy room for all of them and a little to spare. Now suddenly the remaining 80 members of the first guild pick it as WvW guild. What happens?

Dont tell me that there should be some sort of reserved slot count so guild members cant just join willy nilly because you've already ruled I have no idea what I'm talking about with that. How is that solved?

Oh and if it's invite only by alliance leader approval before an actual change in WvW guild happens... Those 20 has effectly stolen the guild from the other 80 as those 80 cannot ever choose it as WvW guild to play together, lol. That would be hilarious.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

What if an alliance leader has a guild where 20 out 100 have it as active WvW guild and 150 slots available... but then the alliance leader is talking with another guild of all 120 members to join because he knows he has 150 slots. Easy room for all of them and a little to spare. Now suddenly the remaining 80 members of the first guild pick it as WvW guild. What happens?

Try reading the last paragraph of the first post of this thread.

"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."

Edited September 17, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Anet are now the bad guys for restricting 10 of the 30 casuals from joining somehow.

The bad guy is the guild leader keeping their members down!  😉

[Terrier.8732]

Isn't this issue at least partly the responsibility of the Guild Leader to manage? I'm still trying to get my head around how this might work.

Some functionality within existing guilds to split roster between those who have nominated the guild as "WvW Guild" (and only those count towards the "Alliance" in matchmaking - there will still be a cap to the Alliance itself, yes??),  and people who are members, but chose a different WvW guild (or who are casual/social members) would be ideal? The other option is to have a second non-WvW guild for your casual/social members, except, who wants to level a whole new guild and double administrate?

Edited September 18, 2021 by Terrier.8732

[Talindra.4958]

Am in a casual wvw guild if we raid we have around 15 people.. and if we dont join any stronger guilds that is forming alliance now, will we be disadvantage?

[displayname.8315]

1 hour ago, Talindra.4958 said:

Am in a casual wvw guild if we raid we have around 15 people.. and if we dont join any stronger guilds that is forming alliance now, will we be disadvantage?

One would hope matchmaking puts you in a match against other casuals.  But you will be fit into a team with other battle guilds and alliances.  How strong they are depends on the matchmaking.

[Dawdler.8521]

On 9/18/2021 at 2:19 AM, Terrier.8732 said:

Isn't this issue at least partly the responsibility of the Guild Leader to manage? I'm still trying to get my head around how this might work.

Which is why I believe guilds joining with reserved slots is the sensible solution. The alliance leader would only agree to a set number (and can administer that number), such as a guild joining with 20, 50, 100 etc members in the alliance rooster, whether they are actually filled by players or not.

That way the responsibility to manage those slots fall on the guild leader. If your guild is 100 peeps but you *know* only a part (say 20) will join, maybe you would have 50 slots at your disposal. The guild leader would actually be the one that invite or kick people from the alliance from within his guild up to his own guild cap, not the alliance leader. The alliance leader manage guilds, not members.

If the alliance leader have to micromanage every individual member, its not really going to be fun for that poor schmuck and people will prolly choose large guilds instead for the simplicity.

The problem arise when you start to consider the question what happens if guild members choose the guild as their WvW guild, but cant/dont want to join the alliance the guild is in? That is why the "entire" guild has to join the alliance, but it in terms of matchmaking it effectivly become a free floating guild and an alliance guild, within the same guild. The same problem would exist even if we talk about individual members joining different alliances. It would just be such chaos for the guild leader if alliances per member is allowed, his members would be spread out everywhere on their own will, lol.

But who knows how Anet will handle it. From the interviews, its obvious they havent even started alliance functionality implementation - they dont know themselves. Nor do I.

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Talindra.4958]

1 minute ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Which is why I believe guilds joining with reserved slots is the sensible solution. The alliance leader would only agree to a set number (and can administer that number), such as a guild joining with 20, 50, 100 etc members in the alliance rooster, whether they are actually filled by players or not.

That way the responsibility to manage those slots fall on the guild leader. If your guild is 100 peeps but you *know* only a part (say 20) will join, maybe you would have 50 slots at your disposal. The guild leader would actually be the one that invite or kick people from the alliance from within his guild up to his own guild, not the alliance leader. The alliance leader manage guilds, not members.

If the alliance leader have to micromanage every individual member, its not really going to be fun for that poor schmuck and people will prolly choose large guilds instead for the simplicity.

The problem arise when you start to consider the question what happens if guild members choose the guild as their WvW guild, but cant/dont want to join the alliance the guild is in? That is why the "entire" guild has to join the alliance, but it in terms of matchmaking it effectivly become a free floating guild and an alliance guild, within the same guild. The same problem would exist even if we talk about individual members joining different alliances. It would just be such chaos for the guild leader if alliances per member is allowed, his members would be spread out everywhere on their own will, lol.

But who knows how Anet will handle it. From the interviews, its obvious they havent even started alliance functionality implementation - they dont know themselves. Nor do I.

 

this actually how alliance will work or you are assuming or proposing?

[Dawdler.8521]

16 minutes ago, Talindra.4958 said:

this actually how alliance will work or you are assuming or proposing?

Is the last part not a big enough tell? No one knows how it'll work and the forums is a forum to say whatever. Call it assumption, call it proposal, call it suggestion or call it a rant. Its the same thing. To me its just logical reasoning. Again, listen to the interview. Not the content, the words. How he speaks. Anet doesnt know. So how could I know?

Edited September 19, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Talindra.4958]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Is the last part not a big enough tell? No one knows how it'll work and the forums is a forum to say whatever. Call it assumption, call it proposal, call it suggestion or call it a rant. Its the same thing. Again, listen to the interview. Not the content, the words. How he speaks. Anet doesnt know. So how could I know?

ya only read ur last line.... 

anyone has a better insight? i guess ultimately is to wait for beta to come out.

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by Talindra.4958

[Talindra.4958]

15 minutes ago, displayname.8315 said:

One would hope matchmaking puts you in a match against other casuals.  But you will be fit into a team with other battle guilds and alliances.  How strong they are depends on the matchmaking.

thanks  yeah. hope it is still friendly to solo guild.