Alliances and battle guild roster management

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Which is why I believe guilds joining with reserved slots is the sensible solution.

 

Do you manage a guild now? Just curious.

[Chaba.5410]

3 hours 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?

No guild can join an alliance for the beta. No one actually knows if there is a disadvantage or not to be solo guild.

[Acemos.2856]

Sorry, is there something that I'm missing? Currently the way that it works is The game calculates the number of active world versus world players in a world to determine if that world is full. Wouldn't it be easy to implement something similar for alliances?

[Dawdler.8521]

9 hours ago, Talindra.4958 said:

ya only read ur last line.... 

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

 

From the way Anet talks I am certain they havent even begun with alliance creation system. It doesnt exist yet. So how anyone - including Anet - has any insight is beyond me. The beta doesnt have alliances. They dont need that to test the matchup system. 
 

7 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Do you manage a guild now? Just curious.

One of the guild leaders in a small guild, still an officer in a 400+ community guild because I was one of the early members. Curious counter question is why this question matter to anything I've said previously.

[displayname.8315]

I remember chabas charr RP guild from the WvW tournaments.   They tagged once or twice.  Hard to take FA guilds very serious but with the new hand hold mechanic maybe people will want to join the "Fightin' Fort Aspenwood" alliance.

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, displayname.8315 said:

I remember chabas charr RP guild from the WvW tournaments.   They tagged once or twice.  Hard to take FA guilds very serious but with the new hand hold mechanic maybe people will want to join the "Fightin' Fort Aspenwood" alliance.

Off-topic post?

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

One of the guild leaders in a small guild, still an officer in a 400+ community guild because I was one of the early members. Curious counter question is why this question matter to anything I've said previously.

I asked because of your comment about it should be the responsibility of the guild leader to manage their alliance roster slot allotments, which I'm assuming is exactly what is going to happen with alliance leaders managing guilds and not individual players, was somewhat at odds with your earlier apparent resistance to giving guild leaders finer tools to manage their slots or diving into discussion about what tools guild leaders need.  It made it seem like you've not really managed a guild roster before.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[Dawdler.8521]

52 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I asked because of your comment about it should be the responsibility of the guild leader to manage their alliance roster slot allotments, which I'm assuming is exactly what is going to happen with alliance leaders managing guilds and not individual players, was somewhat at odds with your earlier apparent resistance to giving guild leaders finer tools to manage their slots or diving into discussion about what tools guild leaders need.  It made it seem like you've not really managed a guild roster before.

Not sure how you got the idea of any resistance to it, quite the contrary I was always talking about the obvious problems of the alliance inviting individual players, rather than the entire guild.

And the issue that follows if one want more control than just the entire guild joining with all members would be how the guild is managed in the alliance. Which leads to the idea of reserved slots for that guild so that you can either have more slots than your current guild member count (if recruiting or expanding) or less (if size is reduced over time, which is natural). The alliance leader would be the obvious choice to control that up or down, while the guild leader could only control it down.

And then it's a matter of who adds/removes the members of those slots - which falls on the guild leaders since they know their members best. This way you wouldnt actually need any complicated "admin tools" for the alliance itself. It would just be inviting/kicking guilds and managing their allowed size in the alliance. Everything else is handled by the guilds like normal, with the added option to invite to the alliance within the guild. I could even imagine it being just a feature of the rank system, an "alliance member" checkbox (cant promote if the alliance has no more slots, of course).

Just being in a guild that is a member of an alliance wouldnt automatically mean guild members are in the alliance. That would, once again, require the entire guild to join the alliance with all members, no ifs buts or maybes. It would be a hard limit to all being on the same world. Which leads to a guild and the alliance the guild is member being two separate entities for the purpose of matchmaking. Even if you have it selected as your WvW guild, you wont join another members world that has the same WvW guild but is also a member of the alliance the guild is in (unless by random chance the guild and the alliance end up on the same world).

So as I said before, just logical reasoning on hypothetical alliances we know nothing about yet. We probably wont know anything more until next year, lol. Maybe Anet does something totally unexpected.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[displayname.8315]

48 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Off-topic post?

A  way of describing the counter productive mechanic of alliances.  Either you play with your full 500 man PvX or not.  Why all this theory crafting about fitting an already full guild into a alliance.  That was the idea behind blackgate stacking was it not?  Stack all the guilds together and make a promise land of 24/7 blobbing.  It's already being theorycrafted into a new titan alliance.

 

There is merit to having the the little small guilds linked together into some sort of alliance.  Full guilds of 500 mans don't need to be catered to in this way.  They should sort by Last On and clear some of their roster and not expect to casually pop in to a organized karma train whenever they feel like it just by declaring every successful team out there their "friends".

[Chaba.5410]

9 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Not sure how you got the idea of any resistance to it, quite the contrary I was always talking about the obvious problems of the alliance inviting individual players, rather than the entire guild.

So as I said before, just logical reasoning on hypothetical alliances we know nothing about yet. We probably wont know anything more until next year, lol. Maybe Anet does something totally unexpected.
 

LOL OK well, it probably has something to do with your first response that said all 100 members would join and the 20 WvW players should go form their own guild.

I don't know where you get this idea that alliances would invite individual players.  No where has Anet ever said anything like that in any of what they've written here in the past or said.  In fact alliances were originally described as: "WvW Alliances function as a party for guilds. "  You keep saying we know nothing and that's just not true.  Of course none of what they said may actually happen until it is implemented, but what they did say reveals the direction of that implementation and forms a basis upon which we can discuss.

[Chaba.5410]

14 minutes ago, displayname.8315 said:

A  way of describing the counter productive mechanic of alliances.  Either you play with your full 500 man PvX or not.  Why all this theory crafting about fitting an already full guild into a alliance.  That was the idea behind blackgate stacking was it not?  Stack all the guilds together and make a promise land of 24/7 blobbing.  It's already being theorycrafted into a new titan alliance.

 

There is merit to having the the little small guilds linked together into some sort of alliance.  Full guilds of 500 mans don't need to be catered to in this way.  They should sort by Last On and clear some of their roster and not expect to casually pop in to a organized karma train whenever they feel like it just by declaring every successful team out there their "friends".

Cynicism doesn't contribute well to feature discussions.

[Dawdler.8521]

14 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

LOL OK well, it probably has something to do with your first response that said all 100 members would join and the 20 WvW players should go form their own guild.

I don't know where you get this idea that alliances would invite individual players.  No where has Anet ever said anything like that in any of what they've written here in the past or said.  In fact alliances were originally described as: "WvW Alliances function as a party for guilds. "  You keep saying we know nothing and that's just not true.  Of course none of what they said may actually happen until it is implemented, but what they did say reveals the direction of that implementation and forms a basis upon which we can discuss.

In the very first posts I quoted, you where talking about guild members choosing to rep the WvW guild at will and thus automatically being on the alliance, with no input of the guild leader/choice for the alliance. For large guilds that is indeed a problem and the eqvivalent of individual players suddenly choosing to become member by the mere fact of selecting it as their WvW guild. I presented a solution which is the alternative to guilds breaking up and creating multiple guilds.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Chaba.5410]

6 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

In the very first posts I quoted, you where talking about guild members choosing to rep the WvW guild at will and thus automatically being on the alliance, with no input of the guild leader/choice for the alliance. For large guilds that is indeed a problem and the eqvivalent of individual players suddenly choosing to become member by the mere fact of selecting it as their WvW guild. I presented a solution which is the alternative to guilds breaking up and creating multiple guilds.

Which I wrote to describe the problem of there not being any fine-grained tools for roster management!

You agree that's a problem for large guilds, especially PvX guilds.  Having players break off to form their own guild is a workaround to that problem.  The solution is to implement fine-grained tools for guild leaders to use for roster management.  I had hoped we could discuss what those tools would look like, not going in circles about basic concepts.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[displayname.8315]

1 minute ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Cynicism doesn't contribute well to feature discussions.

You say Cynicism I say greed.  PvX is not WvW.  It's pick your battle guild not pick all 5 of your guilds and have them all guaranteed stack together.  But let's not be fair let's be "friends".

[Chaba.5410]

10 minutes ago, displayname.8315 said:

You say Cynicism I say greed.  PvX is not WvW.  It's pick your battle guild not pick all 5 of your guilds and have them all guaranteed stack together.  But let's not be fair let's be "friends".

Uh, cynicism is a belief that other people are motivated by things like greed.

What I hear you saying is that people and guilds that don't conform to your personal ideal of WvW shouldn't be given the tools for participating in WvW.  WvW is designed as a partial sandbox game mode and players are given various tools to create their own content inside it.  Developers can't and shouldn't design around someone's personal definitions of WvW.  Guilds come in all flavors and sizes.  The system has to work for all of them.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[displayname.8315]

6 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Uh, cynicism is a belief that other people are motivated by things like greed.

What I hear you saying is that people and guilds that don't conform to your personal ideal of WvW shouldn't be given the tools for participating in WvW.  WvW is designed as a partial sandbox game mode and players are given various tools to create their own content inside it.  Developers can't design around someone's personal definitions of WvW.

I didn't ask for the new "battle guild" but that is a great idea for matchmaking.  Whatever alliances will be it's pretty clear just by the discussion people are trying to stack their 5 guilds together because they want all their various guilds  together for their own personal convenience. 

 

Same as the overstacking of servers before, and for the same reason of "I want to play with my friends".  That's what Tyria is for.  500 man guilds did the job fine and even then guild leaders would force a 20 man limit.  How far we've come.

Edited September 19, 2021 by displayname.8315

[Chaba.5410]

17 minutes ago, displayname.8315 said:

I didn't ask for the new "battle guild" but that is a great idea for matchmaking.  Whatever alliances will be it's pretty clear just by the discussion people are trying to stack their 5 guilds together because they want all their various guilds  together for their own personal convenience. 

 

Same as the overstacking of servers before, and for the same reason of "I want to play with my friends".  That's what Tyria is for.  500 man guilds did the job fine and even then guild leaders would force a 20 man limit.  How far we've come.

Saying that it's clear people are just trying to stack their 5 guilds together for convenience is exactly why I called out your cynicism and it's extremely non-constructive towards this discussion.  I have two accounts so IDGAF.  As a guild co-leader though I have to concern myself about more practical and mundane issues like that guild's roster and OTHER people's hopes and fears over this restructuring.

[Knighthonor.4061]

I still believe Alliances will be a bad idea.

[Xenesis.6389]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Uh, cynicism is a belief that other people are motivated by things like greed.

What I hear you saying is that people and guilds that don't conform to your personal ideal of WvW shouldn't be given the tools for participating in WvW.  WvW is designed as a partial sandbox game mode and players are given various tools to create their own content inside it.  Developers can't and shouldn't design around someone's personal definitions of WvW.  Guilds come in all flavors and sizes.  The system has to work for all of them.

 

And yet you're sitting here asking anet to design tools so they can make decisions for you on your roster. The system will give players free reign on who will join battle guilds, it's up to players to make the decisions on who to play with, from guild leaders, to the alliance leaders. You all need to make the decision if you want to play with those 30 super casuals or not, and find an alliance that would accept that or not.

 

No different than every day wvw, you join a fight guild to be with fight people and not super casuals, or you go private tag to run by yourselves, the players already make the decisions on who they want to play with everyday. If you want to make an alliance that has 50% hardcores and 50% casuals, then go for it, make that decision together as alliance/guild leaders, there isn't a need for anet to implement additional tools for this (other than adding a new guild slot to make it easier for people making community guilds to stay together). It should be up to the players to figure out these issues among themselves.

 

Do you really want anet to come up with hard rules like you can only have 5 guilds in an alliance, and they can only have 100 members each in the alliance, and people marked as battle rank in the guild can tag that guild as their battle guild. Why are these things that leaders can't collaborate and figure out on their own? Do you all not have discord or something?

[Talindra.4958]

This coming beta isnt about the alliance? ?  the new world? Some guilds already form alliances in my server.. 

Anyway back in gw1. A guild is guild.. alliance is made up of 2 to 5 guild max. There was Alliance chat (gold colour) and guild chat (green colour) if i remember correctly. Only alliance members can see alliance chat etc. In the guild panel, we have our own guild roster and we cant see alliance roster but we can say hi and stuff in alliance chat.  https://imgur.com/34TMrhr

Something like that I wouldn't mind. Just don't wish to see smaller guilds having to amalgamated into 1 large guild so they can queue up for server together. Some ppl like big guilds and some prefer small.. 

Looking forward to see what the changes will be like.. 

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by Talindra.4958
add picture link

[Xenesis.6389]

22 minutes ago, Talindra.4958 said:

This coming beta isnt about the alliance? ?  the new world? Some guilds already form alliances in my server.. 

 

The first phase test I think is mostly about sorting and see how it works out, alliances won't be in it, that may come in the second test phase. But technically you can form an alliance by forming a new guild and have your alliance guilds stack on it for the sorting.

[Talindra.4958]

i see.. thanks Xenesis.  atm i see various guilds are discussion in the background re: alliance forming .. some already form the alliance by forming new guild. idk.. lol i think people should just wait.. 

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by Talindra.4958

[Talindra.4958]

the general culture and players/guild practice in wvw is that.. larger number overrule the smaller number.  So it is probably quite common that some guilds will try to talk to one another and join up to dominate the win.. the win we are talking about and the social part of it, is what keeping wvw going.. but not everyone enjoy playing in a large squad.. that is why we also have smaller fighting guild that play at random places.. 

IF we have guilds that gang up to queue for servers..  we are back to day 1 of PvP.. 5 organised players vs randomly queued 5 players..

anyway.. these are just stuff floating in the mind .. we should just wait and see. hope dev has cover for all need

Edited September 19, 2021 by Talindra.4958

[Chaba.5410]

6 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

And yet you're sitting here asking anet to design tools so they can make decisions for you on your roster. The system will give players free reign on who will join battle guilds, it's up to players to make the decisions on who to play with, from guild leaders, to the alliance leaders. You all need to make the decision if you want to play with those 30 super casuals or not, and find an alliance that would accept that or not.

 

No different than every day wvw, you join a fight guild to be with fight people and not super casuals, or you go private tag to run by yourselves, the players already make the decisions on who they want to play with everyday. If you want to make an alliance that has 50% hardcores and 50% casuals, then go for it, make that decision together as alliance/guild leaders, there isn't a need for anet to implement additional tools for this (other than adding a new guild slot to make it easier for people making community guilds to stay together). It should be up to the players to figure out these issues among themselves.

 

Do you really want anet to come up with hard rules like you can only have 5 guilds in an alliance, and they can only have 100 members each in the alliance, and people marked as battle rank in the guild can tag that guild as their battle guild. Why are these things that leaders can't collaborate and figure out on their own? Do you all not have discord or something?

LOL OK Mr. "It should be up to the players but don't give them tools to help them figure out issues among themselves" Xenesis.

Nooo we're supposed to all use third-party programs that are essentially irrelevent outside of actual game functions like team formation and guild permissions.

Next time I won't post about this stuff on this forum because it's become rather clear to me that too much time has to be taken to respond to people who haven't quite kept up with the overall discussion when an Anet dev on Mighty Teapot's stream asks for feedback on what tools are needed; stuff like guild permissions.  Constructive feedback on such tools clearly cannot be found here outside of "use third-party tools" or "guilds should conform to my personal ideas of what WvW and a WvW guild is intended to be" or "just do this workaround and pray everyone has an open guild slot".

Edited September 20, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[Xenesis.6389]

23 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

LOL OK Mr. "It should be up to the players but don't give them tools to help them figure out issues among themselves" Xenesis.

Nooo we're supposed to all use third-party programs that are essentially irrelevent outside of actual game functions like team formation and guild permissions.

Next time I won't post about this stuff on this forum because it's become rather clear to me that too much time has to be taken to respond to people who haven't quite kept up with the overall discussion when an Anet dev on Mighty Teapot's stream asks for feedback on what tools are needed; stuff like guild permissions.  Constructive feedback on such tools clearly cannot be found here outside of "use third-party tools" or "guilds should conform to my personal ideas of what WvW and a WvW guild is intended to be" or "just do this workaround and pray everyone has an open guild slot".

 

Third party for what? you can't talk to each in game? you all call for everyone to do on discord to raid but you can't be bothered to talk each other otherwise?