WvW Should be 1 Map with 1 Guild each side

[Nymthalas.4019]

There would be more tiers, but lower tiers would be guilds that want to go chill just going to reset structure of the other teams, and higher tier would have real fights. Ofc you would need 1 guild extra slot marked as wvw guild slot (that you can choose). Having one map would help a lot at having better fights and organization, also would solve the problem of bandwaggoning, if one guild gets a lot of people that just want to be on the winning side... well they will have to work towards it, because with only 1 map if they dont deserve to be on that tier they are gonna be having problems real fast, they will be making queue.

And some other problems of wvw will still be there? yeah, those are already there but at least this fixed a couple of big problems.

[Xenesis.6389]

Why even have wvw at that point, just make battlegrounds.

[Nymthalas.4019]

9 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Why even have wvw at that point, just make battlegrounds.

I wouldnt be against a one good bg for guilds with some guild rating.

[Dawdler.8521]

The ideas sure arent getting any better at least, that's comforting.

[enkidu.5937]

short answer:   no

 

long answer:   noooooooooooooooooo

 

(PS: maybe a fun mode indeed, but dont replace WvW with that, Anet maybe could do that in EotM with special matchmaking)

[jul.7602]

No. If this change were made, everyone would just run 50-man comped squads and roll of every one else.

[Strider Pj.2193]

23 minutes ago, jul.7602 said:

No. If this change were made, everyone would just run 50-man comped squads and roll of every one else.

So, if everyone runs it and everyone rolls over everyone, who is actually being rolled over? 🧐

[Nymthalas.4019]

23 minutes ago, jul.7602 said:

No. If this change were made, everyone would just run 50-man comped squads and roll of every one else.

 

Then if both guilds are in the same tier they should be fighting 50 vs 50, I mean the idea of WvW is fighting, am i wrong?

If the problem is the 50 ppl zergs.. I just think squad size should be capped to 30 ppl.

[jul.7602]

9 minutes ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

So, if everyone runs it and everyone rolls over everyone, who is actually being rolled over? 🧐

 

8 minutes ago, Nymthalas.4019 said:

 

Then if both guilds are in the same tier they should be fighting 50 vs 50, I mean the idea of WvW is fighting, am i wrong?

If the problem is the 50 ppl zergs.. I just think squad size should be capped to 30 ppl.

Because very few guilds actually field 50 people. Most are in the 15-25 range. If this change went live, it would literally be Indo and his 50man boon blob farming everyone with their 'pesky' 25 man guilds and what not. To have  a fair fight everyone else would have to blob up, and now all you have in wvw is just blob versus blob, at best. Great change.

Edited April 24, 2022 by jul.7602

[Strider Pj.2193]

5 minutes ago, jul.7602 said:

 

Because very few guilds actually field 50 people. Most are in the 15-25 range. If this change went live, it would literally be Indo and his 50man boon blob farming everyone with their 'pesky' 25 man guilds and what not. To have  a fair fight everyone else would have to blob up, and now all you have in wvw is just blob versus blob, at best. Great change.

Then not ‘everyone’ is running it.  
 

But the crux of your point is true.  More likely two guilds of 20-25 would ‘join up’ then run two tags on a map.  Sidecar-ing like they do now.  

[jul.7602]

10 minutes ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Then not ‘everyone’ is running it.  
 

But the crux of your point is true.  More likely two guilds of 20-25 would ‘join up’ then run two tags on a map.  Sidecar-ing like they do now.  

Under his proposal, two guilds wouldn't be able to join up and fight beside each other because each map has a 1 guild cap. The guild that runs more people will steamroll everyone else.

[Strider Pj.2193]

2 minutes ago, jul.7602 said:

Under his proposal, two guilds wouldn't be able to join up and fight beside each other because each map has a 1 guild cap. The guild that runs more people will steamroll everyone else.

Lolzz.  Ok.  So..  let’s say two guilds are part of one of the alliance guilds.  Let’s use the names 

TW and DOC.  They join a third guild called…. OnS.  (Yeah I know…). 
 

So, 50 OnS sign up for a map but..  wait a minute…. 25 of them are TW and 25 are DOC.  Each one follows a different commander…. Never happen right?  🤦‍♂️

[jul.7602]

7 minutes ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Lolzz.  Ok.  So..  let’s say two guilds are part of one of the alliance guilds.  Let’s use the names 

TW and DOC.  They join a third guild called…. OnS.  (Yeah I know…). 
 

So, 50 OnS sign up for a map but..  wait a minute…. 25 of them are TW and 25 are DOC.  Each one follows a different commander…. Never happen right?  🤦‍♂️

The quality of the suggestions in this forum. What change does this even bring? The current system already allows TW and DOC to both join a map and fight as one or as two separate entities. This new change just makes it more annoying to do so.

Edited April 24, 2022 by jul.7602

[Scolix.4879]

Insert Bugs Bunny NO meme here.

You want to do BG's go do BG's then.

[Nymthalas.4019]

19 hours ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Then not ‘everyone’ is running it.  
 

But the crux of your point is true.  More likely two guilds of 20-25 would ‘join up’ then run two tags on a map.  Sidecar-ing like they do now.  

 

well, with 2 squads you can win easy, yeah, but usualy is a little bit more difficult than with 1. So if the squad that is alone knows how to make the other 2 loose time, there is a second squad that can take objectives, in the end the 2 squads together would be losing an forced to go separate ways. If 4 squads decide to band and fight at the same time, i think it still makes easier have more options for squad comp.

[Strider Pj.2193]

1 hour ago, Nymthalas.4019 said:

 

well, with 2 squads you can win easy, yeah, but usualy is a little bit more difficult than with 1. So if the squad that is alone knows how to make the other 2 loose time, there is a second squad that can take objectives, in the end the 2 squads together would be losing an forced to go separate ways. If 4 squads decide to band and fight at the same time, i think it still makes easier have more options for squad comp.

@jul figured out what I was saying.  The ONLY thing your suggestion would functionally do is create a new map cap.  One that is 50 instead of 80ish.  
 

It really wouldn’t change much.  

[Nymthalas.4019]

 

8 minutes ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

@jul figured out what I was saying.  The ONLY thing your suggestion would functionally do is create a new map cap.  One that is 50 instead of 80ish.  
 

It really wouldn’t change much.  

Squad size and map cap are not related, you can still have 80ish people in the map, I was talking about only 1 squad geting divided (because its easier to follow only one commander, if there is 2 squads its gets a little harder and might help to avoid everyone from playing that way), but if we talk about the map there could be 3 squads.

[Strider Pj.2193]

52 minutes ago, Nymthalas.4019 said:

 

Squad size and map cap are not related, you can still have 80ish people in the map, I was talking about only 1 squad geting divided (because its easier to follow only one commander, if there is 2 squads its gets a little harder and might help to avoid everyone from playing that way), but if we talk about the map there could be 3 squads.

Currently there could be five or more, but that wasn’t the point…

 

You suggestion in the OP only creates an artificially new map cap of 50 players….  It won’t change how people play….  

[Nymthalas.4019]

Just now, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Currently there could be five or more, but that wasn’t the point…

 

You suggestion in the OP only creates an artificially new map cap of 50 players….  It won’t change how people play….  

 

I still dont get why you think my suggestion make a 50 map cap.

[Dawdler.8521]

55 minutes ago, Nymthalas.4019 said:

 

I still dont get why you think my suggestion make a 50 map cap.

Indeed, I dont understand where he gets 50 from either.

My main guild have about 5 active members, so there should only be 1 map for 5 people per side (ie 15 total) in WvW?

I mean sure there would some queues but people claim its dead anyway so shouldnt be that much.

[DeanBB.4268]

So the intent is to keep it fair, right? So if my brother and I go to this new WvW, there should be another guild of 2 out there somewhere to oppose us? Any solo guilds or guilds greater than 2 would get their own maps, right? 

Sounds fine to me.

[MedievalThings.5417]

WvW has turned into large guilds avoiding each other, and only wanting to fight pugs, doors, and guilds half their size.  How would this help this player created problem?  I don't think it would do anything but further reinforce what is already happening.

[Xenesis.6389]

On 4/23/2022 at 12:59 PM, Nymthalas.4019 said:

I wouldnt be against a one good bg for guilds with some guild rating.

 

1 hour ago, Ubi.4136 said:

WvW has turned into large guilds avoiding each other, and only wanting to fight pugs, doors, and guilds half their size.  How would this help this player created problem?  I don't think it would do anything but further reinforce what is already happening.

 

Hehe I can already picture how this will work out with Rawr, Indo, Pogu, fighting for top tier in rating, maybe some of the dead guilds will come back for the giggles. Can't imagine queueing up on high ratings will be fun waiting, it wasn't in wow, also isn't in spvp for this game I'm believe. 🤷‍♂️ Maybe they'll need to adopt new worlds scheduled instance fights. 🤭

 

But what happens when the smaller guilds start winning and then get the ratings to face those top guilds? will they get tired of facing them and leave like they do now in regular wvw? I'm sure they will.. do they get lower ratings for leaving? so they can tank their way out of the tier of the super boon ballers? a small scale version of servers tanking to not face certain other servers.... 🤭

 

Oh and let's talk rewards for this, the real reason anyone does anything in wvw. Obviously they will need to be compensated for the pug bags they're missing out on, so drops are 5x in there would be fair I'm sure, plus 50 extra skirmish tickets every match. 🤭

 

Meh, eotm is still available, both as an arena, and also a bg map for them to conquer. Just add skirmish rewards to eotm, and a blinking score board that covers the entire sky stating the top 10 guilds W/L record and ratings for eotm. 🤭

 

But I'm sure they'll find something else to complain about and go back to not facing each other while running over pugs. 🤭

[Bish.8627]

Planetside 2 has a good system, I won't try and explain it too detailed as it has been a while since I played it. But as the population gets smaller at night, factions (there are 3 and a neutral) can lock a map, those maps open with alerts focusing objectives there, but as it quietens down, fewer maps remain open with them rotating.

Could have a rewards bonus for alerts and locking a map maybe. Close all but EBT+1 map at night, maybe even just EBT open dead in the night or quiet hours.

[Some Call Me Tim.2319]

One thing is for sure. If such a thing was implemented wvw would lose a ton of players.  It would truly be the most ridiculous setup yet.