Limit eligible guilds for WvW Guilds to smaller sizes

[Towelie.9504]

As said in the title, WR is going to be a failure if it ends up with a bunch of 500 man guild alliances that mimic servers.  Even 100 people in a roster is tremendous so that's likely still too many.  Given that an active server population is in the 100s of unique players and not the 1000s anymore it makes no sense for massive guilds to be eligible.  It is counter intuitive to the goal of sorting guilds uniformly across worlds and timezones.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Towelie.9504

[Dawdler.8521]

As per Anets original notes the average world population was 2500. Now? Dont know. Dont think its much difference - the overall activity of world seem to have remained pretty stable. But its definetly not in the hundreds.

The problem as usual is what are you going to do with existing 500 man guilds? Forcibly kick guild members? Disband the guild because they need to split into 5+ "wvw guilds"?

[Custodio.6134]

yeah, the maximum size for guilds will NEVER go below 500 players, as that would mess with existing guilds. 

But, its also pretty unlikely that you will even hold a single alliance that is made out of a single guild. 

The only guilds, that have pretty much only active wvw-players AND are full, are community-guilds from servers. 
But even if they are full, chances are high that even those guilds can create an alliance that includes all the server's currently active raiding guilds. 
A big chunk of players in the community-guilds is shared with the raiding guilds, so there´s an overlap in members. So assuming, there are 500 people in the community-guild, that doesn´t mean that other guilds cannot be in that alliance. As long as all of them are also in the full guild, all of them can still join the alliance (hypothetically, it´s still kinda pointless but you see what i mean)

[Wonderly.1324]

Players can opt into choosing the guild as their WvW guild. So for example a guild may have 500 members, but if only 10 select that guild for WvW, that guild will only count as having 10 members towards an alliance.

The hole I see in that logic is that the guild leaders/officers need a way to approve/deny a guild member who has selected that guild as their primary WvW guild. Let's say your alliance only has room for 20 members from your guild; if 500 people in your guild select your guild as their WvW guild, you should be able to choose how many and which members to accept.

[Dawdler.8521]

(In response to above, not the OP since this thread was long dead)

Anet have already described this from an alliance point of view.

A guild is invited to an alliance with a slot count, say 50. It cant take up more than 50 regardless of how many select that guild as it as a wvw guild. So the guild always count as 50 toward the alliance.  

Now, I also have said that the system cannot work without a secondary layer inside the guild - a rank access, a guild leader tickbox per member, whatever. And I will stick to that, alliances cannot technically function otherwise. This is needed for guild management because yes, 200 can still select it as wvw guild. The guild leader need a way to select who of those is in the actual alliance, while the rest get sorted together as a wvw guild.

Anet just havent told us exactly how it works. So this is a non-issue tbh. 

Like I said in the other thread, we have to assume Anet are not complete baboons.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[Mabi black.1824]

Mechanics details aside, try to think only about numbers. 500 is too many, since 70 is enough to fill a map. That group of 500 joined, I guess, because they enjoy playing together, logic leads you to consider that they will want to play at a similar time. In addition, to shuffle the deck of cards well, we know that small pieces are needed. Although a current server could accommodate 2000 players when declared full (and it sounds very strange, because I think they are less) 500 is still a challenging number.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Mechanics details aside, try to think only about numbers. 500 is too many, since 70 is enough to fill a map. 

So you're telling us that guilds dont exist?

Because I am pretty sure 500 man guilds exist. 

So yeah hm. Logic.

[Xenesis.6389]

On 5/10/2023 at 6:55 PM, Wonderly.1324 said:

Players can opt into choosing the guild as their WvW guild. So for example a guild may have 500 members, but if only 10 select that guild for WvW, that guild will only count as having 10 members towards an alliance.

The hole I see in that logic is that the guild leaders/officers need a way to approve/deny a guild member who has selected that guild as their primary WvW guild. Let's say your alliance only has room for 20 members from your guild; if 500 people in your guild select your guild as their WvW guild, you should be able to choose how many and which members to accept.

If a guild has 500 active people that want to be in wvw, there's no point to joining an alliance, they're an "alliance" on their own. I do agree the guild leader should also choose which members to accept for an alliance.

Even if you want to lower that number for the example say 100 members, well a guild leader of a guild that size would probably already know how many are interested in wvw beforehand, and either shop for an appropriate alliance to hold them, or create one to build around those 100. At minimum the decision on members is up to the guild leaders, and doesn't need to have further restrictions in place by anet, it would/should be something to work around between the guilds and leaders involved. Hopefully the guild UI will flag players on the roster who picked that guild as their "wvw guild", so guild leaders have an easier time with the numbers, and not have to guess who out of their 500 picked the guild. And again a double check acceptance measure by also having that guild leader also pick who would join an alliance.

Going forward I'm sure the guild leaders of alliances will most likely leave some spots open for returning or new players to their guilds in the alliance, maybe say 50-100, and if they get to alliance cap, well it'll probably time to trim some fat, and I'm sure there will be a way to remove members from alliance rosters (hopefully something other than a straight guild boot, for someone that maybe decides to take an unannounced 3 month vacation from the game).

[Mabi black.1824]

12 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

So you're telling us that guilds dont exist?

Because I am pretty sure 500 man guilds exist. 

So yeah hm. Logic.

Don't get me wrong, of course there are guilds of 500 players, what I'm saying is that if your goal is to have many small pieces to put together, the limit that Anet herself said to assume initially but they are still thinking of 500 or less, in my opinion is definitely too big.

The rational reasoning is that if we measure the balance between servers by a percentage difference and assume that perfection (identical flow) is 0%, then this 0% is directly proportional to that limit of 500. Absurdly to achieve perfection you should have a limit of 1 player per alliance. Clearly unacceptable. 

If we consider that limit of 500 and get a disparity between servers for hypothesis that still rotates over 40% (just like now) it will be equally unacceptable. So it all depends on the goals that development sets.

Certainly the more you increase the number of players per alliance, at the same time you increase the percentage of disparity between servers. All that remains is to verify it with the beta alliance. Start with the indicated limit of 500 and go see what results it brings. If you get the result you imposed on yourself you are ok, otherwise you will have to reduce the number of players per alliance.

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Don't get me wrong, of course there are guilds of 500 players, what I'm saying is that if your goal is to have many small pieces to put together, the limit that Anet herself said to assume initially but they are still thinking of 500 or less, in my opinion is definitely too big.

The rational reasoning is that if we measure the balance between servers by a percentage difference and assume that perfection (identical flow) is 0%, then this 0% is directly proportional to that limit of 500. Absurdly to achieve perfection you should have a limit of 1 player per alliance. Clearly unacceptable. 

If we consider that limit of 500 and get a disparity between servers for hypothesis that still rotates over 40% (just like now) it will be equally unacceptable. So it all depends on the goals that development sets.

Certainly the more you increase the number of players per alliance, at the same time you increase the percentage of disparity between servers. All that remains is to verify it with the beta alliance. Start with the indicated limit of 500 and go see what results it brings. If you get the result you imposed on yourself you are ok, otherwise you will have to reduce the number of players per alliance.

The 500 man cap isnt there because of "limit" - its just that it cant be lower than current guild cap because then people would game the system (why would you want an alliance?) and it shouldnt higher than guild cap because the point is reducing the chunks as low as you can.

Numbers wise, its real easy - we know that teams (ie a current world) will be much larger than an alliance (original 2500 person average). This means that a lower number dont matter:

1 alliance of 500 

2 alliances of 250 with the same players

4 alliances of 125 with the same players

All can fit on the same team and its the same number players queueing your borders in the end.

There is no way around that.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[TheGrimm.5624]

Never happen but would love to see the cross view of players/guilds/playhours that the sorts came out with. 

[djmasa.9123]

One thing I'd like to ask, is how many players can actually be on the same map at the same time? For example, Server A. There's four maps, 3 borderlands and EBG. We constantly see high queue times on EVERY MAP almost consistently every Friday for a near-full to full server. We've seen the kinds of numbers waiting at the LA gates on Friday resets. It seems to me like only 1 to maybe 2 full squads can make it into a map with fairly good chances if no PUGs are also going in at the same time. If PUGs are involved, the chances obviously decrease.  This saying that even if a full WvW Guild (500 roster) does like to play WvW all the time (not likely, but just read on), over 85% of them won't get in to ANY map. Now, I suppose it would be possible for a guild to split squads up to different maps each with their own commander, but at this point, you're literally splitting ONE 500 person guild up into four and each running their own squad in the maps. While it's HIGHLY unlikely that a 500 roster guild would play each and every day, you can split that up however you want over across a few guilds on each server and see the result.  Somebody is going to get left out and not be able to play at all. If world restructuring is going to happen and be effective, they need to be able to scale the system to allow for these players who 'get left behind' simply for not being fast enough to enter the gate or come late.

The biggest other problem I see surrounding WvW even in it's current system is two items. One is a skills design problem and one is a technical problem. 

The skills problem is: Immobility condition. Immobility makes sense if it's 1 second or less and cannot be stacked. The problem is today if an entire zerg bombs on you and you get hit with immobility, you get hit with way more than a 1 second interval. That limits you from doing ANYTHING. You can't even clear that condition quick enough before another is slapped on or stacked on you, not only holding you in place for more than 1 second, but making it so you can't ever clear them. What happens here is you are effectively taken completely out of the battle. You can't move. You can't do anything, All the while this big zerg knows it and is beating you down until you're dead, and lets be honest, it happens fairly quickly. Those precious few seconds can mean a lot in a battle. It needs to be reworked. 

The technical problem is: Lag. We've seen it. It's been frustrating. How many times have you been in a map, get in range of a zerg and all of the sudden the lag spikes up to levels not seen since dialup internet days. This is a big problem. Many people say, oh it's your graphics card or your system can't handle processing that many people at once. I disagree. I've seen top of the line video cards with options set to the lowest levels STILL have major problems with lag. What happens with lag? Your skills roll. They don't work. You're effectively taken out of battle. You can't see anything. You move, but you can't hit anything. After awhile (could be anywhere from 1-30 seconds), the lag dissipates and you've found out you're dead in a ditch or gully somewhere because you have no idea how you actually got there. If the lag goes on for a super long amount of time, you ultimately get disconnected, meaning the same thing happens. You're taken out of the game. Your fun has been squashed, and if you're experiencing full queues, might as well give up for the night and go do something else. That's a horrible way to have to go out. It's even worse when it happens to a commander of a squad. Your entire squad is left to fend for themselves if no other person can take over being a commander, and even then, it's a huge change because that commander might do things differently. 

 

So to end my post, the three things needing to change in WvW are: Immobility condition, Lag, and the queues.

Maybe ArenaNet has plans for the queues, but so far even during the world restructuring betas I've been in, I've almost always got separated from my group and put on to another server which is also disheartening because you can't play with your fellow guildies and teammates. I hope they do. But the others need to be sorted out or all of this will be for nothing.

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by djmasa.9123
spelling corrections

[Dawdler.8521]

9 minutes ago, djmasa.9123 said:

One thing I'd like to ask, is how many players can actually be on the same map at the same time? For example, Server A. There's four maps, 3 borderlands and EBG. We constantly see high queue times on EVERY MAP almost consistently every Friday for a near-full to full server. We've seen the kinds of numbers waiting at the LA gates on Friday resets. It seems to me like only 1 to maybe 2 full squads can make it into a map with fairly good chances if no PUGs are also going in at the same time. If PUGs are involved, the chances obviously decrease.  This saying that even if a full WvW Guild (500 roster) does like to play WvW all the time (not likely, but just read on), over 85% of them won't get in to ANY map. Now, I suppose it would be possible for a guild to split squads up to different maps each with their own commander, but at this point, you're literally splitting ONE 500 person guild up into four and each running their own squad in the maps. While it's HIGHLY unlikely that a 500 roster guild would play each and every day, you can split that up however you want over across a few guilds on each server and see the result.  Somebody is going to get left out and not be able to play at all. If world restructuring is going to happen and be effective, they need to be able to scale the system to allow for these players who 'get left behind' simply for not being fast enough to enter the gate or come late.

The biggest other problem I see surrounding WvW even in it's current system is two items. One is a skills design problem and one is a technical problem. 

The skills problem is: Immobility condition. Immobility makes sense if it's 1 second or less and cannot be stacked. The problem is today if an entire zerg bombs on you and you get hit with immobility, you get hit with way more than a 1 second interval. That limits you from doing ANYTHING. You can't even clear that condition quick enough before another is slapped on or stacked on you, not only holding you in place for more than 1 second, but making it so you can't ever clear them. What happens here is you are effectively taken completely out of the battle. You can't move. You can't do anything, All the while this big zerg knows it and is beating you down until you're dead, and lets be honest, it happens fairly quickly. Those precious few seconds can mean a lot in a battle. It needs to be reworked. 

The technical problem is: Lag. We've seen it. It's been frustrating. How many times have you been in a map, get in range of a zerg and all of the sudden the lag spikes up to levels not seen since dialup internet days. This is a big problem. Many people say, oh it's your graphics card or your system can't handle processing that many people at once. I disagree. I've seen top of the line video cards with options set to the lowest levels STILL have major problems with lag. What happens with lag? Your skills roll. They don't work. You're effectively taken out of battle. You can't see anything. You move, but you can't hit anything. After awhile (could be anywhere from 1-30 seconds), the lag dissipates and you've found out you're dead in a ditch or gully somewhere because you have no idea how you actually got there. If the lag goes on for a super long amount of time, you ultimately get disconnected, meaning the same thing happens. You're taken out of the game. Your fun has been squashed, and if you're experiencing full queues, might as well give up for the night and go do something else. That's a horrible way to have to go out. It's even worse when it happens to a commander of a squad. Your entire squad is left to fend for themselves if no other person can take over being a commander, and even then, it's a huge change because that commander might do things differently. 

 

So to end my post, the three things needing to change in WvW are: Immobility condition, Lag, and the queues.

Maybe ArenaNet has plans for the queues, but so far even during the world restructuring betas I've been in, I've almost always got separated from my group and put on to another server which is also disheartening because you can't play with your fellow guildies and teammates. I hope they do. But the others need to be sorted out or all of this will be for nothing.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic or world restructure but:

~70-80 Anet will never say exact number.

Immo is only really an issue with certain rangers and to a lesser degree thief - neither of which will be in a zerg. You have a whole lot of other problems than immo if a 50 man CC and run over you specifically.

Lag will always be there.

[Xenesis.6389]

3 hours ago, djmasa.9123 said:

One thing I'd like to ask, is how many players can actually be on the same map at the same time? For example, Server A. There's four maps, 3 borderlands and EBG. We constantly see high queue times on EVERY MAP almost consistently every Friday for a near-full to full server. We've seen the kinds of numbers waiting at the LA gates on Friday resets. It seems to me like only 1 to maybe 2 full squads can make it into a map with fairly good chances if no PUGs are also going in at the same time. If PUGs are involved, the chances obviously decrease. 

This saying that even if a full WvW Guild (500 roster) does like to play WvW all the time (not likely, but just read on), over 85% of them won't get in to ANY map. Now, I suppose it would be possible for a guild to split squads up to different maps each with their own commander, but at this point, you're literally splitting ONE 500 person guild up into four and each running their own squad in the maps. While it's HIGHLY unlikely that a 500 roster guild would play each and every day, you can split that up however you want over across a few guilds on each server and see the result.  Somebody is going to get left out and not be able to play at all.

If world restructuring is going to happen and be effective, they need to be able to scale the system to allow for these players who 'get left behind' simply for not being fast enough to enter the gate or come late.

You're talking about a problem that only exist for like two hours of the week now.

It's during NA est prime time.

It's on a friday when many are ready to play the game, more than any other time during the week.

Rarely servers will have all four maps queued in prime time during the week, it happens but the queues aren't long.

You're asking for a scaling system while also complaining about lag? the more players on the map the more likely you will experience skill lag on the map. Years ago they reduced the map caps by like 5 and it dramatically reduced the skill lag, no point increasing the cap and mess with that again.

This is why EOTM exist, to give players a place to play until they can get into the maps they want. It's not much use these days because there isn't four map 1 hour queues to wait on anymore.

There are four maps, only one squad of 50 can exist on the map at a time, so the max a large alliance should be looking to carry is maybe 200 members during NA. If any alliance is stupid enough to stack themselves with 500 active players that only play around the 9-12pm NA est time period, they get what they kitten deserve. 🤡