blp.3489 Posted February 25, 2023 Share Posted February 25, 2023 Since Alliances have proven so time consuming to implement, would it be simpler to allow Guilds to claim servers, thereby putting control into the hands of players rather than an algorithm? If there were new servers that were periodically made available to be claimed it shouldn't interfere with the status quo too much. It would then be up to the guild whether to admit new members rather than new players being able to transfer to any non-full server. The guild could recruit players in various time zones if it wanted and not get messed up (e.g. made to queue) by being linked with a server that has everyone playing in the same time slots. If two guilds want to play together they can just create a new guild and all join it, or one guild can admit the members of the other. I'm sure this is a little too simple but it seems like giving organized groups of players more control they can do things more the way they want to and should less discontented. If one guild doesn't suit a player anymore they can move to another guild, if that other guild is willing to take them. Hopefully the match ups will sort the guilds at least roughly into somewhat equal matches. You would need to work out what a guild has to do to claim a server, and probably a way for another guild to displace them if they go downhill. Please do go ahead and explain why that would be a disaster, I'm quite open to the idea that it could be a very bad idea and I'm curious as to why. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted February 25, 2023 Share Posted February 25, 2023 You're suggesting 500 man links. You're literally suggesting the same thing as world restructure so I dont see how it's simpler. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenesis.6389 Posted February 25, 2023 Share Posted February 25, 2023 Just a fancy version of this https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Hypothetically-Speaking-New-Worlds BTW players have had all the control, they are the ones that messed it all up by turning into mercenaries and bandwagoning whenever they were bored. Guilds already jump to the same server with others they want to play with. World restructuring also already places guilds together in alliances in their own worlds with others, and they will have control over who joins their guild/alliance anyways, just not the world itself which is where the actual balance is needed. You're just going to offer them a server to jump to, but no real restrictions to prevent them from moving again. So should we continue to keep it in their hands? so they can just repeat history again? Automated system is the only solution at this point. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asterix.9614 Posted February 25, 2023 Share Posted February 25, 2023 I am against alliance, and letting a guild claim a server sounds toxic af. Imagine the power trips for some guild masters 🤪 8 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blp.3489 Posted February 25, 2023 Author Share Posted February 25, 2023 Is it a problem to create a guild that is large enough to fully occupy a server? I was thinking of wvw-only guilds so you wouldn't have a lot of guild members that aren't wvw players, so the guild limit of 500 players would match the server limit. Wrt the problem with mercenary switching to winning servers, isn't that the fault of those players that are switching rather than the general player base? If you had to be admitted to the guild in order to transfer to that guild's server then that sort of transfer would, at very least, be reduced. Guilds could reject players that want to freeload on their success and potentially leave productive members of the guild stuck in queues waiting to play. If the guild could boot members then they could get rid of players that run into walls and hang around in spawn, perhaps even get rid of spies if they can recognize them or catch them in the act of pulling tactics or wasting supply in a really obvious way. At its most basic level, all ArenaNet would have to implement would be a way to restrict transfers to a server to members of the appropriate guild. Of course it would also need the mechanism for guilds to claim a server and possibly a way for them to lose it if they fall apart. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenesis.6389 Posted February 25, 2023 Share Posted February 25, 2023 7 minutes ago, blp.3489 said: Is it a problem to create a guild that is large enough to fully occupy a server? I was thinking of wvw-only guilds so you wouldn't have a lot of guild members that aren't wvw players, so the guild limit of 500 players would match the server limit. Wrt the problem with mercenary switching to winning servers, isn't that the fault of those players that are switching rather than the general player base? If you had to be admitted to the guild in order to transfer to that guild's server then that sort of transfer would, at very least, be reduced. Guilds could reject players that want to freeload on their success and potentially leave productive members of the guild stuck in queues waiting to play. If the guild could boot members then they could get rid of players that run into walls and hang around in spawn, perhaps even get rid of spies if they can recognize them or catch them in the act of pulling tactics or wasting supply in a really obvious way. At its most basic level, all ArenaNet would have to implement would be a way to restrict transfers to a server to members of the appropriate guild. Of course it would also need the mechanism for guilds to claim a server and possibly a way for them to lose it if they fall apart. What are you going to do with these servers now, just have them as separate 500 man servers that are like 1/4 of current servers so you can have even more dead times? or link them so it becomes WR anyways? Not to mention this heavily becomes a Guild controlled game mode which half the population of casuals is not going to like and probably quit? Sorry but I don't see how this solution is any better than WR. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarzAttakz.9608 Posted February 25, 2023 Share Posted February 25, 2023 No thank you. If guilds want to be God they can go play Eve Online. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blp.3489 Posted February 25, 2023 Author Share Posted February 25, 2023 27 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said: What are you going to do with these servers now, just have them as separate 500 man servers that are like 1/4 of current servers so you can have even more dead times? Ah, that's what I was missing, server population is four times bigger than the max guild size, so you would need four 500 player guilds to occupy a server. Got it, thanks for the explanation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted February 25, 2023 Share Posted February 25, 2023 3 hours ago, blp.3489 said: It would then be up to the guild whether to admit new members rather than new players being able to transfer to any non-full server. Uh, I think we will get enough drama already with the WR project, this would be that times three. Wouldn't work out well. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapasmurf.5623 Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 You can only join our guilds WvW server if you pay me 5k gold xD I can see a problem 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blp.3489 Posted February 28, 2023 Author Share Posted February 28, 2023 Why would anyone want to join a WvW server that had a tyrannical guild or demanded 5k gold? Wouldn't people just pick a different server to join and wouldn't the unreasonable guild fade away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapasmurf.5623 Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 2 hours ago, blp.3489 said: Why would anyone want to join a WvW server that had a tyrannical guild or demanded 5k gold? Wouldn't people just pick a different server to join and wouldn't the unreasonable guild fade away? Absolute power corrupts absolutely It would happen, guaranteed. The drama would destroy WvW 110% 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 1 hour ago, Bigpapasmurf.5623 said: Absolute power corrupts absolutely It would happen, guaranteed. The drama would destroy WvW 110% You mean the drama that's existed for 10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapasmurf.5623 Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 12 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said: You mean the drama that's existed for 10 years? This would be an elevated level drama...WvW is...existing...atm, this would be the certain end of WvW 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enkidu.5937 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 (edited) On 2/25/2023 at 7:52 PM, blp.3489 said: The guild could recruit players in various time zones if it wanted and not get messed up (e.g. made to queue) by being linked with a server that has everyone playing in the same time slots. We should test that asap. Because it will demonstrate the kitten show that "world restructuring" will bring. And what you suggest is still reversible (communities can stay intact for the test), while Anets "world destructuring" is not test-able / non-reversible, cause long-time teams / communities get instantly deleted or shrinked to 500, and when Anet "tests" this version of small communities for like 6 month, and see it doesn't work then . . . 😏 In your test, you will have different variations of alliances / servers: - stacked with K-trains for dailies, they want to exploit the system, they want to stack time zones, because they want to dominate in easy mode - stacked boon blobs, same as above, but just for bags and the "Im fight elite" memes - fight guild players will also stack, because they don't want to win matches too heavy, otherwise they would be put to Tier 1 with high activity and that means lot of randoms, lot of clouding, lot of guild buffs, lot of siege engines, lot of "disturbing clean fights" - people that want to win and dominate matches score wise, so they stack 1000 off-hour players and win every skirmish apart from prime time So yes, we should test that 👍 Edited March 1, 2023 by enkidu.5937 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabi black.1824 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 I would say that is not a good idea. WWW is a server-based game mode. Great worlds that collide and compete with each other. The server environment is provided and guaranteed by ANET. It is a container of many players (maybe 1500/2000) to ensure content + or - as WWW is designed 24/7. The servers that Anet provides are inclusive, inside you can find players of all different types who interpret the mode in so many different ways . This logic makes sure that all players can have fun, each one as they prefer, and at the same time makes sure that players cannot influence the gaming experience on other players because they are all ''equal'' no one has special powers to send you away from a server, outside of Anet. So these servers are large communities of players, inclusive, democratic, with only one guarantor, which is called Anet. Within it then form many subgroups of smaller communities (guilds) each with its own character. These small subgroups are controlled by the player, so by nature subject to any kind of drama you can think of. Their management is exclusive, because to enter you will have to ask permission from someone. And that someone has the power to kick you out of their guild as and when they want. So your suggestion to make the server under the control of any guild (therefore of any player), goes in the opposite direction for how this mode was conceived and designed. as well as making the server subject to any drama you can think of. What is now a stable system would make it completely unstable. After that we can discuss together how this stable system that we have today, presents clear problems of balance between the same servers, in terms of flow, content, and therefore of number of players and relative redistribution of players. or we can discuss the problems that the new system of alliances could bring, as we can assume that we will all achieve a great result in terms of balanced or similar servers, but at the same time we will empty the servers themselves of whatever meaning they have at the moment in terms of competition and in terms of large communities, democratic and inclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 12 hours ago, Bigpapasmurf.5623 said: This would be an elevated level drama...WvW is...existing...atm, this would be the certain end of WvW Do you also mean the definitive death of WvW thats been proclaimed every other month on the forums for the last 10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riba.3271 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 (edited) It has been seen in other games that guilds will very rarely allow any existance outside them to exist within their realm. If they do, they will be complete subvervient to them and treated as inferior beings. So if you're willing to appoint overlord for next 200 years based on their internet accomplishments, sure, go ahead, and see how there will be one realm per guild soon, and all matchups will be dead. WvW is about equals, where guilds need the server to not absolutely despite them, the server need the guilds to keep good players interested and pugs need pugs so they are not the worst player. Edited March 1, 2023 by Riba.3271 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabi black.1824 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 33 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said: the server need the guilds to keep good players interested and pugs need pugs so they are not the worst player. You can not know how much I feel pug in the depths of my heart (so worse player) indeed I would like to be pug forever. Yet when I log out in the evening if I had to write the name and surname of all the ''good guild players'' I killed, I would need a lot of paper. much more than you could imagine. Mine will always be a ''no thanks'' to any invitation from a combat guild, even if it were the most famous in the world. Why? Too much fun to be ''The worst player''. But I confess that my mind is sick.😎 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blp.3489 Posted March 1, 2023 Author Share Posted March 1, 2023 (edited) It doesn't solve the other problems that have been brought up but when I wrote the post I envisioned that some but not all of the servers would be claimed by guilds. The idea was to allow those players that want it the ability to join together with other people of like mind and create a server that operates the way they like without having, for example, people that join their server because they are winning, who, for example, then create queues during prime times that prevent the guild members from getting on. Or not having any ability to cover different time zones because the random people who join all want to play during the same hours. Also things like having people on that sit in spawn most of the time, even during prime time. Not to mention spies and tactic pullers. I wasn't picturing that all the servers would be claimed by guilds, just that the guilds that wanted to could claim a server and then operate as they want to. I thought that guilds that don't satisfy their members would lose them, naturally dealing with tyrants. Edited March 1, 2023 by blp.3489 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 4 hours ago, blp.3489 said: It doesn't solve the other problems that have been brought up but when I wrote the post I envisioned that some but not all of the servers would be claimed by guilds. The idea was to allow those players that want it the ability to join together with other people of like mind and create a server that operates the way they like without having, for example, people that join their server because they are winning, who, for example, then create queues during prime times that prevent the guild members from getting on. Or not having any ability to cover different time zones because the random people who join all want to play during the same hours. Also things like having people on that sit in spawn most of the time, even during prime time. Not to mention spies and tactic pullers. I wasn't picturing that all the servers would be claimed by guilds, just that the guilds that wanted to could claim a server and then operate as they want to. I thought that guilds that don't satisfy their members would lose them, naturally dealing with tyrants. We will see how what you proposed works out since the Alliance part of the WR system will be groups being linked together and controlled by potentially a single player per the design. I think that might lead to either large Alliances of single or a few guilds and more medium to small Alliances of a larger number of guilds that won't reach the max size since they will be guilds that have more off/on players and people will still want to leave room for them but which will equate to not filling the numbers potential at any given time. The more organized the Alliance the better they might do since they will look to not only fill it but also account for things like coverage and mix of guilds. Of course lets see if the UI stands as written up once we get to the testing of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said: controlled by potentially a single player per the design. An alliance leader could kick an entire guild out of their alliance. But they would have zero actual control over individual members - that's up to guild leaders/guild officers since being a guild alliance member is a function of the guild, not the alliance. The guild would only brings a number into the alliance. Also a "large alliance of a single guild"... well that's just a guild, lol. Because of course some leaders will *want* more control than what the alliance offers so they can kick those who doesnt fall in line. Whether you as a member like that or not... Edited March 1, 2023 by Dawdler.8521 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MedievalThings.5417 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 No. However many more characters I need to make a post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diku.2546 Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 (edited) I Like to Move It Move It! But you better be ready... https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/119667-anyone-ever-experience-a-mega-guild-meltdown-is-it-avoidable Edited March 24, 2023 by Diku.2546 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeolus.3615 Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 On 2/25/2023 at 7:19 PM, asterix.9614 said: I am against alliance, and letting a guild claim a server sounds toxic af. Imagine the power trips for some guild masters 🤪 An alliance should be able kick the queen out of Divinity bare foot and get the throne in 1st place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now