shipping perma beta population restructuring without alliance ui is gonna split guilds apart

[Stand The Wall.6987]

World vs. World Restructuring and Alliances

Since 2021, the WvW team has spent most of their time working on the World Restructuring system, a WvW infrastructure overhaul intended to produce fairer and more engaging matchups for WvW. It’s a complicated system, which you can learn more about here.

Up until recently, we have been considering the Alliance management UI a required part of shipping the World Restructuring system, which means that players are not currently getting much value from all of the work we have already put in. Many of the backend functions for balance and matchmaking already work at the WvW guild level. It’s extremely valuable for us to get consistent live data from players about how it’s working for them, so getting that system permanently online is now our first priority.

With the reprioritizing, we will not be opening the Alliances system to beta testing this year. We will refocus on delivering an always-on version of World Restructuring to players as soon as possible. From there we want to evaluate the new player experience, collect your feature requests, and monitor live data to allow us to make World Restructuring the best system that it can be.

One major priority in the perpetually active version of World Restructuring is growing and tuning the various criteria we use for matchmaking to create our WvW teams. Our goal here is to build a system with enjoyable experiences across a variety of player types so matchups feel as rewarding as possible.

We don’t have a timeline to share now, but we’ll keep you updated.

^^^ recent anet post, studio update september 2023 ^^^

 

(first to clarify, it seems that there are two aspects of this new system, restructuring which is the actual moving around of ppl and alliance ui which allows the creation of alliances obviously and also allows groups of ppl to stay together.)

yeah this is a really bad idea. you guys are right, alliance management ui is required to ship with restructuring. there are tons of ppl who are in multiple wvw guilds and having to choose one of them will mean either some of those guilds being abandoned or the guild splitting. i don't understand this decision, this isn't going to be enjoyable for large groups of ppl and any new player experience will be stunted. part of the unofficial deal was that we would be able to keep our communities somewhat together with alliance ui, if that doesn't ship and restructuring goes into perma beta then there is going to be a ton of unnecessary negative feedback and i bet a lot of ppl will play a lot less wvw. i get that you guys are under pressure to deliver something but doing this is going to backfire and alliances will get a bad rep for an avoidable reason. pls reconsider.

edit

also ofc friends who are on the same server but in totally separate guilds will be forced to choose between those friends

Edited September 14, 2023 by Stand The Wall.6987

[neven.3785]

Being part of 3 wvw guilds, I do not see a problem with this, make your choice(s) and deal with making more social connections.

One guild is filled with people who don't play often, nostalgia is the only reason I stick around.   Most of it's player base is convinced the game is dead and don't try to breath life into the guild (in gw2 atleast)

Another is newly formed and has been recruiting mostly from new players and PvE-centric players, this guild has essentially been operating as if it were world restructuring and building it's roster from every relink, they will benefit from this, and they are already large enough to not worry about needing allies to have fun

Last one is an established wvw guild, it never planned on joining an alliance and most of it's roster is from the guild itself vs a shared player base.  It also recruited from building relationships with new people every relink.  This guild isn't large enough to control a full map, but they don't care.

Now who will I rep? Main account goes to the last one I invested my most time in, who still work to enjoy the game.  Because I wish to keep playing with the second group I'll be repping them with my second account, which is pretty basic but good enough for wvw (exotic gear, specs I play, mount and gliding in wvw).   The second account was made so I could roam when my timezone was dead in the primary server.  If I need my third account if the first group comes back, then I'll use that for roaming on once every few weeks. The third account was purchased to scout a potential server move for the third guild.  Over time I will be sided with friendly faces and other times I will face them which is equally as fun.  For a new player, neither system is better or worse.

[subversiontwo.7501]

1 hour ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

 there are tons of ppl who are in multiple wvw guilds and having to choose one of them will mean either some of those guilds being abandoned or the guild splitting.

A glass-half-full take on that is that if you have overlap in rosters, it is much easier to fit both your guilds into a megaguild (or a later alliance), as those players only count once towards the total despite being in multiple guilds whose rosters would need to fit into a megaguild, acting as an alliance placeholder.

That is beyond the glaringly obvious that you would face the same issues fitting both guilds into an alliance. The same people who may stop members of your second guild making it into the same megaguild as your first guild could easily stop the entire second guild from joining a future alliance. The cap- and player-impact on the roster is the same regardless.

The only possible downside might be that some members of your guild(s) develop more of a megaguild identity but that isn't really a systems issue, it's a player- and guild issue which should be up to players to deal with, not the system. It isn't even a problem for the system as you are allowed to have a megaguild identity, same as how some players now have a server-first identity.

So whatever concern you have simply either isn't true, a relevant concern or a concern that the system shouldn't be counted on handling in the first place.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

33 minutes ago, neven.3785 said:

Being part of 3 wvw guilds, I do not see a problem with this, make your choice(s) and deal with making more social connections.

One guild is filled with people who don't play often, nostalgia is the only reason I stick around.   Most of it's player base is convinced the game is dead and don't try to breath life into the guild (in gw2 atleast)

Another is newly formed and has been recruiting mostly from new players and PvE-centric players, this guild has essentially been operating as if it were world restructuring and building it's roster from every relink, they will benefit from this, and they are already large enough to not worry about needing allies to have fun

Last one is an established wvw guild, it never planned on joining an alliance and most of it's roster is from the guild itself vs a shared player base.  It also recruited from building relationships with new people every relink.  This guild isn't large enough to control a full map, but they don't care.

Now who will I rep? Main account goes to the last one I invested my most time in, who still work to enjoy the game.  Because I wish to keep playing with the second group I'll be repping them with my second account, which is pretty basic but good enough for wvw (exotic gear, specs I play, mount and gliding in wvw).   The second account was made so I could roam when my timezone was dead in the primary server.  If I need my third account if the first group comes back, then I'll use that for roaming on once every few weeks. The third account was purchased to scout a potential server move for the third guild.  Over time I will be sided with friendly faces and other times I will face them which is equally as fun.  For a new player, neither system is better or worse.

ok, i'm glad its an easy choice for you but its not going to be for many others

[Stand The Wall.6987]

24 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

A glass-half-full take on that is that if you have overlap in rosters, it is much easier to fit both your guilds into a megaguild (or a later alliance), as those players only count once towards the total despite being in multiple guilds whose rosters would need to fit into a megaguild, acting as an alliance placeholder.

That is beyond the glaringly obvious that you would face the same issues fitting both guilds into an alliance. The same people who may stop members of your second guild making it into the same megaguild as your first guild could easily stop the entire second guild from joining a future alliance. The cap- and player-impact on the roster is the same regardless.

The only possible downside might be that some members of your guild(s) develop more of a megaguild identity but that isn't really a systems issue, it's a player- and guild issue which should be up to players to deal with, not the system. It isn't even a problem for the system as you are allowed to have a megaguild identity, same as how some players now have a server-first identity.

So whatever concern you have simply either isn't true, a relevant concern or a concern that the system shouldn't be counted on handling in the first place.

i don't know what to tell you other than what i already said in the OP, it absolutely is a system issue since alliance ui shipping with restructuring would fix everything i mentioned. i don't know how to put it in simpler terms. i kind of agree on the roster sharing point, but not everyone wants to be in a mega guild, in fact i think that applies to a lot of ppl. thats another thing alliance ui would solve

[subversiontwo.7501]

 

37 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

i don't know what to tell you other than what i already said in the OP, it absolutely is a system issue since alliance ui shipping with restructuring would fix everything i mentioned. i don't know how to put it in simpler terms. i kind of agree on the roster sharing point, but not everyone wants to be in a mega guild, in fact i think that applies to a lot of ppl. thats another thing alliance ui would solve

Look, I'm not trying to be hard on you for no reason. You only gave yourself a single paragraph to explain things and while it is not always necessary to write alot to get things said, you have neither the space nore substance for it here. If I take your post and split the paragraph into sentences, not a single one of them even attempts to explain how. They are mere statements, not explanations.

2 hours ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

• yeah this is a really bad idea. you guys are right, alliance management ui is required to ship with restructuring.
• there are tons of ppl who are in multiple wvw guilds and having to choose one of them will mean either some of those guilds being abandoned or the guild splitting.
• i don't understand this decision, this isn't going to be enjoyable for large groups of ppl and any new player experience will be stunted.
• part of the unofficial deal was that we would be able to keep our communities somewhat together with alliance ui,
• if that doesn't ship and restructuring goes into perma beta then there is going to be a ton of unnecessary negative feedback and i bet a lot of ppl will play a lot less wvw.
• i get that you guys are under pressure to deliver something but doing this is going to backfire and alliances will get a bad rep for an avoidable reason. pls reconsider.

Also, and this is maybe where I may be a bit harsh, but these are the forums and I have grown acustomed to that people spurt their mouths about things they do not know. For example, it is hard to understand what such a placeholder is or how it works, unless you have tried it yourself. I am using at least one slot for that through all betas so I know how it works and interacts with my other guild slots.

So if you say that not everybody wants to be in a megaguild, the same could be said for an alliance. They are there to be an alliance placeholder or workaround until actual alliances can ship. So what's your point? I read your thread as if you are trying to argue that alliances are needed, but you're not making a single argument that separates alliances from what you can do with placeholder guilds. Not a single functionality you have pointed to is different using either as a container. So to explain it, you need to explain that.

How is it different? That's how you win me over. Not that winning me, personally, over is important - but it would improve your thread or case.

The only functional difference is that an alliance wouldn't occupy an additional guild slot, which you would need to use to "fake" an alliance using a guild. However, it feels like that discussion has been held. I'm sure there are lots of people that doesn't want to give up any guild slots, be in any alliance or much less a fake one. However, that is irrelevant as you can do these things to work around whatever problem or concern you may have. It is also a case of what one person may want for themselves out of convenience is not comparable to what the system needs to not be completely broken and imbalanced - where things that say 1000 on paper is actually either 2000 or 500 in reality - because that is the system we have now. It is much worse than inconvenient for some, it is broken for everyone (even if some people enjoy the advantages that what's broken may give them).

Edited September 14, 2023 by subversiontwo.7501

[Stand The Wall.6987]

12 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

 

Look, I'm not trying to be hard on you for no reason. You only gave yourself a single paragraph to explain things and while it is not always necessary to write alot to get things said, you have neither the space nore substance for it here. If I take your post and split the paragraph into sentences, not a single one of them even attempts to explain how. They are mere statements, not explanations.

Also, and this is maybe where I may be a bit harsh, but these are the forums and I have grown acustomed to that people spurt their mouths about things they do not know. For example, it is hard to understand what such a placeholder is or how it works, unless you have tried it yourself. I am using at least one slot for that through all betas so I know how it works and interacts with my other guild slots.

So if you say that not everybody wants to be in a megaguild, the same could be said for an alliance. They are there to be an alliance placeholder or workaround until actual alliances can ship. So what's your point? I read your thread as if you are trying to argue that alliances are needed, but you're not making a single argument that separates alliances from what you can do with placeholder guilds. Not a single functionality you have pointed to is different using either as a container. So to explain it, you need to explain that.

How is it different? That's how you win me over. Not that winning me, personally, over is important - but it would improve your thread or case.

The only functional difference is that an alliance wouldn't occupy an additional guild slot, which you would need to use to "fake" an alliance using a guild. However, it feels like that discussion has been held. I'm sure there are lots of people that doesn't want to give up any guild slots, be in any alliance or much less a fake one. However, that is irrelevant as you can do these things to work around whatever problem or concern you may have. It is also a case of what one person may want for themselves out of convenience is not comparable to what the system needs to not be completely broken and imbalanced - where things that say 1000 on paper is actually either 2000 or 500 in reality - because that is the system we have now. It is much worse than inconvenient for some, it is broken for everyone (even if some people enjoy the advantages that what's broken may give them).

do you understand that being forced to choose between friend groups is not ideal? there are ppl who want to be in one guild, and there are ppl who want to be in another guild. thats how it is. not everyone, i would argue most ppl in this position, wants to leave ppl behind which is what leaving out alliance ui would do. if you can't understand this then maybe mull it over for a bit or have someone else explain it to you cuz i'm out of ideas

[subversiontwo.7501]

13 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

do you understand that being forced to choose between friend groups is not ideal? there are ppl who want to be in one guild, and there are ppl who want to be in another guild. thats how it is. not everyone, i would argue most ppl in this position, wants to leave ppl behind which is what leaving out alliance ui would do. if you can't understand this then maybe mull it over for a bit or have someone else explain it to you cuz i'm out of ideas

You can be in guild 1 and guild 2 - then you can use guild 3 to put any combination of those players who want to be moved around WvW-worlds together into it.

You can be in guild 1 and guild 2 - you can put those guilds in alliance 1 to put any combination of those players who want to be moved around WvW-worlds together into it.

How is this different for you? How does it stop WR from being shipped?

Throughout these betas we have put roughly 8 guilds on the same and even different servers together in 1 additional guild to play the beta together and that group of guilds include guilds with both overlapping rosters and not, it also includes both raiding guilds and roaming guilds as well as guilds with rosters in the 10's and the 100's. The beta group is still just 144 unique accounts so it isn't even half the size a guild or alliance can be. During the beta the raiding guilds still raid and roaming guild still roam on their own. The additional guild is just to be moved to the same world, as an alliance.

What's stopping you from doing this with any guilds or friends you may have?

Edited September 14, 2023 by subversiontwo.7501

[Gotejjeken.1267]

46 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Throughout these betas we have put roughly 8 guilds on the same and even different servers together in 1 additional guild to play the beta together and that group of guilds include guilds with both overlapping rosters and not, it also includes both raiding guilds and roaming guilds as well as guilds with rosters in the 10's and the 100's. The beta group is still just 144 unique accounts so it isn't even half the size a guild or alliance can be. During the beta the raiding guilds still raid and roaming guild still roam on their own. The additional guild is just to be moved to the same world, as an alliance.

What's stopping you from doing this with any guilds or friends you may have?

It pretty much forces a creation of a new guild to do what they should be shipping, is the problem.

Right now, with the linking system you can have seperate guilds play together by being on the same named server; it doesn't solve the issue of guilds being spread over multiple servers but does at least allow you to play together.

If they put the beta system into effect, there's no grouping mechanism players can do outside of breaking up longstanding guilds into new ones for the purpose of playing together or face an unknown matchmaker arbitrarily pairing guilds together.  This kind of makes guild management a nightmare as you have to ensure your members are registered to at least two separate guilds now if they do more than just WvW.  

There's also nothing to enable avoiding guilds you do not want to be allied with, which is perhaps the bigger issue due to griefing potential that some guilds have.  At this time if you have a bunch of guilds you don't like, you can always server transfer.

It is interesting they blame this setback on UI, as the UI for alliances is already very rudimentary but should work; as there was a tab on the WvW window to let you at least pick a grouping (like Moogaloo or whatever) in addition to a WvW guild, which is essentially alliances.  I don't think it ever worked fully or really at all though.  

The long and short is I am in agreement with not changing the server system at all until they are ready to fully ship alliances.  Half measures never end well, and while the linkings oftentimes are nonsensical they are at least a 'devil you know problem' as we've had it this way for years.  

 

[subversiontwo.7501]

1 hour ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

you can have seperate guilds play together [by being on the same server]

This works the same regardless of a placeholder guild or an actual alliance

Quote

there's no grouping mechanism players can do outside of breaking up longstanding guilds

• A placeholder guild would require you to devote 1 more guild slot than an alliance.
• You do not have to devote any of your 4 most important guild slots.
• Is your fifth guild slot an important longstanding guild? Let's not be dishonest.
• Is your fifth guild slot more important than better matchups for everyone in WvW?

Quote

you have to ensure your members are registered to at least two separate guilds now if they do more than just WvW.  

• A placeholder guild would require you to devote 1 more guild slot than an alliance.
• You do not have to devote any of your 4 most important guild slots.
• Is your fifth guild slot an important longstanding guild? Let's not be dishonest.
• Is your fifth guild slot more important than better matchups for everyone in WvW?

Quote

There's also nothing to enable avoiding guilds you do not want to be allied with

This works the same regardless of a placeholder guild or an actual alliance

Your post overall reads more like you don't want to change the server system at all - regardless of alliances or placeholder guilds.

Edited September 15, 2023 by subversiontwo.7501

[dead.7638]

🤷‍♂️

[Stand The Wall.6987]

6 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

You can be in guild 1 and guild 2 - then you can use guild 3 to put any combination of those players who want to be moved around WvW-worlds together into it.

You can be in guild 1 and guild 2 - you can put those guilds in alliance 1 to put any combination of those players who want to be moved around WvW-worlds together into it.

How is this different for you? How does it stop WR from being shipped?

Throughout these betas we have put roughly 8 guilds on the same and even different servers together in 1 additional guild to play the beta together and that group of guilds include guilds with both overlapping rosters and not, it also includes both raiding guilds and roaming guilds as well as guilds with rosters in the 10's and the 100's. The beta group is still just 144 unique accounts so it isn't even half the size a guild or alliance can be. During the beta the raiding guilds still raid and roaming guild still roam on their own. The additional guild is just to be moved to the same world, as an alliance.

What's stopping you from doing this with any guilds or friends you may have?

i get what you're saying. now how many ppl will do this? i bet even if some well known ppl on the server tried to make a server guild as a place holder not many would be interested since most ppl will probably figure along the lines of well i've got my own guild i'll be fine. its human nature to be tribal often to our own detriment and alliance ui sort of solves this by allowing everyone to have their separate communities. i guess its not even a big deal if we don't have to deal with living without alliance ui for very long but anet hasn't said anything about that, and even if it is implemented a month after, how many of those other guilds/ friends that were lost in the shuffle do you think will consider reuniting into an alliance? again, not many. unless they go back to the old server system after this perma beta restructuring thing, this decision is going to split ppl up permanently and for no reason. i don't know about you but wvw is pretty fun right now, the server i'm linked with (i play primetime) hovers between t2 and t3 and all of us have a blast every day. i don't see any reason why anet thinks they have to rush this

Edited September 15, 2023 by Stand The Wall.6987

[Gotejjeken.1267]

5 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

There's also nothing to enable avoiding guilds you do not want to be allied with, which is perhaps the bigger issue due to griefing potential that some guilds have.  At this time if you have a bunch of guilds you don't like, you can always server transfer.

 

4 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

This works the same regardless of a placeholder guild or an actual alliance

You have no idea if this is even true lol.  Alliances could come with tools to let you see what alliances have what guilds, where a placeholder guild is...just that, a placeholder guild. 

You join your mega chur--err guild and then get randomly paired with other guilds based on what go--err Floyd wishes.  Once you are paired with those guilds you are SOL in many ways, not the least of which is there is no current way to see what guilds are in an alliance.  

Placeholder guild after five years of alliance talk is wholly unacceptable though.

[Dawdler.8521]

9 minutes ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Placeholder guild after five years of alliance talk is wholly unacceptable though.

Dont worlds have community guilds though, which is basicly placeholders? 🤔

Guilds and alliances are in practical terms identical but alliances (ie the "guild above guilds") avoided messing with individual players or their guilds true. But its not that complicated. We already know how to work it. Many have already done it because of the betas, this isnt an end of the world scenario.

TL;DR if you dont have free slot, start planning. Or put ypur hope in Anet expanding guild slots (unlikely).

[Gotejjeken.1267]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Dont worlds have community guilds though, which is basicly placeholders? 🤔

Guilds and alliances are in practical terms identical but alliances (ie the "guild above guilds") avoided messing with individual players or their guilds true. But its not that complicated. We already know how to work it. Many have already done it because of the betas, this isnt an end of the world scenario.

TL;DR if you dont have free slot, start planning. Or put ypur hope in Anet expanding guild slots (unlikely).

Guilds and alliances are not identical--guilds are a grouping of players, alliances a grouping of guilds.  I guess you could say alliances are a superset of guilds, but this is not the same as a 'placeholder guild' which is still just a guild and in no way related to the concept of alliances.

At this point I'm not sure if the remaining player base is desperate or ignorant to what these systems actually are, but spinning half shipped products never ends well.

Losing server identity is enough to get players to leave, and not even replacing that with any identity at all is ridiculous.  There literally is a reason EOTM was always dead, and back when more than 3 people at a time actually used it the major complaint was anonymous teams--there was nothing to fight for.  

You need servers or alliances, something with actual organizable identity.  By spinning things and trying to justify this half-baked 'anonymous beta system' you are just helping create Drizzlewood Coast with PK's enabled--it's just 🤢.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Gotejjeken.1267

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Guilds and alliances are not identical--guilds are a grouping of players, alliances a grouping of guilds.  I guess you could say alliances are a superset of guilds, but this is not the same as a 'placeholder guild' which is still just a guild and in no way related to the concept of alliances.

I said in practical terms. Alliances have different organisation but a 500 man guild and a 500 man alliance is still the same 500 sorted to a team.

If Anet want to go this route then TBH I would have prefered them saying we scrap alliances but focus on improving "multi-guild" management. Just two things would offer much the same thing as alliances: one extra slot and better guild rooster.

First is obvious, second is rather simple. Allow grouping in the rooster and assigning guild tags. So if I am a member of the guild Alliance Of Chads, I would be listed with 38 other people as Guild of Supreme Chads (ie I am a member of [AOC][SC]).

Edited September 15, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[Mabi black.1824]

2 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Losing server identity is enough to get players to leave, and not even replacing that with any identity at all is ridiculous.  There literally is a reason EOTM was always dead, and back when more than 3 people at a time actually used it the major complaint was anonymous teams--there was nothing to fight for. 

I think the same way. And every time I wonder how this is not evident to the guys at Anet, and to the work project he is trying to put together.

[Mabi black.1824]

11 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Throughout these betas we have put roughly 8 guilds on the same and even different servers together

And this is the other part of the problem that leads to the choice of WR and alliances. And that is another reason why I remain of the opinion that a team concept is better. Of course we know that as we have it right now it has problems, as you wrote yourself '' is broken for everyone '' , the solution is not to add problems to other problems. The solution is to face those problems, calmly, one by one.

[Teknomancer.4895]

12 hours ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

do you understand that being forced to choose between friend groups is not ideal?

No it isn't, but you gotta work with what you have.

Think about it like you're trying to decide whose family to see first for holiday gatherings.

You have obligations (or at least incentives) for joining two separate group events, but can only be with one at a time.

Pick one. The other group will just have to deal with that. Maybe next time, you choose them first instead.

[joneirikb.7506]

Everything I've seen and heard so far about the Alliance system, indicated that it has no more control over match-ups than a Guild would have. It is for all practical terms a way to make "a guild" by combining multiple "normal guilds" without having to use a guild slot.

If ANet has stated plans for more features than that, I haven't seen/heard it, and would appreciate a link or other reference. (They did say they wanted to do more with it down the road, but that was undefined and not anything they had planned to do on alliance release.)

Edited September 15, 2023 by joneirikb.7506

[dead.7638]

🤷‍♀️