You will be thrown together with random guilds in future

[tyrellian.3706]

https://www.guildwars2.com/en-gb/news/wvw-update-guild-hall-arenas-and-world-restructuring-beta/

Quote

Introducing a team-building system to the game mode in which players and guilds are programmatically redistributed to new teams (previously known as shards) on a set schedule

This honestly feels like a step backwards from the current situation.

We'd like alliances, but barring that, at least let us retain some agency to choose who we're teamed up with.

[Dawdler.8521]

You're thrown together with random guilds today. Did you forget how links work?

But also you still got your guild. It's not random. Unless you got a very weird guild. 

[blp.3489]

32 minutes ago, tyrellian.3706 said:

at least let us retain some agency to choose who we're teamed up with.

You have the agency to coordinate your guild with other guilds with all the members joining a single guild, either existing or new, to form a guild with up to 500 members, the same cap as Alliances.  Outside of organizing effort, the only gotcha is for people who don't have a spare guild slot and refuse to leave any of their current guilds.

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, blp.3489 said:

You have the agency to coordinate your guild with other guilds with all the members joining a single guild, either existing or new, to form a guild with up to 500 members, the same cap as Alliances.  Outside of organizing effort, the only gotcha is for people who don't have a spare guild slot and refuse to leave any of their current guilds.

Agree and question. Yes for the most part, hoping they give us insight if you have to rep the guild you are sorted with or just need to rep it while sorting. If its a set and can reset then that works. If its a set and then can't change until after next resort, that is different. Seems like you should be able to set and reset, but that's an assumption and we know how assumptions go.

[Dawdler.8521]

7 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Agree and question. Yes for the most part, hoping they give us insight if you have to rep the guild you are sorted with or just need to rep it while sorting. If its a set and can reset then that works. If its a set and then can't change until after next resort, that is different. Seems like you should be able to set and reset, but that's an assumption and we know how assumptions go.

We already know how WR works. WvW guild and rep guild is independant. You dont need to rep any guild while you can still be in a WvW guild. Not sure how you forgot that, you've played the betas. The 4 weeks reshuffles instead of 8 weeks will probably just mean you can change your WvW guild during the first 3 weeks, while it's locked the 4th week.

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

We already know how WR works. WvW guild and rep guild is independant. You dont need to rep any guild while you can still be in a WvW guild. Not sure how you forgot that, you've played the betas. The 4 weeks reshuffles instead of 8 weeks will probably just mean you can change your WvW guild during the first 3 weeks, while it's locked the 4th week.

Played the betas, never tried switching guilds, since why would you in the one week ones, and didn't try it during the 2 week one. Did you? I know some servers did test community guilds, which is why there were callouts why didn't they get more advance time to organize. Been on the programming end where users made assumptions on the backend interface, hence why I am questioning. You are assuming switch guilds as you will after sort. I *think* that is the case but, could also see someone else assuming a guild change creates a lockout till the next sort. 

[XenesisII.1540]

On 11/17/2023 at 2:03 PM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Agree and question. Yes for the most part, hoping they give us insight if you have to rep the guild you are sorted with or just need to rep it while sorting. If its a set and can reset then that works. If its a set and then can't change until after next resort, that is different. Seems like you should be able to set and reset, but that's an assumption and we know how assumptions go.

You don't need to "Rep" a guild while sorting, you just have to "Set" a guild as the wvw guild before it. Those are separate functions. If you change your Set guild for wvw during the 4 or 8 weeks it would only take affect at the next recreation, not immediately during a match, there is suppose to be a time period to freely switch this setting.

I don't know if anyone tried this out during the one and only 2 week beta test we had on this(kitten I don't even remember if that had a recreation for the second week). Only problem I can see from this and maybe it affected the betas so far is if the wires were crossed and maybe this is a reason why some people were placed on wrong teams? I can't imagine it did, that would be some seriously bad programming, but going forward rep and set are suppose to function separately.

Go back to pve confused newb -->

Edited November 19, 2023 by XenesisII.1540

[TheGrimm.5624]

8 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

You don't need to "Rep" a guild while sorting, you just have to "Set" a guild as the wvw guild before it. Those are separate functions. If you change your Set guild for wvw during the 4 or 8 weeks it would only take affect at the next recreation, not immediately during a match, there is suppose to be a time period to freely switch this setting.

I don't know if anyone tried this out during the one and only 2 week beta test we had on this(kitten I don't even remember if that had a recreation for the second week). Only problem I can see from this and maybe it affected the betas so far is if the wires were crossed and maybe this is a reason why some people were placed on wrong teams? I can't imagine it did, that would be some seriously bad programming, but going forward rep and set are suppose to function separately.

 

That's what I am unclear of. I assume like you and Dawdler that its set a guild and then rep as you will. But as a software developer been bit too many times by users assuming a thing and then all the headache there was after the changes were released to production to the why would assume questionings that was the follow up. Again was saving this test for the Alliance beta that we never had. 

https://pmac-agpc.ca/project-management-tree-swing-story

So the question might be why does this matter? It impacts whether or not to ask people to drop a guild so that they can slot in a spot for a sort/community guild and also risks whether a a guild might be split since there may not be space in that community guild. It might also impacts whether all their members can get invites since even a community guild might just have a single guild lead depending on how its structure. Not unmanageable mind you. It's basically the same potential drama that Alliances would have faced for any players that are in guilds that mixed with other guilds versus players that are already in large guilds that might not intermix with other guilds in their normal game play. 

So easiest thing to do, is ask in case we don't get a multi-week test.

[XenesisII.1540]

5 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

That's what I am unclear of. I assume like you and Dawdler that its set a guild and then rep as you will. But as a software developer been bit too many times by users assuming a thing and then all the headache there was after the changes were released to production to the why would assume questionings that was the follow up. Again was saving this test for the Alliance beta that we never had. 

https://pmac-agpc.ca/project-management-tree-swing-story

So the question might be why does this matter? It impacts whether or not to ask people to drop a guild so that they can slot in a spot for a sort/community guild and also risks whether a a guild might be split since there may not be space in that community guild. It might also impacts whether all their members can get invites since even a community guild might just have a single guild lead depending on how its structure. Not unmanageable mind you. It's basically the same potential drama that Alliances would have faced for any players that are in guilds that mixed with other guilds versus players that are already in large guilds that might not intermix with other guilds in their normal game play. 

So easiest thing to do, is ask in case we don't get a multi-week test.

That's mostly a user organizational problem.

We are not getting a 6th guild slot, we are not getting alliances for however long.

You need to pick one guild slot to set for wvw.

There's 500 seats.

Send your invites, get confirmations, start adding people to that wvw only guild. The primary wvw guilds have already done this, they've already been running their multi guild alliances in the betas (so technically those guilds have been using two guild slots dedicated to wvw, one of their usual main rep, one for their alliance to get into the same world).

The only push back is from people who don't want to drop a guild slot for wvw, but wvw primary people don't really seem to have a problem with this.

[TheGrimm.5624]

3 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

That's mostly a user organizational problem.

We are not getting a 6th guild slot, we are not getting alliances for however long.

You need to pick one guild slot to set for wvw.

There's 500 seats.

Send your invites, get confirmations, start adding people to that wvw only guild. The primary wvw guilds have already done this, they've already been running their multi guild alliances in the betas (so technically those guilds have been using two guild slots dedicated to wvw, one of their usual main rep, one for their alliance to get into the same world).

The only push back is from people who don't want to drop a guild slot for wvw, but wvw primary people don't really seem to have a problem with this.

Not disagreeing in any of the above and agree. As long as there is no lockout logic that should have just been part of the Alliance diagrams that goes into play.

[babana.7521]

If I have selected ONE guild I won't be thrown in with random guilds, I will however not be with my other alliance guilds, we need one extra guild slot please.

Edited November 18, 2023 by babana.7521
Reword sentence

[SweetPotato.7456]

Need #6 guild slots

 

 

[Riba.3271]

It was quite obvious that a system where you don't get to choose the best server for you and your friends will be a downgrade from having a choice. Even in best case scenario, you get average result.

Unfortunately there are people and developers here that are desperate for change so they don't see the reality.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Riba.3271

[blp.3489]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

It was quite obvious that a system where you don't get to choose the best server for you and your friends will be a downgrade from having a choice.

It is also quite obvious that if you allow players to select the best team for them and their friends that you will get bandwagoning and imbalanced matches.  Whether being limited to selecting the best guild for you is a downgrade vs the current problems is far from obvious.

[anduriell.6280]

It is an step backwards from the old alliances. 
My guess is we will need to pay gems to swap those guilds so they do not want you to be an stable alliance. 

So it seems the reason behind alliances delays and reworks is simply monetization, anet doesn’t know how to make you to pay for extra services. 
 

“bandwagoning” whatever it means for you will still happen just it will have a price tag, a cost to join the winning guild. 

[psizone.8437]

45 minutes ago, anduriell.6280 said:

“bandwagoning” whatever it means for you will still happen just it will have a price tag, a cost to join the winning guild. 

They said they want to prevent team swapping midseason, this will reduce the amount of bandwagoning that guilds can do. Once they swap teams at the end of the season, the teams will be balanced again anyway.

 

The main bonus of the new system is balancing the player base so that some teams aren't outnumbered at all times, if they do it right anyway.

 

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, anduriell.6280 said:

My guess is we will need to pay gems to swap those guilds so they do not want you to be an stable alliance. 

That is just ridiculous. 

 

1 hour ago, anduriell.6280 said:

“bandwagoning” whatever it means for you will still happen just it will have a price tag, a cost to join the winning guild. 

... You mean like how "fight servers" are known to have paid for the "pro" guilds to move there?

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, anduriell.6280 said:

My guess is ...

So it seems the reason behind ...

Weird circular logic.

[Arya Whitefire.8423]

1 hour ago, psizone.8437 said:

They said they want to prevent team swapping midseason, this will reduce the amount of bandwagoning that guilds can do. Once they swap teams at the end of the season, the teams will be balanced again anyway.

 

The main bonus of the new system is balancing the player base so that some teams aren't outnumbered at all times, if they do it right anyway.

 

You can't make people play when they're losing.  The new system will be no more effective at this, than the old one. 

But then again, you could potentially measure how stubbornly someone stuck around, and assign them a stubbornness score.   More stubborn people count as more player hours 😛

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Arya Whitefire.8423

[psizone.8437]

4 minutes ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

You can't make people play when they're losing.  The new system will be no more effective at this, than the old one. 

It's less about people quitting the match midway and more about having the baseline player base of the teams be more even than they are right now with a better spread of players across the hours.

People are less likely to quit the matchup if their team isn't massively outnumbered from the start.

[Arya Whitefire.8423]

Nah I played all the betas on multiple servers, the losing teams all turned into ghost towns on weekdays outside prime time hours.  With the exception of the very first beta.  So like, unless you're the winning team, I hope you enjoy logging into a T3ed enemy held garrison every night.

[XenesisII.1540]

I'm currently watching a 50 squad guild run over an empty bl, hard ppting on sat before prime time a relink week. People still want to win!

But also my team wants to sit in smc farming bags and nothing else matters. Motivations to play this game mode when underpowered suck.

WR won't fix this, there needs to be more changes to game play, anet won't fix this either either. You're either boon balling or hiding on a map.

[Dawdler.8521]

38 minutes ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

Nah I played all the betas on multiple servers, the losing teams all turned into ghost towns on weekdays outside prime time hours.  With the exception of the very first beta.  So like, unless you're the winning team, I hope you enjoy logging into a T3ed enemy held garrison every night.

You know we could see data for this, right? All the beta weeks have had more activity than the weeks before and after them.

[Polar.8634]

Last 2 betas I played on 3 servers and all were much more active matchups then what I played before.

Also if system works as advertised, there should not be situation when 50 man blob runs empty border as server populations would be balanced out. Fights with equal numbers are most fun so I am waiting for it.

[Riba.3271]

8 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

10 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

It was quite obvious that a system where you don't get to choose the best server for you and your friends will be a downgrade from having a choice.

It is also quite obvious that if you allow players to select the best team for them and their friends that you will get bandwagoning and imbalanced matches.  Whether being limited to selecting the best guild for you is a downgrade vs the current problems is far from obvious.

Well, current problems are caused by the fact that full status does nothing because link remains open, and that transfer costs to even massively outnumbering servers link are very cheap.