Guild Features Ideas for WvW changes

[Cameo.4073]

Because there are multi guilds per player, now up to 6 (and some players have friends across multiple WvW guilds)

The guild leader needs to be able to see how many members are actually going to be assigned to that WvW server during that week.   Will the World assignments be based on the guild total population or the guild population that selects to be with that guild in WvW? Guild leaders might have to make hard and unpopular choices to staff their rosters.

If a player does WvW with multiple guilds can there be a primary and a secondary (assuming those guilds are not against each other)? If guild 1 is in world A and guild 2 is in world C could they have both marked so that they can WvW with guild 1 on weekdays and guild 2 on weekends?

Thank you for your consideration.

[Dawdler.8521]

38 minutes ago, Cameo.4073 said:

Guild leaders might have to make hard and unpopular choices to staff their rosters.

This is literally the point of the 6th slot. You’re meant to create your new “alliance guild” and go from there. No need to kick anyone from their old guilds.

However yes the “limitation” of 500 people apply. Alliances or guilds, it would have been exactly the same thing. For an alliance, a guild would have to choose its alliance members and make the “hard choice” that way instead. 

I suggested long ago that we needed more visibility in the guild rooster and in particular use a type of feature we already have but no one use - PvP “battle groups”. That way the “alliance” guild could visibly divide its members per “personal” guild. Basically just a copy of the name, or a custom name. For example if I am a member of Toxic Angels Guild, I would join Toxic Monsters Alliance “guild” and on their rooster I would be listed as WvW team, “Toxic Angel Guild”, Overlord.  My rank would allow me to admin members of my battle group. My own guild wouldn’t use the battle groups even if they are there, but seeing the WvW team would be the same. But I digress.

For your last point, no. Not how it works. You select a WvW guild out of your 6 slots, period. You can change it and get reassigned next shuffle.

Edited May 18 by Dawdler.8521

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Cameo.4073 said:

Because there are multi guilds per player, now up to 6 (and some players have friends across multiple WvW guilds)

The guild leader needs to be able to see how many members are actually going to be assigned to that WvW server during that week. 

No tools needed, only 1 guild can be your WvW guild. Guild lead will need to determine who is in or out. That was an issue with Alliances as designed and with the 6th guild slot versus an actual Alliance system where guilds are weighted equally. If there is bad blood among guilds its decided by the guild lead that forms the guild that is used as the WvW guild.

2 hours ago, Cameo.4073 said:

Will the World assignments be based on the guild total population or the guild population that selects to be with that guild in WvW?

Based on total guild and factored by average WvW play time over and unknown amount of time.

2 hours ago, Cameo.4073 said:

Guild leaders might have to make hard and unpopular choices to staff their rosters.

Yes else they will be short on numbers during the sorting period of 4 weeks later to be expanded to 'x' weeks.

2 hours ago, Cameo.4073 said:

If a player does WvW with multiple guilds can there be a primary and a secondary (assuming those guilds are not against each other)?

No, this further breaks the point of the system. To do this these guilds need to be using the same common guild in order to be sorted together.

2 hours ago, Cameo.4073 said:

If guild 1 is in world A and guild 2 is in world C could they have both marked so that they can WvW with guild 1 on weekdays and guild 2 on weekends?

No again this breaks the point of trying to balance the populations among the new worlds. 

 

[Cameo.4073]

So the Alliance guild would be the one you would choose for sorting and then the individual guilds could still rep their primary affiliations in WvW..

Thank you for the explanations.

 

Edited May 18 by Cameo.4073

[TheGrimm.5624]

14 hours ago, Cameo.4073 said:

So the Alliance guild would be the one you would choose for sorting and then the individual guilds could still rep their primary affiliations in WvW..

Thank you for the explanations.

 

A community guild would allow for what you are referring to, which isn't the same as an Alliance which is why it is on hold. A community guild would still be managed by a guild lead but allow for players to break into other guilds once sorted.

This is not an Alliance. Alliances are on hold till further notice. Note there are differences if you ever played a WvW game with Alliances. These are not the same.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

A community guild would allow for what you are referring to, which isn't the same as an Alliance which is why it is on hold. A community guild would still be managed by a guild lead but allow for players to break into other guilds once sorted.

This is not an Alliance. Alliances are on hold till further notice. Note there are differences if you ever played a WvW game with Alliances. These are not the same.

Fairly sure no one has played with alliances since they never existed beyond the concept (or at best, prototype code but going by the fact we've only seen GUI mockups... I say no).  I would still argue that for practical purposes, they are identical to guilds. Especially since Anet never went into the management of them beyond creation. 

Edited May 19 by Dawdler.8521

[TheIceman.1039]

20 hours ago, Cameo.4073 said:

Because there are multi guilds per player, now up to 6 (and some players have friends across multiple WvW guilds)

The guild leader needs to be able to see how many members are actually going to be assigned to that WvW server during that week.   Will the World assignments be based on the guild total population or the guild population that selects to be with that guild in WvW? Guild leaders might have to make hard and unpopular choices to staff their rosters.

If a player does WvW with multiple guilds can there be a primary and a secondary (assuming those guilds are not against each other)? If guild 1 is in world A and guild 2 is in world C could they have both marked so that they can WvW with guild 1 on weekdays and guild 2 on weekends?

Thank you for your consideration.

https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu If they delete the old servers completely, this page should identify who is in which match. At the moment it is the best tool to understand who is on which server. (I have seen that in some guilds the rank name is "unknown server" which illustrates the ignorance of the leader.

[TheIceman.1039]

6 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Fairly sure no one has played with alliances since they never existed beyond the concept (or at best, prototype code but going by the fact we've only seen GUI mockups... I say no).  I would still argue that for practical purposes, they are identical to guilds. Especially since Anet never went into the management of them beyond creation. 

We have only seen a graphic idea of what a real Alliance between Guilds should be like. But there are difficulties in how to do it. Their idea was to make the so-called Alliance between Guilds run by one person, or the initiator. I think this approach is wrong. They should try to create something where one Guild sends another an invitation to join a Alliance. And if the other Guild accepts the invitation, they go to the next match together. The number of members can be determined in advance by both parties. It doesn't need to be micromanaged by Anet.

[Dawdler.8521]

57 minutes ago, TheIceman.1039 said:

We have only seen a graphic idea of what a real Alliance between Guilds should be like. But there are difficulties in how to do it. Their idea was to make the so-called Alliance between Guilds run by one person, or the initiator. I think this approach is wrong. They should try to create something where one Guild sends another an invitation to join a Alliance. And if the other Guild accepts the invitation, they go to the next match together. The number of members can be determined in advance by both parties. It doesn't need to be micromanaged by Anet.

Not quite sure what you mean by this since that is pretty much what we saw in the mockups. An alliance is created by a guild leader (ie the "original" guild) with a set amount of slots and it would then invite another guild to join the alliance with yet again a set amount of slots. It would never have been "micromanaged by Anet", it would have been entirely up to players.

Are you confusing alliances with WR team assignments?

That is why alliances are functionally the same as guilds. Instead of inviting the entire guild to the "alliance", you invite individual players like normal. Because it's just a guild. The problem that arise from this is that today, guilds only have vertical member management, a rank can manage lower ranks. Under WR, it would be great to have horizontal management, a rank can manage it's own "group" of players, but not the others. This is effectivly so that an independant guild group can have it's own management within a larger guild. That is why I think the PvP group tab in the guild menu would be a great thing to redesign and "repurpose" for WvW. Guilds would have their own groups within the guild. It is - ironically - called "teams".

Edit just to visualize better.

What we have today, depending on how one set up the ranks of course:

Guild Leader
Officer Rank 1
Veterans
Officer Rank 2
Noobs
Officer Rank 3
New members

What we really could use for WR and "guilds within guilds":

Guild Leader
Guild 1 Leader (cannot admin lower)->Officer Rank 1 Guild 1->Guild 1 Veterans->Officer Rank 2 Guild 1->Noobs->etc 
Guild 2 Leader (cannot admin lower)->Officer Rank 1 Guild 2->Guild 2 Veterans->Officer Rank 2 Guild 2->Noobs->etc
Guild 3 Leader (cannot admin lower)->Officer Rank 1 Guild 3->Guild 3 Veterans->Officer Rank 2 Guild 3->Noobs->etc
Officer Rank 1
Veterans
Officer Rank 2
etc

Edited May 19 by Dawdler.8521

[TheGrimm.5624]

6 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Fairly sure no one has played with alliances since they never existed beyond the concept (or at best, prototype code but going by the fact we've only seen GUI mockups... I say no).  I would still argue that for practical purposes, they are identical to guilds. Especially since Anet never went into the management of them beyond creation. 

Were you a Warhammer player? The reason I question Anet's view of Alliances is due to that.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Were you a Warhammer player? The reason I question Anet's view of Alliances is due to that.

Nope, at the time of Warhammer I was still a hardcore Battlefield player, was not really into that old generation of MMOs (only played WoW for a short time).

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 5/19/2024 at 2:06 PM, Dawdler.8521 said:

Nope, at the time of Warhammer I was still a hardcore Battlefield player, was not really into that old generation of MMOs (only played WoW for a short time).

So in a nutshell Anet's view of an Alliance is just a big guild. The Alliance system in Warhammer were all guilds were equal weight in voting new guilds in and out. That way there were checks and balances in guilds and their behaviors to try and limit drama up front but also to limit bad interactions between guilds later on so that a disagreement didn't mean that individuals had enough power to just oust members of another guild or a guild without a peer review of the member guilds. 

Just to give context on why I asked.