WvW restructuring without guild Alliances is a mistake

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

I don't think anyone denies the difference between servers and guilds

I am glad that we agree on that. And let's keep in mind that many others insist that these differences don't exist. As a result, when you confront these people on the merits, we will never be able to find common ground, or any form of understanding.

 

1 hour ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

however we don't actually know how different alliances would actually be from guilds and whether they would work better and "fix" whatever issue players have with guilds right now.

true. We don't know because Anet didn't explain to us how he was going to do it. However, it is only on a conceptual level that we can deduce the substantial difference. A guild is the expression of a single group. with only 1 lider . An alliance is an agglomeration of more than 1 group, resulting in more than 1 leader. i.e. the representatives of these groups will have the same representative power. We don't know how Anet imagined it, but we do know that differences exist regardless.

[Zyreva.1078]

20 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

A guild is the expression of a single group. with only 1 lider .

Technically yes, a guild has only 1 leader, but it can be set up in a way that it has no designated leader or hierarchy at all - kinda like a server. Something that is less likely to happen in an alliance system with "regular" guilds, because for those guilds it makes less sense to loosen their hierarchy/permissions.

And in the end even in an alliance you are at the "mercy" of your WvW guild's leader(s) - if you get kicked out of the guild (edit: or the guild out of the alliance, thanks @Dawdler.8521, didn't know that) right before restructuring, there's no alliance for you.

Edited May 25 by Zyreva.1078

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

Also keep in mind that we do not know, how alliances were supposed to work exactly and which features they would bring, especially when it comes to player management. Because that system simply never existed and we only ever got some vague ideas but never anything substantial and there were many unanswered questions in this regard. So whatever concept you have in your head - it's just your own ideas and not necessarily how alliances would actually work.

For this particular argument we do actually, since one of the studio dev updates had parts of the concepts on management. 

And in that case, the alliance leader (or any member with access ie officers etc) could simply delete the guild from the alliance. No mutual agreement, just remove them all as if it was a single player kicked out from a guild by a guild leader.

So yes, what Grimm has said is a pretty moot point when it comes to what we know of GW2 alliances.

Edited May 25 by Dawdler.8521

[Dayra.7405]

The main point on alliances of course is: they failed to implement it.

And in fact I see a major design problem in alliances, namely:

How to keep the limit of 500 on grow of the subguilds.

• Do all subguild members count or only the ones, that have the subguild as wvw-guild?
• Can a 10 people guild no longer invite people as the alliance would go over 500?
• Or can formerly wvw-desinterested hindered to make their guild wvw-guild as that would bring the alliance over 500?
• Are there quotas on the different subguilds? Or which guilds claims a free alliance space first.
• ...

I don't really see good answers to these questions.

Edited May 25 by Dayra.7405

[disForm.2837]

As it stands right now, there's no practical difference between Alliance and Guild. We just use them to avoid confusion. For the game itself, it's just another guild. For the players (practical terms, not socially), Alliance is just a shell guild where the members of the partaking Alliance guilds must be added.

You can be in an Allied guild and not be in the Alliance. You literally need to check the Alliance shell guild (and be a member!) to play with your original guildmates and to the same extent, other alliance players.

[Dawdler.8521]

32 minutes ago, Dayra.7405 said:

The main point on alliances of course is: they failed to implement it.

And in fact I see a major design problem in alliances, namely:

How to keep the limit of 500 on grow of the subguilds.

• Do all subguild members count or only the ones, that have the subguild as wvw-guild?
• Can a 10 people guild no longer invite people as the alliance would go over 500?
• Or can formerly wvw-desinterested hindered to make their guild wvw-guild as that would bring the alliance over 500?
• Are there quotas on the different subguilds? Or which guilds claims a free alliance space first.
• ...

I don't really see good answers to these questions.

The way invites work was mostly answered in the previously mentioned dev posts where they had the concepts on management. Of course it may change we dont know - we just know what we've been told so far, years ago. And in some aspect it was diffuse. We kind of extrapolate too.

From what I gather, for starters the alliance inviting a guild have to have enough capacity to invite all the members of the guild. While not explicitly stated (charts only show "guild members") this presumably mean members that have it as WvW guild, not the full rooster.

So in theory for a 500 man guild where 100 have selected it as WvW guild, it could be invited to a 350/500 alliance and get all those 150 slots if the alliance leader specify it, leaving room for 50 people more to select it as their WvW guild over time. It could not be invited at all to a 450/500 alliance.

The fact that guild capacity could set at any time (not just when inviting) mean that if this 100 man WvW guild with 150 slots turns out instead of be dumped by it's members and suddenly have only 50 WvW guild members, the alliance leader can change slot capacity to 50 instead and now have room for another 100 man guild in the alliance (or several smaller ones of course).

It's only been explained and/or speculated on every single time it was a beta since people make up their own more or less wild opinions of what alliances instead of reading the material we have, but heck here's one more for the road 😛

The only practical difference between an alliance and a guild is the is extra work micromanaging members for a guild - instead of guild members being automatically part of an alliance by selecting an alliance member guild as their WvW guild, members have to be specifically invited to the "alliance guild" from respective member guilds and selected as the new WvW guild. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

For this particular argument we do actually, since one of the studio dev updates had parts of the concepts on management. 

And in that case, the alliance leader (or any member with access ie officers etc) could simply delete the guild from the alliance. No mutual agreement, just remove them all as if it was a single player kicked out from a guild by a guild leader.

So yes, what Grimm has said is a pretty moot point when it comes to what we know of GW2 alliances.

You just contradicted yourself, but ok. So you agree that using the Guild structure means depending on settings highly placed people can remove a guild. Yes they can reform under a new guild but potentially wipe out any Alliance Guilds forward activities in regards to Guild assets like Guild Halls and claim rights and such let alone create havoc in their members if this was done right before a re-sort. We never got to Alliances so we never reached these discussions so it was moot, but using the Guild structure has its own issues. So again, simple heads up to players that are guild leads is be aware, or do you disagree there?

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, disForm.2837 said:

As it stands right now, there's no practical difference between Alliance and Guild. We just use them to avoid confusion. For the game itself, it's just another guild. For the players (practical terms, not socially), Alliance is just a shell guild where the members of the partaking Alliance guilds must be added.

You can be in an Allied guild and not be in the Alliance. You literally need to check the Alliance shell guild (and be a member!) to play with your original guildmates and to the same extent, other alliance players.

This is how Anet views it since we never reached the feature. 

[Dawdler.8521]

2 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

You just contradicted yourself, but ok. So you agree that using the Guild structure means depending on settings highly placed people can remove a guild. Yes they can reform under a new guild but potentially wipe out any Alliance Guilds forward activities in regards to Guild assets like Guild Halls and claim rights and such let alone create havoc in their members if this was done right before a re-sort. We never got to Alliances so we never reached these discussions so it was moot, but using the Guild structure has its own issues. So again, simple heads up to players that are guild leads is be aware, or do you disagree there?

I dont even know what you mean by condradicting, that's what we've been saying all along. Because that's how a guild work 🤷‍♂️

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Dayra.7405 said:

The main point on alliances of course is: they failed to implement it.

And in fact I see a major design problem in alliances, namely:

How to keep the limit of 500 on grow of the subguilds.

• Do all subguild members count or only the ones, that have the subguild as wvw-guild?
• Can a 10 people guild no longer invite people as the alliance would go over 500?
• Or can formerly wvw-desinterested hindered to make their guild wvw-guild as that would bring the alliance over 500?
• Are there quotas on the different subguilds? Or which guilds claims a free alliance space first.
• ...

I don't really see good answers to these questions.

It's now just a guild. So a player that has guild invite rights define who is in or out. Someone forms a Guild ("Alliance/Community") and they invite players one by one. Only players that have that Guild in their list will have an option to designate that Guild as their WvW guild and be sorted together (minus bugs). Guild size is still 500 for any players in the "Alliance Guild" or in their other guilds. You can rep various guilds but will only be sorted in your WvW guild so if your normal Guild is not in the same WvW Guild you may be placed against each other in WvW.

[Chaba.5410]

8 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I am glad that we agree on that. And let's keep in mind that many others insist that these differences don't exist.

I don't know where you get that idea.  No one was saying differences don't exist between guilds and servers.  A claim was made that a guild/alliance is unsuitable for community building and it turned out that the actual concern was about cliques.  I pointed out that a guild is a type of community to which others disagreed despite guilds conforming to the principle of free association.

A guild is certainly a type of community like a fraternity, private club, or even a gang.  It's not a type of community like a server, WvW team, a town, or a fandom.  I think is disingenuous to say that one type of community is unsuitable for community building when clearly they are not.

Edited May 25 by Chaba.5410

[TheGrimm.5624]

12 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I don't know where you get that idea.  No one was saying differences don't exist between guilds and servers.  A claim was made that a guild/alliance is unsuitable for community building and it turned out that the actual concern was about cliques.  I pointed out that a guild is a type of community to which others disagreed despite guilds conforming to the principle of free association.

A guild is certainly a type of community like a fraternity, private club, or even a gang.  It's not a type of community like a server, WvW team, a town, or a fandom.  I think is disingenuous to say that one type of community is unsuitable for community building when clearly they are not.

If I added to this in your view, that was not my intent and apologize to distracting from points. Any considering Chaba's points based on my replies, see it more as I don't see a Community Guild, Guild, or Alliance as the same. As I said we never got there in conversations. So it makes it more complicated, but I don't give Anet an out to say an Alliance is a Guild since it's not in my experience of Alliances in other games. But don't take those as counter to Chaba that guilds aren't a type of communities. I have just gamed with some peeps for decades so I see them as family since after decades losing friends to time is like losing family as you are just used to them being there night after night. I blame age.

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

If anything I am trying to figure out how to structure a Comm guild that allows equal invites and limits people from removing others due to politics or guild interactions so we all have less drama. An Alliance system in my experience should have tools to handle this. Hence some of my concerns.

[Mabi black.1824]

13 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I don't know where you get that idea. 

It's not an idea, it's what we've read many times in this forum. We have often talked about how this change will have an influence from a ''social'' point of view and from an ''emotional'' point of view, meaning how and how much you can be involved/participate. But the stupid answer we've read hundreds of times is always the same, create your own guild/alliance. It is clear that when you get this answer, it is useless to carry out any kind of reflection on the merits, precisely because you are dealing with someone who considers a server equal and identical to a guild/alliance.

Edited May 26 by Mabi black.1824

[Mabi black.1824]

13 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

A claim was made that a guild/alliance is unsuitable for community building and it turned out that the actual concern was about cliques.

I can't speak for others, I didn't write that they are not suitable. I wrote that they are different. I limited myself to highlighting the differences from a social point of view, opportunities and mitigations. To come to the conclusion that this change that we are embracing in a moment, is not an evolution at all, always referring to the ''social'' part. Which, among other things, is the part that remains and assumes a change, the most problematic part is the ''emotional'' part because it is completely eliminated. 

Edited May 26 by Mabi black.1824

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

If anything I am trying to figure out how to structure a Comm guild that allows equal invites and limits people from removing others due to politics or guild interactions so we all have less drama.

What does “equal invites” mean? Unless you imply that Anet devs should become guild leaders and control all community guilds, there will always be a player as a leader. 

If there are no leaders/officers in a community guild, no one can get kicked and everyone could get invited by anyone, it would be chaos. Less drama lol. Your community guild could find itself suddenly having the worst kind of players in it and you wouldn’t be able to do kitten. It would be like bandwagoning, except it’s to take over and laugh at the destruction of a community guild before they leave for the next.

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

What does “equal invites” mean? Unless you imply that Anet devs should become guild leaders and control all community guilds, there will always be a player as a leader. 

If there are no leaders/officers in a community guild, no one can get kicked and everyone could get invited by anyone, it would be chaos. Less drama lol. Your community guild could find itself suddenly having the worst kind of players in it and you wouldn’t be able to do kitten. It would be like bandwagoning, except it’s to take over and laugh at the destruction of a community guild before they leave for the next.

Meaning an actual Alliance system, guild is not Alliance. 

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Meaning an actual Alliance system, guild is not Alliance. 

Ok but you began with "If anything I am trying to figure out how to structure a Comm guild"...

[TheGrimm.5624]

15 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Ok but you began with "If anything I am trying to figure out how to structure a Comm guild"...

Yes. 

So don't take this as snark.

So if you want a comm guild that may host 30 disparate guilds and solo players and want to have players to have say in who is in and out and also don't allow a group to have bad blood with another what methods are you using? Just trying to see how others are adjusting to the Guild system as an Alliance.

In an Alliance system usually each Guild has a vote regardless of size on new entries and whether guilds cans be kicked due to bad interactions of their members. In this system the comm leads can remove Guild members, which does lead a guild to decide to just leave, but that's not the same. Hence why I asked you if you had been part of Warhammer's Alliance system. 

Likewise while considering a Comm Guild I am considering how to deal with player conflicts, guild conflicts, trolls and all the more. A Guild system means you just kick them all. An Alliance system means there is not just yes or no based on two sides. To me these are not the same. So while trying to consider Comm Guild as an option to pose to others, how to manage that within the guild tools we have. I question since had been asked a couple of times joining one or creating one. Once I thought about creating one it increased the complexity of the question based on the tools we had and what I have seen in other games.

So please do read this as me being contrary, but I have seen games use more complex ways to do Alliances among disparate groups and it had value tom contend to drama issues or personalities that did not mix.

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

A Guild system means you just kick them all. An Alliance system means there is not just yes or no based on two sides. To me these are not the same.

That’s because you keep talking about alliances in other games and not alliances in GW2 which we know from the design would never have worked like that. To us they are the same.

I would like more horizontal management of groups within guilds but I doubt any prospective alliance leader ever thought “hm it sounds like it’s too hard to be a leader, let’s add voting so I can avoid talking with the guilds in my alliance”

[Chaba.5410]

Sounds kind of abusive to try to stay in an alliance where there's bad blood and drama just because there is some sort of voting system.

[TheGrimm.5624]

4 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

That’s because you keep talking about alliances in other games and not alliances in GW2 which we know from the design would never have worked like that. To us they are the same.

I would like more horizontal management of groups within guilds but I doubt any prospective alliance leader ever thought “hm it sounds like it’s too hard to be a leader, let’s add voting so I can avoid talking with the guilds in my alliance”

Yes and it's why I just left more vague points in prior threads when they presented Alliance flows since there was no point until we could test. It will be what it will be. So will leave it there. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

16 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Sounds kind of abusive to try to stay in an alliance where there's bad blood and drama just because there is some sort of voting system.

A decade into the game and the vision of an Alliance is just a guild. I think if we want to make it thru the next decade, they need to think bigger, else why just remove the servers. Its less about bad blood and more about without servers you need a real Alliance system. That's more the point. I was happy to just sit in my pub and raise a pint. Burn down my pub and say well Whole Foods is where you want to live, is not the same thing. 

[One more for the road.8950]

On 5/25/2024 at 3:51 PM, Dawdler.8521 said:

 but heck here's one more for the road 😛

Present, sir yessir!

[ArchonWing.9480]

On 5/25/2024 at 1:31 PM, Chaba.5410 said:

A guild is certainly a type of community like a fraternity, private club, or even a gang.  It's not a type of community like a server, WvW team, a town, or a fandom.  I think is disingenuous to say that one type of community is unsuitable for community building when clearly they are not.

And the funny thing is that it's also the main source of community building in pve already because it's the only real way (aka most of this game)..

Imagine if pvers claim they would never see the people that they played with ever again when the map instances closes.

Edited May 28 by ArchonWing.9480