The Crisis of World Restructuring and why it will destroy WvW: Everything outside of one guild will be shifting sand

[Custodio.6134]

2 hours ago, keramatzmode.1906 said:

have yet to see a tyranical WvW guild leaders... yet, from your description they sound like a Disney Villain rubbing hands and throwing guild members into the dungeon once every few weeks. Drama happens sure, but you're overblowing it as if every guild leaders a bunch of schemy dictator who kick people out on a whim.

playing since release, i have experienced this exactly ONCE in a community-guild. However: that was not exactly a single person (despite the, at that time, the "owner" of the community-guild being involved), but rather a bunch of guilds. So what happened was effectively: owner of the voice-server and the community-organizers in the comm-guild transferred with a bunch of guilds, kicking everyone from the community-guild that didn´t go with them, and then shut down voice right before the reset they mass-transferred. 

again, in my 7 years that i played actively (technically since release, but with a big break inbetween) i have experienced this exactly ONCE. Despite there being drama every now and then, and the players on the server frequently not being in aggreement with each other. and yet, nothing drastically has ever taken place (and despite some people potentially attempting this, they never succeeded). 

I´m not saying that it cannot happen, and it probably WILL happen in a guild at some point. But this ALSO can totally happen in a server-system (considering this already HAS happened before)

Edited May 29 by Custodio.6134

[RisingDawn.5796]

On 5/30/2024 at 12:35 AM, Custodio.6134 said:

playing since release, i have experienced this exactly ONCE in a community-guild. However: that was not exactly a single person (despite the, at that time, the "owner" of the community-guild being involved), but rather a bunch of guilds. So what happened was effectively: owner of the voice-server and the community-organizers in the comm-guild transferred with a bunch of guilds, kicking everyone from the community-guild that didn´t go with them, and then shut down voice right before the reset they mass-transferred. 

again, in my 7 years that i played actively (technically since release, but with a big break inbetween) i have experienced this exactly ONCE. Despite there being drama every now and then, and the players on the server frequently not being in aggreement with each other. and yet, nothing drastically has ever taken place (and despite some people potentially attempting this, they never succeeded). 

I´m not saying that it cannot happen, and it probably WILL happen in a guild at some point. But this ALSO can totally happen in a server-system (considering this already HAS happened before)

On Desolation we had a Guild with their own Teamspeak back in the day, but it was mainly for themselves not the server community, as the biggest guild on the server with another EBG community sub guild, until they ended up leaving, along with a couple of other guilds.

My guild back then created a server community driven website and unified teamspeak, but before that guild left, they found out and one of their leaders threw a tantrum about it. 

Eventually my guild leader left to form a gvg guild and left the ownership to others, as his guild eventually left the server to fight other guilds in the lower tiers, as they was no Eotm arena, only the OS. Even then the new admins, became inactive from the game too..

Edited June 18 by RisingDawn.5796

[ArchonWing.9480]

Well, over in NA the most common sources of drama seems to be

 

1. ) Some variant of people in different time zones having different goals. The WvW experience can vary widely even on the same server.

 So this leads to some people feeling others aren't pulling their weight and they come back to paper stuff, or people wanting to be in a higher tier because there's nothing to fight in their time zone, or not wanting to be in a higher tier because they don't have the people.  Often leads to arguments about tanking or not showing up in certain matchups. Main problem is that even if certain sides to agree to certain things, the pugs aren't going to care and you can't blame them for looking out for themselves.

2.. Acting Unilaterially/Bad Communication. Basically someone makes a decision on behalf of guild/server without telling anyone, or worse yet, assuming everyone will agree. This leads to the meme that is server meetings, which was often a few people circlejerking and making demands of people who weren't around to hear them.

3. Good old entitlement. Some people seem to think that just because you are on the same server as them, they deserve you and your time, especially if you're a tag or something. Heck, this exists in this very thread. 

4.) Lack of mediation. "Drama Free" is generally a massive red flag, because what it really means is "you're on your own" and the leadership doesn't actually care about leading. While yes, of course it is a lot of effort and most would rather not , but it also means conflicts can easily brew underneath the hood with the group splitting into factions and passive aggressive nonsense. It is important that these disagreements get nipped in the bud or else they become much bigger issues later down the line. In most cases when it does boil over, it tends to explode violently.

So if you ask me, the most important recipe for success is to avoid these pitfalls and make sure everyone is on the same page. Ideally a more decentralized alliance with multiple guilds can help ensure that more voices get heard and the room for abuse is lessened. And you know, just make sure you have outs just in case.

 

And truth be told, people are going to have to a more proactive approach in the next few months if they want to continue. That means less treating your fellow players as resources and more of them being actual allies to find things you can mutually benefit from. Alliances have been in the making for years, and we've had quite a few betas so "I've been under a rock this whole time" is no longer going to fly as an excuse if you actually care about playing with certain people.

Like, even if for some reason this beta doesn't launch at all and it gets delayed, that's still only going to kick the can further down the road. And people will begin to prepare accordingly anyways. :As I write in almost all my advice post, it matters not if you think this is right or wrong, or even if you think I am right or wrong. At the end of the day, you are going to be the one  feel the consequences of your actions and it's up to you to decide if you're happy with it.

Edited May 30 by ArchonWing.9480

[Ronin.4501]

8 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

I didn't realize you had that much gold to spend.

My scribe is level 0 and will stay that way. Crafting sucks in this game, but scribe is like beyond that.

You may recall I maxed out the [Sin] guildhall decorations at one point. Then I made one pocket guildhall, capped it out on decorations, and proceeded to make another pocket guild and start decorating there. And I was working on both the meme guildhall and another before I was asked to level up our alliance guild. But since EoD (fishing) was introduced making gold hasn't really been a problem.

 

 

Edited May 30 by Ronin.4501

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

1. ) Some variant of people in different time zones having different goals. The WvW experience can vary widely even on the same server.

An alliance, made up of people with common goals?! Sorcery!!!

Edited May 30 by Dawdler.8521

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

An alliance, made up of people with common goals?! Sorcery!!!

When did we test Alliances?

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

An alliance, made up of people with common goals?! Sorcery!!!

Its only fair as you joked me lol my friend.

[TheGrimm.5624]

3 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Well, over in NA the most common sources of drama seems to be

 

1. ) Some variant of people in different time zones having different goals. The WvW experience can vary widely even on the same server.

 So this leads to some people feeling others aren't pulling their weight and they come back to paper stuff, or people wanting to be in a higher tier because there's nothing to fight in their time zone, or not wanting to be in a higher tier because they don't have the people.  Often leads to arguments about tanking or not showing up in certain matchups. Main problem is that even if certain sides to agree to certain things, the pugs aren't going to care and you can't blame them for looking out for themselves.

2.. Acting Unilaterially/Bad Communication. Basically someone makes a decision on behalf of guild/server without telling anyone, or worse yet, assuming everyone will agree. This leads to the meme that is server meetings, which was often a few people circlejerking and making demands of people who weren't around to hear them.

3. Good old entitlement. Some people seem to think that just because you are on the same server as them, they deserve you and your time, especially if you're a tag or something. Heck, this exists in this very thread. 

4.) Lack of mediation. "Drama Free" is generally a massive red flag, because what it really means is "you're on your own" and the leadership doesn't actually care about leading. While yes, of course it is a lot of effort and most would rather not , but it also means conflicts can easily brew underneath the hood with the group splitting into factions and passive aggressive nonsense. It is important that these disagreements get nipped in the bud or else they become much bigger issues later down the line. In most cases when it does boil over, it tends to explode violently.

So if you ask me, the most important recipe for success is to avoid these pitfalls and make sure everyone is on the same page. Ideally a more decentralized alliance with multiple guilds can help ensure that more voices get heard and the room for abuse is lessened. And you know, just make sure you have outs just in case.

 

And truth be told, people are going to have to a more proactive approach in the next few months if they want to continue. That means less treating your fellow players as resources and more of them being actual allies to find things you can mutually benefit from. Alliances have been in the making for years, and we've had quite a few betas so "I've been under a rock this whole time" is no longer going to fly as an excuse if you actually care about playing with certain people.

Like, even if for some reason this beta doesn't launch at all and it gets delayed, that's still only going to kick the can further down the road. And people will begin to prepare accordingly anyways. :As I write in almost all my advice post, it matters not if you think this is right or wrong, or even if you think I am right or wrong. At the end of the day, you are going to be the one  feel the consequences of your actions and it's up to you to decide if you're happy with it.

I admit Archon, I don't think I agree. I can't speak for others but when I raise drama issues its to prep for tournament days when winning mattered and there was drama since winning mattered. I want winning to matter but with less drama the next time around personally. I am not sure where you were in that time, but I don't want to see days where players were on call lists to wake up and hold but don't also want to see where map wide guilds asked everyone else to logoff just to see them lose and run leaving open maps and losing ground versus playing smarter and using what was needed where at the time and moving on while others fought as needed. 

Drama is created in many ways, egos, people, guilds, Comm Guilds. Key is if we want to draw players we need to up the ante. We need reasons to win. We need more risk versus reward. We need bigger goals. That leads back to tournaments. So in game tools to address that would be a boon over the long game, IMO.

[Cuks.8241]

Guild drama is the best thing that can happen in a massive pvp mode. No drama pretty much means no one cares or the game is dead. Drama is what pumps and drives and breaks and remakes communities. Everyone being content in a game mode where we massively kill each other and stroke our e-kittens is just strange. 

My first server was mostly drama free because it was dead. It just felt odd as a long time pvp player of various games. Then I found a guild and transferred to a real server, found out this actually is a game and not a joga class and players around me are actually people with all the faults that come with being a human and  not some zen bots.

[Mabi black.1824]

45 minutes ago, Cuks.8241 said:

Guild drama is the best thing that can happen in a massive pvp mode. No drama pretty much means no one cares or the game is dead. Drama is what pumps and drives and breaks and remakes communities. Everyone being content in a game mode where we massively kill each other and stroke our e-kittens is just strange. 

My first server was mostly drama free because it was dead. It just felt odd as a long time pvp player of various games. Then I found a guild and transferred to a real server, found out this actually is a game and not a joga class and players around me are actually people with all the faults that come with being a human and  not some zen bots.

That's the best thing I've read in this post. Absolutely true. However the drama, erase and rebuild a guild is not the problem. The problem with WR is to have a competition on a ''decent'' timeline. If you can observe what's happening around you, if you can change your strategies, if you can play a rematch, if you can learn the habits and schedules of your teammates, the strengths of the other fragments on your own serves, modeling yourself in reference to all of this, etc etc makes it all the more interesting. If we make the comparison ''more stupid'' because it is continually and automatically renewed, eluding everything I have indicated above, we get a ''trivial'' game like many others. Of course, the tighter you time, the more you'll get a better automatic balancing system. but also increasingly anonymous and banal. resulting in being less engaging.

That's why I'm asking for a 'compromise'' but after 3 years I've realized that these are just words in the wind. Unfortunately.

Edited May 30 by Mabi black.1824

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

That's the best thing I've read in this post. Absolutely true. However the drama, erase and rebuild a guild is not the problem. The problem with WR is to have a competition on a ''decent'' timeline. If you can observe what's happening around you, if you can change your strategies, if you can play a rematch, if you can learn the habits and schedules of your teammates, the strengths of the other fragments on your own serves, modeling yourself in reference to all of this, etc etc makes it all the more interesting. If we make the comparison ''more stupid'' because it is continually and automatically renewed, eluding everything I have indicated above, we get a ''trivial'' game like many others. Of course, the tighter you time, the more you'll get a better automatic balancing system. but also increasingly anonymous and banal. resulting in being less engaging.

That's why I'm asking for a 'compromise'' but after 3 years I've realized that these are just words in the wind. Unfortunately.

If this is the "problem with WR" then it implies:

- People in guilds have no idea what's going on in WvW.
- People in guilds dont know each other and cant learn each others habits or schedules.
- People in guilds dont know how to judge the strength of other guilds on their own team or the enemy teams.
- People that join these guilds become more anonymous than not being in a guild.

[ArchonWing.9480]

12 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I admit Archon, I don't think I agree. I can't speak for others but when I raise drama issues its to prep for tournament days when winning mattered and there was drama since winning mattered. I want winning to matter but with less drama the next time around personally. I am not sure where you were in that time, but I don't want to see days where players were on call lists to wake up and hold but don't also want to see where map wide guilds asked everyone else to logoff just to see them lose and run leaving open maps and losing ground versus playing smarter and using what was needed where at the time and moving on while others fought as needed. 

Drama is created in many ways, egos, people, guilds, Comm Guilds. Key is if we want to draw players we need to up the ante. We need reasons to win. We need more risk versus reward. We need bigger goals. That leads back to tournaments. So in game tools to address that would be a boon over the long game, IMO.

Tournaments haven't been a thing in like a decade and aren't really a relevant part of today's  WvW's landscape or even at all in the big picture so I didn't bother mentioning it as that doesn't help anyone.

I just don't imagine many groups putting effort into that kind of degen play since relinkings will still be short and doubtful there would be that incentive to win at PPT since that's had detrimental effects on the tournaments you have, and if they do, players would have to agree on such a thing

I also don't think cross tz conflict will be much of an issue either since the concept of moving up tiers is also probably obsolete and alliances aren't going to be recruiting people to just pvdoor.. But I suppose it could happen; I just don't see much success.

Though personally, the tournaments were a positive experience because it encouraged a lot of non-wvw mains to play, and that was about the last time that really happened on a large scale. Yea there were problems with people bandwagoning to get cheap wins, and people taking a game too seriously but that's just Tuesday in WvW too-- non issues and self-inflicted.

Edited May 30 by ArchonWing.9480

[MysteryDude.1572]

lmfao

we got alts dude.

already planned with main guild/roam guild/other alliances

its  not like we could play with literally everyone in wvw anyway, who cares if im stuck with one guild

and from the links given befor ,  filter out who you dont like , run with who you want

ez alts ez game

[Gotejjeken.1267]

I still can't fathom how Anet can suggest alliance guilds but not actually make alliances work.  

An 'alliance guild' is just a group of 500 people that are in other guilds, but it seems very tedious to organize this if people shift around.  How do you even know by looking at the roster who is in what guild? Also, who leads this guild?

As far as I'm aware, there are currently no voting options for changes to take place, so whoever leads can just do what they want and force more and more spawn 'alliance guilds' to be created. 

This isn't how anything works in reality, even in companies there are shareholders that have percentages and that's all documented.  Not just a blob of people grouped together that 'sort of does the same thing'.  

The 'anchor point' being players I think is going to be a negative experience.  The good thing about worlds right now is they are neutral entities that people can join to; this won't exist at launch for world restructuring.  

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

I still can't fathom how Anet can suggest alliance guilds but not actually make alliances work.  

An 'alliance guild' is just a group of 500 people that are in other guilds, but it seems very tedious to organize this if people shift around.  How do you even know by looking at the roster who is in what guild? Also, who leads this guild?

As far as I'm aware, there are currently no voting options for changes to take place, so whoever leads can just do what they want and force more and more spawn 'alliance guilds' to be created. 

This isn't how anything works in reality, even in companies there are shareholders that have percentages and that's all documented.  Not just a blob of people grouped together that 'sort of does the same thing'.  

The 'anchor point' being players I think is going to be a negative experience.  The good thing about worlds right now is they are neutral entities that people can join to; this won't exist at launch for world restructuring.  

But… it’s how community guilds have worked in reality for years?

Yes, guilds aren’t alliances. It’s going to lack grouping management. It won’t be good in the long run unless Anet improve the guild system or add alliances, people know that. But you are vastly overcomplicating this since every larger group in a community guild would still have their own guild. They don’t need anything other than that neutral anchor point as you say, which is exactly what a loosely controlled community guild be.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

9 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

But… it’s how community guilds have worked in reality for years?

Yes, guilds aren’t alliances. It’s going to lack grouping management. It won’t be good in the long run unless Anet improve the guild system or add alliances, people know that. But you are vastly overcomplicating this since every larger group in a community guild would still have their own guild. They don’t need anything other than that neutral anchor point as you say, which is exactly what a loosely controlled community guild be.

I get the sentiment, but anything with people involved isn't truly neutral. 

That, and it's ever changing as the same community guild won't be assigned to the same random name generator grouping (like Electric Moogalo or whatever), so there's a lot of entropy.  

For me, the devil you know of world's would have been better to stick with until at least some stability controls went around this outside of loosely coupled mega guilds.  Not doing that just makes things harder for new players to understand how not to be lost in an ever-changing sea of people, and for older players to want to put up with.  

[multiwickingerhabich.9867]

If you don't want that then create a petition that has already helped in several games thanks

[T G.7496]

On 5/29/2024 at 11:59 AM, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Sure. But there's a difference between drama which goes on around you and can be ignored, and drama which boots you from the community of your friends with no way back. Servers don't force you to leave and not play with your friends again. Guild leaders can and inevitably will under WR.

I can't think of a single player I know, and I know a lot by now, who has been kicked from a guild as a result of drama.

I've been kicked, amicably, for inactivity occasionally. That's already a thing, for good reasons.

If you've often found yourself a part of communities where guild drama and guild kicks are a regular thing, experienced by yourself or others, then perhaps you're making poor choices.

Guilds under WR should be no more or less benign places to be than they are now. Same people, same friends, same guild leaders.

On 5/29/2024 at 1:52 PM, Thea Cherry.6327 said:

What confuses me is, that some people think the change will be positive which can be true for them, but they don't see that for many others it will be the death of the game mode and as we have seen the past years, we don't get new WvW players easily. So the overall WvW population will sink, not enough people will be coming back for this mode, because many left due to core WvW problems which are not adressed by the perma beta.

Let's wait and see how good/bad the change is in around 3-6 month (the playtime in the summer is usualy lower anyway), but right now i have a very bad feeling about this.

The very nature of the the new WR team and match-making mechanism will mean that any reduction in overall WvW population numbers should be fairly unnoticeable to the remaining players or their experience of the game.

In a specific sense, of course, you may miss individual players or guilds if they stop playing. But that erosion won't leave increasingly deserted servers, if it does happen. It will simply result in fewer matches being created at each rematch.

Of course, any dwindling population may then reach a point where the tier system itself becomes a little less populated. Maybe eventually they have to move to a single league, and endgame would be just three competing teams, the component parts of which are shuffled each month. But by then we might be playing GW3. And anyway, by now people only care about winning or losing matchups insofar as by doing so they might avoid playing against WSR 😛 

[TheGrimm.5624]

11 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Tournaments haven't been a thing in like a decade and aren't really a relevant part of today's  WvW's landscape or even at all in the big picture so I didn't bother mentioning it as that doesn't help anyone.

I just don't imagine many groups putting effort into that kind of degen play since relinkings will still be short and doubtful there would be that incentive to win at PPT since that's had detrimental effects on the tournaments you have, and if they do, players would have to agree on such a thing

I also don't think cross tz conflict will be much of an issue either since the concept of moving up tiers is also probably obsolete and alliances aren't going to be recruiting people to just pvdoor.. But I suppose it could happen; I just don't see much success.

Though personally, the tournaments were a positive experience because it encouraged a lot of non-wvw mains to play, and that was about the last time that really happened on a large scale. Yea there were problems with people bandwagoning to get cheap wins, and people taking a game too seriously but that's just Tuesday in WvW too-- non issues and self-inflicted.

I saw new peeps, burn outs, guild versus guild drama, outrageous requests, bad calls, good calls and all the else during tourneys. Did it lead to WvW pop decline, yes. Did it draw numbers while on, yes. 

Very similar as we see pop increases while WvW buffs are up. So what we need is to find the balance in the pop draw, reward draw, reason to win draw that both draws and keep players in the game mode. WvW excels with more and balanced populations. Reasons to win, be that the week, month, or tournament help that. Should we go back to tourney now, no. Should we work to that, yes.  We need both PPK and PPT, other game factors help balance that, such as reasons to win. Else we end in k-trains just taking and no fights. We need both PPK and PPT and any group that is just asking for just one is not in it for the win but just what about me. Winning should be about both. Since we are removing the casual aspect of servers, then no reason not to up the ante. Anet, give us reasons to win.

[Mabi black.1824]

17 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

If this is the "problem with WR" then it implies:

None of this . It implies that time is too short to make games 'interesting'. If you want to engage players, they need to feel like they're part of their new team that WR has provided them. You get to know others. You get to know the habits. You get to know how they like to play. You get to know when they are most effective. You get to know which group you like to run with the most and which one you know you'll be most helpful with. 

In the same way you will learn all these things, all this information of your opponents, so you will know how to behave when you face them. How to organize a rematch. etc etc. to have all this you need more time. To engage players, so that they can perceive that server as their server, you need more time.

We often say that the design of WVW to work well, so that players see it as a dynamic game always full of players on all 3 sides, teams must have a functional number of players. something around 1500/2000 players. Well, I'm telling you that in relation to WVW's design to work well in order to engage its players we need a minimum functional time.

Unless we want to have something in the style of Fortnite's 'Battle Royale'. My son is crazy about it. Then it's okay, 4 weeks is also too long. They will have to continually reduce them. But you have to be aware that this is how we move light years away from what WVW has always been, what has set it apart from all the  battles out there. of what made it interesting and engaging rather than trivial and anonymous.

Edited May 31 by Mabi black.1824

[Mabi black.1824]

6 hours ago, T G.7496 said:

In a specific sense, of course, you may miss individual players or guilds if they stop playing. But that erosion won't leave increasingly deserted servers, if it does happen. It will simply result in fewer matches being created at each rematch.

A little weird to read this. I mean, I understand that WR shuffles everything and is able to provide appropriately sized servers, while also reducing games when needed. But that shouldn't justify neglecting a certain amount of players, at the risk of losing them, in order to embrace a dynamic and automatic solution. perfect from a numerical point of view but decidedly short-sighted from an emotional point of view. The fairest, smartest solution is called 'compromise'

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Though personally, the tournaments were a positive experience because it encouraged a lot of non-wvw mains to play, and that was about the last time that really happened on a large scale. Yea there were problems with people bandwagoning to get cheap wins, and people taking a game too seriously but that's just Tuesday in WvW too-- non issues and self-inflicted.

Creating the conditions to move out of our perpetual format and finally into a season format, where finally someone at the end of the season can say they've won, is just a new and positive thing. WR is a fantastic opportunity to achieve this. But it needs to be contextualized within our WVW. You have to consider that WVW is a game based on teams/servers that are constantly looking for comparison and competition with each other. A 4-week countdown is a error.

Edited May 31 by Mabi black.1824

[Straegen.2938]

WvW enjoyment has always lived and died based on how well the matchups are balanced at any given time. If this is more unbalanced, it will suck. If it is more balanced, it will be more fun. IMO only time will tell.

Besides, no more transfer fees and I can jump from any alliance to another that isn't "doing it" for me after a few weeks... count me in. 

[MedievalThings.5417]

There are a few things inevitable.

There will be a couple HUGE guilds that control entire maps for some "worlds".  So much so that their guild drama is essentially world drama.  No one uses their guild chat anymore anyway, everyone is too busy trying to get internet points or simp in team chat as it is.  If a guild doesn't like a particular person/guild, I expect some trolling and mass reporting to be the norm.

There will be a lot of worlds with a couple BIG guilds, the "always run as 40+" type.  Because there is no point in winning, and guilds like to do the same things, places like EB will just be 40 people running at spawn until it's time for their guild to play.  And, as they don't want to wait or risk the other guild being in their spot, they'll just stay on the map the entire week.

Then, there will be the world(s) like I have gotten for 4 of the last 5 betas.  No guild bigger than 20, who never have more than 10 in wvw at a time.  Almost all pug/roamers/solos, outnumbered 20 hours a day.  We are the "content" world.  The world Anet intends everyone to just farm endlessly while the 2 larger worlds take their stuff back and forth to make it seem like a lot is going on.

But they gave us server titles, so I guess we have that going for us.  All of wvw has been changed from competition and pride to...*links bags in chat.

Edited May 31 by MedievalThings.5417

[XenesisII.1540]

1 hour ago, MedievalThings.5417 said:

But they gave us server titles, so I guess we have that going for us.

Oh oh oh new t-shirt outfit to sell on the gem store...

[I played WvW for 12 years, and all I got was this lousy server title!]