Alliance guild member number.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

12 hours ago, Ronin.4501 said:

This is completely idiotic. Most alliances are made up of several smaller guilds. And despite all those players being in one larger alliance, most still run with their friends/guildmates from their prior smaller guilds. So what happens if you cap it at 100 people from said alliance, and 10 from guild A, 10 from guild B get put on one shard and 15 people from guild A and 5 people from guild B get put on a different shard. You've just completely defeated the point of making an alliance guild in the first place and might as well just assign every player a random shard regardless of guild/alliance.

Example was 20% or groupings of 100.  This is why I said need more tooling, that way they could logically separate a community guild out to do what they should have in the first place, and that's give choice / visual of how you are actually allied.

The only idiotic part here is 'community guilds' of 500 repping 50 different 'fight guilds' of 10.  

Edited June 23 by Gotejjeken.1267

[joneirikb.7506]

On 6/18/2024 at 10:54 AM, SweetPotato.7456 said:

I think 500 per alliance is too many. 

Discuss.

Since I felt a bit bad that I went on a big un-intended rant without even addressing the actual topic:

* How would you solve having a WR-Guild of less than Guild size from a technical level?
* How would you solve having a WR-Guild of less than Guild size from a social level?
* Would it make much of a difference? Most of the complaints I see could just as well be put to a guild of organised 30-50 players that runs regularly.
* Even if ANet does reduce max "wvw-guild" size, and spread players out more, will it mean more people play more? More people in all maps are more times? Or will it be the same as majority of players just log out when the situation isn't optimal for the kind of content they enjoy? It's more important to understand the reasons players doesn't play in those situations and how they're motivated to play or not.
* What are the motivations for different WR-Guilds for stacking the way they do? What are the consequences for that, and how do you give incentives to behave different?
* How many WR-Guilds do you think actually stacked 400+ members? And how many of those do you think run remotely that number regularly?

The TLDR is that we got a new system, it's going to be Wild Texas while players test and experiment with the system, until they start settling down into more predictable pattern. Start figuring out what sort of WR-Guilds that works for the majority etc.

The example that most players loves to use is if someone creates a WR-Guild of 500 members from dedicated fighting guilds that all run in/around NA prime time for example. Ok, how long do you think that WR-Guild will last? After 6 weeks of the first "shuffle", and they don't bother doing PPT, they'll be stuck somewhere close to the tier they started in, they'll absolutely queue up their entire server when they play, they'll destroy any opponents, they'll have no content, no fun, and no ability to move to anywhere with content. How long do you think that WR-Guild will last?

They can, yes. But why would they?

If I where to try to be reasonable, I'd say that we'd get rapid changes in the way people organise their WR-Guilds, and we'd settle into a very different system in 3 months time. But tbh GW2 players tend to be a bit slow, so I'll say 6 months.

[joneirikb.7506]

On 6/18/2024 at 4:13 PM, Crystalreves.3965 said:

500 fight guild players vs 500 pugs whats the out come?  anyone can guess?

The problem with that line of reasoning is: 10 fight guild players vs 10 pugs?

Would we then reduce wvw-guild down to max 5 players? To try to handicap even the basic fight guild organization advantage? And basically make WvW into wannabe sPvP with 5man parties? sPvP which btw early in the game removed the ability to queue with full 5man parties for ranked, and limited it to max 2 (iirc, was never a big sPvP player). So then should we go down to max 2 man guilds in WvW ?

It becomes a very slippery slope, that essentially boils down to "remove skill and organization from the game". (Which would be catastrophic for the entire veteran population of WvW, which btw includes practically all commanders).

[joneirikb.7506]

On 6/18/2024 at 5:54 PM, Jski.6180 said:

I like to know how this system deals with inactive ppl (what we have now) and groups (when we get full alliance.) If we lose space for a long time due to ppl not showing up (and groups) it will be an issues the 500. If there are way to change things during an mach it should not be an issues.

Its 6 weeks for the first run i think but it should drop down to an lower span of time. Once that happens it will be much less of an issues depending on how space is used for active and inactive.

Just to make it clear, a Guild has a 500 player cap. There is no way to change this for players. So if you go with a Guild of 500 players into WR, then that's your 500 players.

You can't have 501 players in a guild, so there can't be "inactive/sleeper" players in a guild. You could have a guild of 500 total, where say 200 are active, and the other 300 comes and goes.

[joneirikb.7506]

On 6/19/2024 at 6:51 AM, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

What actually happens if you have 500 people set the same WvW guild? Do they take up an entire team name like Moogaloo or whatever? If not, how many guilds can a team hold?

To me, they needed way more tooling for this.  If alliance size is guild size, then huge guilds should be spread across multiple alliances--may not get to play with all the people you want but would get to play with your guild. 

So, say alliance is 500, you could put a cap at 100 people in any guild go to that alliance, then groupings of 100 in four other ones.  Might have to fight guildies but would distribute the power around. 

Not knowing what guilds comprise what teams is also not great--it makes the new system entirely ambiguous as far as stat tracking goes.  If UI elements are made, it should have at least been there--hover over the team's name and it shows a list of guilds (or click it or something in the likely event they overflow a GUI element).  

1) A "Team" is going to be somewhere around 2000-2500 players, though this is adjusted by "play-hours", so it could be a bit fewer if you get a lot of players that spends way too much time in WvW, or much more if you got a bunch of players that only plays a few hours a week. But most likely most teams will have a mix of different amounts of play-times and thus hit around a similar player-count. In theory that means a Team could be anywhere from 4 guilds (4x guilds of 500 players with bunch of try-hards), or 2500+ builds (bunch of single man guilds). But effectively it's going to average out somewhere in the middle, since their system starts dividing out largest guilds among servers first, and then in decreasing order until you get to single players in the end.

2) Since Teams are much larger than single Guilds, this would go completely against one of the two main purposes of moving over to WR in the first place, to let guilds play together.

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 6/23/2024 at 1:16 AM, joneirikb.7506 said:

Now, why the heck is this idiot ranting about the "Points" system again?

Because points is the natural counter to zerging.

Zerging used to be one way to play in WvW, not THE way. Because if you zerged with 50+ players then you could still only take a single objective at a time. It was useful against Keeps/Castle, but if all you did was zerging, your opponent would just split up into a bunch of havoc teams, and take every camp/tower on the map much faster than you did, and avoid fighting against you. And you'd have to counter this, by splitting up in multiple groups to respond to this, or you lost on points.

Also, there where sharks in the water. If you zerged too much, chances where that the enemy team had a "Zerg-busting" guild, and once they found you, the zerg-fest was over. The only way to fight a Zerg-buster was with another of the same. But again, zerg-busting was useless for points, so the way to counter them was to split up into multiple havoc groups and focus on points.

Which... again would force the other team to also split up, and thus you got a lot of smaller scale fights all over the maps. Which... then dynamically turn into ever changing fights of different sizes as you call for help to take out a pesky group, they call for help to take you out, rince and repeat until you got some zergs, and the zerg-busters find you again... and it repeats.

 

Well put post in general but wanted to repeat this bit in particular.  Its also why we all need to watch for that blog post on scoring and be ready with feedback.

Sorry I did need to edit part of your post for reference, sorry about that.

[joneirikb.7506]

8 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Sorry I did need to edit part of your post for reference, sorry about that.

Hey! I take offense to you scratching out my "idiot"!

[Mabi black.1824]

On 6/23/2024 at 7:16 AM, joneirikb.7506 said:

Naturally a guild of 50+ active players with commander/organization can and will be able to dictate how their world play during the time they're active

A lot of words, when you could have stopped at that. What you wrote here is so true that I ask you: what is the point of giving the possibility of grouping 10 well-organized groups of 50 players? Is it possible that you don't see how stupid it is to do it? 1 is enough you have written it clearly, in addition to the fact that we know that structures and points (in this state) no longer make any sense to anyone. So what's the reason? To be all together passionately? Say it's a great way to distribute content?  So we get epic battles ( primary socopo of WR )? For whom? Those 500 active and organized players?

This Sunday it rained all day in my city so I played in the afternoon for 3 hours straight. on our home border. 3 hours with the ''outnumber'' icon always on. Was I the only tag on the map with 8 people in the team (for 3 hours) vs 50? more or less. They took all the structures they wanted, naturally while we watched them from a safe distance . And we took their tail, the latecomers and the jhon rambo players, every time, for 3 hours. Are these the epic matches we've been looking for?

Edited June 25 by Mabi black.1824

[joneirikb.7506]

17 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

What you wrote here is so true that I ask you: what is the point of giving the possibility of grouping 10 well-organized groups of 50 players?

You could have done the exact same with Worlds/Servers. They did. Could do even more than 500. So that makes no real difference between the systems.

[T G.7496]

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

A lot of words, when you could have stopped at that. What you wrote here is so true that I ask you: what is the point of giving the possibility of grouping 10 well-organized groups of 50 players? Is it possible that you don't see how stupid it is to do it? 1 is enough you have written it clearly, in addition to the fact that we know that structures and points (in this state) no longer make any sense to anyone. So what's the reason? To be all together passionately? Say it's a great way to distribute content?  So we get epic battles ( primary socopo of WR )? For whom? Those 500 active and organized players?

This Sunday it rained all day in my city so I played in the afternoon for 3 hours straight. on our home border. 3 hours with the ''outnumber'' icon always on. Was I the only tag on the map with 8 people in the team (for 3 hours) vs 50? more or less. They took all the structures they wanted, naturally while we watched them from a safe distance . And we took their tail, the latecomers and the jhon rambo players, every time, for 3 hours. Are these the epic matches we've been looking for?

The maximum squad size, as you know, is 50 - one might assume that it was intentionally designed this way by Anet, to be used by 50 players together.

The idea, which you extrapolate from this - that any of the more organised 'alliance guilds' of up to 500 players might concurrently field 10 of these squads - is absurd. You know this, of course, it's intentional hyperbole. I'm a member of one of these larger guilds, comprising a number of smaller guilds, and we rarely, very rarely, are able or want to field more than one organised squad at a time. Additionally, such a squad most often doesn't hit the max. 50 limit.

The capability - the matchup-damaging capability - you are ascribing to individual guilds is, in my recent experience, simply nonsense.

What is not nonsense, however, is that Anet have evidently failed to put together balanced Teams of guilds (small and large) together with individual players. It is Anet's stacking of multiple, very active guilds together in a single Team - not the behaviour or capability of individual guilds within a Team - that appears to have caused the terribly asymmetric match-ups experience in the first 2 weeks of WR.

This is Anet's responsibility. The problems to date are Anet's failures in Team-making.

Edited June 25 by T G.7496

[TheGrimm.5624]

4 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Hey! I take offense to you scratching out my "idiot"!

As I told others, if we get a chance to link, don't worry I am sure I can get us all killed. And if we get Xen in the mix, they will bring us some tags to test out the idea all the more. Who doesn't like a target rich environment! Gogogogooogo, get em! 🙂 

[Mabi black.1824]

3 hours ago, T G.7496 said:

might concurrently field 10 of these squads, is absurd.

Re-read well what I wrote please, because no one came up with this idea, on the contrary, both me and the person I mentioned clearly shared that it only takes 1 of a team of 50 guild men and well organized to have the ''good weather'' wherever they want. So why the hell do you want to give it a chance to cluster 10 times as much beyond what's already enough? 

Can you explain to me how this choice helps you to better distribute the content in the different servers/fragments? Or maybe we're still helping players stack on top of each other? You know what 500 active and organized players are? And we're not talking about those players who show up 2 times a week a couple of hours. Those have long since been kicked by the alliances that are the subject of this discussion.

Edited June 25 by Mabi black.1824

[T G.7496]

55 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Re-read well what I wrote please, because no one came up with this idea, on the contrary, both me and the person I mentioned clearly shared that it only takes 1 of a team of 50 guild men and well organized to have the ''good weather'' wherever they want. So why the hell do you want to give it a chance to cluster 10 times as much beyond what's already enough?

I did reread it, shortly after posting, and I take your point about that.

However, my comments still stand, somewhat - the extrapolation and catastrophising you do is just unrealistic and unecessary, based on my own experience.

Playing in a squad of up to 50 players is literally a game-design feature, in a mode that aims to encourage cooperation between players.

The expectation, one can assume, is that opposing teams will organise themselves similarly.

That this sometimes doesn't happen - and, most recently, hasn't happened on a wildly asymmetric scale - is not a function or fault of players gaming the system, or of playing against the design of the system.

It is simply the result of woeful Team-making and Match-making by Anet at the start of this WR period.

If what you fear is even remotely likely, what is your proposal... to limit guild size to 50? Or less than 50?

I just don't get your point.

Edited June 25 by T G.7496

[T G.7496]

13 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

And we're not talking about those players who show up 2 times a week a couple of hours. Those have long since been kicked by the alliances that are the subject of this discussion.

To this point, specifically...

Since Mirrors of Lyssa is, by any metric,  the most egregious example of the asymmetry that is going on between Teams at the moment. And since you are talking about how the largest 'alliance guilds' are the most dangerous expression of that. I can tell you - from first hand experience, as a member of probably one of the largest guilds created for this purpose, and therefore probably 'the subject of this discussion' - that the environment, culture and playstyle you are describing is a fiction.

If there exist other guilds - members of Teams creating the same or worse situation than MoL at the moment - which are single-handedly causing the problem you imagine, who are they?

[Mabi black.1824]

12 minutes ago, T G.7496 said:

I did reread it, shortly after posting, and I take your point about that.

No problem my friend, we're all playmates in here. If I sometimes write a little roughly, it's because I'm trying to get to Anet's door, never to another playmate's door.

[T G.7496]

Just now, Mabi black.1824 said:

No problem my friend, we're all playmates in here. If I sometimes write a little roughly, it's because I'm trying to get to Anet's door, never to another playmate's door.

Understood. Likewise.

[Dayra.7405]

On 6/18/2024 at 10:54 AM, SweetPotato.7456 said:

I think 500 per alliance is too many. .

I would estimate that 500 is 1/3 or even only 1/4 of a previous main-world,  so your former majority of people you where familiar with within a team already turned into a minority. I don’t think further atomization of familiarity is a good thing.

[Mabi black.1824]

24 minutes ago, T G.7496 said:

To this point, specifically...

Since Mirrors of Lyssa is, by any metric,  the most egregious example of the asymmetry that is going on between Teams at the moment. And since you are talking about how the largest 'alliance guilds' are the most dangerous expression of that. I can tell you - from first hand experience, as a member of probably one of the largest guilds created for this purpose, and therefore probably 'the subject of this discussion' - that the environment, culture and playstyle you are describing is a fiction.

If there exist other guilds - members of Teams creating the same or worse situation than MoL at the moment - which are single-handedly causing the problem you imagine, who are they?

To tell the truth I don't even remember the name of the fragment of where I'm playing, I should go online but from here I can't. ( who would have thought I'd be so disinterested that I didn't know the name of your server in WVW after 10 days. crazy , I swear I never even thought it possible ) so I can't give you feedback of names or guilds right now. 

But if we want to stay in the theme of this post, I can tell you that I don't know what is the most ''adequate'' number to group/keep players together and at the same time get ''effective'' fragments in order to see them really well redistributed, in order to redistribute content a bit everywhere. Anet also stated (a long time ago) that 500 is just the most convenient number to start with, and they would monitor this number and the result that this limit would generate. ( Obvious grouping issues or bugs apart ).

Edited June 25 by Mabi black.1824

[T G.7496]

18 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

To tell the truth I don't even remember the name of the fragment of where I'm playing, I should go online but from here I can't. ( who would have thought I'd be so disinterested that I didn't know the name of your server in WVW after 10 days. crazy , I swear I never even thought it possible ) so I can't give you feedback of names or guilds right now. 

But if we want to stay in the theme of this post, I can tell you that I don't know what is the most ''adequate'' number to group/keep players together and at the same time get ''effective'' fragments in order to see them really well redistributed, in order to redistribute content a bit everywhere. Anet also stated (a long time ago) that 500 is just the most convenient number to start with, and they would monitor this number and the result that this limit would generate. ( Obvious grouping issues or bugs apart ).

Understood.

For what it's worth, after all of our to and fro, I've stated elsewhere (earlier in this thread I think) that I believe 500 is too large for a WvW guild entity.

[Mabi black.1824]

4 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

You could have done the exact same with Worlds/Servers. They did. Could do even more than 500. So that makes no real difference between the systems.

It makes all the difference. Haven't you noticed how the guilds have organized themselves to free up space and kick the most relaxed players? Take notes in the notebook to make ends meet that number of 500 members by getting in touch with 10 other guilds? To do this they have also completely forgotten about all the solo players or in small groups of 3 or 4 friends of their 10-year-old server  ( In fact, my 100-man guild has more than doubled in size in the last 7 days of June 14th, only exclusively so as not to leave anyone behind ). This kitten came with WR. I've never seen it before.

[joneirikb.7506]

3 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

It makes all the difference. Haven't you noticed how the guilds have organized themselves to free up space and kick the most relaxed players? Take notes in the notebook to make ends meet that number of 500 members by getting in touch with 10 other guilds? To do this they have also completely forgotten about all the solo players or in small groups of 3 or 4 friends of their 10-year-old server  ( In fact, my 100-man guild has more than doubled in size in the last 7 days of June 14th, only exclusively so as not to leave anyone behind ). This kitten came with WR. I've never seen it before.

The same type of guilds did exactly the same with servers. They just had to transfer away from all the solos etc, so they could fit in more of the guilds they wanted to stack with. It's the same people doing the same things. Nothing new, nothing changes.

The only difference is that they can't stack higher than 500, and it doesn't cost gems any longer (for anyone). It's still a lesser impact than free transfers back in the first year of servers.