Let's discuss Battlegroups

[Thelgar.7214]

@Caliburn.1845 said:

3) If you find particular players or guilds annoying or trolly, you would probably not have to deal with them after the world reshuffle, merely by not letting them in your Battlegroup(I like players being able to control that stuff).

But how do I make sure that a guild or guild leader that I find trolly or extremely toxic to the health of the game isn't randomly assigned to the same server that I am, or that I'm not randomly assigned to a server that guild or guild leader is on as an individual?

Guild-centric anything won't change anything. Guild leaders have proven they will ruin any change. Look back to the links and the Alliance and remember it wasn't just Mal and the members of the Alliance, but all the of the guild leaders that remained on TC who agreed to work with the alliance take full advantage of the stacking of the server.

Any change that puts more control into the hands of the guilds will just make things worse.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

@Thelgar.7214 said:

@Caliburn.1845 said:

3) If you find particular players or guilds annoying or trolly, you would probably not have to deal with them after the world reshuffle, merely by not letting them in your Battlegroup(I like players being able to control that stuff).

But how do I make sure that a guild or guild leader that I find trolly or extremely toxic to the health of the game isn't randomly assigned to the same server that I am, or that I'm not randomly assigned to a server that guild or guild leader is on as an individual?

Guild-centric anything won't change anything. Guild leaders have proven they will ruin any change. Look back to the links and the Alliance and remember it wasn't just Mal and the members of the Alliance, but all the of the guild leaders that remained on TC who agreed to work with the alliance take full advantage of the stacking of the server.

Any change that puts more control into the hands of the guilds will just make things worse.

Right now, the choice is out of your hands. You can't stop me from coming to your server for instance. If Battlegroups were in place, my alliance would be a battlegroup thus taking the choice out of MY hands and placing it within a match making scheme. Thus, instead of my alliance doing the things people claim I've done. I wouldn't be able to. My alliance or a large group of guilds, wouldn't be able to just simply mass move and collide with another based off our own wishes.

[Thelgar.7214]

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Thelgar.7214 said:

@Caliburn.1845 said:

3) If you find particular players or guilds annoying or trolly, you would probably not have to deal with them after the world reshuffle, merely by not letting them in your Battlegroup(I like players being able to control that stuff).

But how do I make sure that a guild or guild leader that I find trolly or extremely toxic to the health of the game isn't randomly assigned to the same server that I am, or that I'm not randomly assigned to a server that guild or guild leader is on as an individual?

Guild-centric anything won't change anything. Guild leaders have proven they will ruin any change. Look back to the links and the Alliance and remember it wasn't just Mal and the members of the Alliance, but all the of the guild leaders that remained on TC who agreed to work with the alliance take full advantage of the stacking of the server.

Any change that puts more control into the hands of the guilds will just make things worse.

Right now, the choice is out of your hands. You can't stop me from coming to your server for instance. If Battlegroups were in place, my

alliance

would be a battlegroup thus taking the choice out of MY hands and placing it within a match making scheme. Thus, instead of my alliance doing the things people claim I've done. I wouldn't be able to. My alliance or a large group of guilds, wouldn't be able to just simply mass move and collide with another based off our own wishes.

I can always leave when you're around with the server system. And the people stuck randomly in your Battlegroup (as it was previously defined) would be subject to exclusion/abuse if they didn't want to do things your way with no recourse. LOL at claim.

[Swamurabi.7890]

@Thelgar.7214 said:

@"Caliburn.1845" said:

3) If you find particular players or guilds annoying or trolly, you would probably not have to deal with them after the world reshuffle, merely by not letting them in your Battlegroup(I like players being able to control that stuff).

But how do I make sure that a guild or guild leader that I find trolly or extremely toxic to the health of the game isn't randomly assigned to the same server that I am, or that I'm not randomly assigned to a server that guild or guild leader is on as an individual?

Guild-centric anything won't change anything. Guild leaders have proven they will ruin any change. Look back to the links and the Alliance and remember it wasn't just Mal and the members of the Alliance, but all the of the guild leaders that remained on TC who agreed to work with the alliance take full advantage of the stacking of the server.

Any change that puts more control into the hands of the guilds will just make things worse.

Would you rather have WvW be more pug dominated like EotM is???

As someone who's guild disbanded over a year ago I find the idea of being randomly put in a battlegroup and seeing which guilds are inclusive is way better than being forced to choose between the 2-3 guilds that are left on my closed server. Many times I can't even find a tag or if there is a tag they might not even be using voice chat. Plus a battlegroup that has toxic or exclusive guilds will either suffer or be a benefit for the other more inclusive guilds in that battlegroup. Eventually the inclusive guilds will be the future of WvW.

I never did agree with Mal's actions in the past. I've always been against what his alliance was allowed to do to T2, twice. While I realize that player organized battlegroups might look like multiple versions of Mal's "Alliance" at least we can talk with Anet on how we don't turn a BG dominated WvW into an "Alliance" dominated WvW.

[Caliburn.1845]

No one is going to be "stuck" in a Battlegroup. You would be able to leave at any time. And if the differences in priorities and way they want to play the game are large enough, then those people should not be in the same Battlegroup. But eventually most people would find their way to a Battlegroup that plays and acts the way they want.

Where as under the current system you're stuck with your server and the guilds and people on that server. And if you want to move it is going to cost you a hefty chunk of gems to go looking for a greener pasture.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Caliburn.1845 said:Battlegroups would be as exclusive or inclusive as their members wished. There would no doubt be guilds and players who would get fed up with one BG and move to another. The politics and wheeling and dealing would be beyond anything we have now in WvW. But the more successful BGs would no doubt be more inclusive, because there is a need for pugs, they're the sinew and tissue that hold a lot of servers together, and Battlegroups that discount that would be less successful in the field.

But still guild centric and, in essence, controlled by the guilds.

I support guilds running private. But guilds determining who can play in their group? No.

[SugarCayne.3098]

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Thelgar.7214 said:

@"Caliburn.1845" said:

3) If you find particular players or guilds annoying or trolly, you would probably not have to deal with them after the world reshuffle, merely by not letting them in your Battlegroup(I like players being able to control that stuff).

But how do I make sure that a guild or guild leader that I find trolly or extremely toxic to the health of the game isn't randomly assigned to the same server that I am, or that I'm not randomly assigned to a server that guild or guild leader is on as an individual?

Guild-centric anything won't change anything. Guild leaders have proven they will ruin any change. Look back to the links and the Alliance and remember it wasn't just Mal and the members of the Alliance, but all the of the guild leaders that remained on TC who agreed to work with the alliance take full advantage of the stacking of the server.

Any change that puts more control into the hands of the guilds will just make things worse.

Would you rather have WvW be more pug dominated like EotM is???

As someone who's guild disbanded over a year ago I find the idea of being randomly put in a battlegroup and seeing which guilds are inclusive is way better than being forced to choose between the 2-3 guilds that are left on my closed server. Many times I can't even find a tag or if there is a tag they might not even be using voice chat. Plus a battlegroup that has toxic or exclusive guilds will either suffer or be a benefit for the other more inclusive guilds in that battlegroup. Eventually the inclusive guilds will be the future of WvW.

I never did agree with Mal's actions in the past. I've always been against what his alliance was allowed to do to T2, twice. While I realize that player organized battlegroups might look like multiple versions of Mal's "Alliance" at least we can talk with Anet on how we don't turn a BG dominated WvW into an "Alliance" dominated WvW.

Kind of like how it is now with toxic and exclusive commanders eh?

Lots of suffering.

[SugarCayne.3098]

@Caliburn.1845 said:Battlegroups would be as exclusive or inclusive as their members wished. There would no doubt be guilds and players who would get fed up with one BG and move to another. The politics and wheeling and dealing would be beyond anything we have now in WvW. But the more successful BGs would no doubt be more inclusive, because there is a need for pugs, they're the sinew and tissue that hold a lot of servers together, and Battlegroups that discount that would be less successful in the field.

Then do it in NA only. It won’t fix the mess you’ve all made of it, but sure, as long as it doesn’t come to EU, fill your boots.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

@Thelgar.7214 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Thelgar.7214 said:

@Caliburn.1845 said:

3) If you find particular players or guilds annoying or trolly, you would probably not have to deal with them after the world reshuffle, merely by not letting them in your Battlegroup(I like players being able to control that stuff).

But how do I make sure that a guild or guild leader that I find trolly or extremely toxic to the health of the game isn't randomly assigned to the same server that I am, or that I'm not randomly assigned to a server that guild or guild leader is on as an individual?

Guild-centric anything won't change anything. Guild leaders have proven they will ruin any change. Look back to the links and the Alliance and remember it wasn't just Mal and the members of the Alliance, but all the of the guild leaders that remained on TC who agreed to work with the alliance take full advantage of the stacking of the server.

Any change that puts more control into the hands of the guilds will just make things worse.

Right now, the choice is out of your hands. You can't stop me from coming to your server for instance. If Battlegroups were in place, my

alliance

would be a battlegroup thus taking the choice out of MY hands and placing it within a match making scheme. Thus, instead of my alliance doing the things people claim I've done. I wouldn't be able to. My alliance or a large group of guilds, wouldn't be able to just simply mass move and collide with another based off our own wishes.

I can always leave when you're around with the server system. And the people stuck randomly in your Battlegroup (as it was previously defined) would be subject to exclusion/abuse if they didn't want to do things your way with no recourse. LOL at claim.

Yes you can, But you see with Battlegroups, you wouldn't have to leave your community because you didn't like me. Me playing with you would be temporary when it reevaluates as server-links do now. I used claim because I knew it would get to you lol. In all honesty I know what I've done and why I did what I did. I'm never one to hide behind that fact. I also don't mind using what I've done as specific examples as to why I know battlegroups would work for everyone.

[Thelgar.7214]

@"Caliburn.1845" said:No one is going to be "stuck" in a Battlegroup. You would be able to leave at any time. And if the differences in priorities and way they want to play the game are large enough, then those people should not be in the same Battlegroup. But eventually most people would find their way to a Battlegroup that plays and acts the way they want.

Where as under the current system you're stuck with your server and the guilds and people on that server. And if you want to move it is going to cost you a hefty chunk of gems to go looking for a greener pasture.

I mis-spoke. You wouldn't be stuck in a battle group, you'd be stuck with one. The way I recall it being explained before, there would be a 1000 person cap on a battlegroup, with the servers being larger. Guilds could band up in a battlegroup. There could be more than one battlegroup on a server. People not in battlegroups would be randomly assigned a server to fill things out. Basically, you're going to end up stuck with people with no recourse. And, since it is guild-centric, it reinforces the idea that the guilds have a right to tell you how you can play.

[Thelgar.7214]

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

Yes you can, But you see with Battlegroups, you wouldn't have to leave your community because you didn't like me. Me playing with you would be temporary when it reevaluates as server-links do now. I used claim because I knew it would get to you lol. In all honesty I know what I've done and why I did what I did. I'm never one to hide behind that fact. I also don't mind using what I've done as specific examples as to why I know battlegroups would work for everyone.

You don't get to me. I know you vary your acknowledgement of the things you've done to best manipulate your audience. ;)

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

@Thelgar.7214 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

Yes you can, But you see with Battlegroups, you wouldn't have to leave your community because you didn't like me. Me playing with you would be temporary when it reevaluates as server-links do now. I used

claim

because I knew it would get to you lol. In all honesty I know what I've done and why I did what I did. I'm never one to hide behind that fact. I also don't mind using what I've done as specific examples as to why I know battlegroups would work for everyone.

You don't get to me. I know you vary your acknowledgement of the things you've done to best manipulate your audience. ;)

yet, you've never talked to me directly about any of it.

[Missy.7356]

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:Right now, the choice is out of your hands. You can't stop me from coming to your server for instance. If Battlegroups were in place, my alliance would be a battlegroup thus taking the choice out of MY hands and placing it within a match making scheme. Thus, instead of my alliance doing the things people claim I've done. I wouldn't be able to. My alliance or a large group of guilds, wouldn't be able to just simply mass move and collide with another based off our own wishes.

So a battle group would be max Guild size? or Bigger? Or is a battle group a server size with a different title? Since if all the friends played in one battlegroup, how would that be any different to now with BG/JQ/Mags, that no one would want to fight against?

Im just trying to get my head around if it can be gamed to make even more people quit than already has due how to people only think of short term fun rather than what happens in 3 months or more. How do the new players learn if all the vets are in one battlegroup, they become a lootbag and never to play that gamemode again, and smaller player base each time it happens.

Personal Sidenote - A lot of people do not just claim, they saw it, they felt it, they either played with the fallout or quit. And while you are the one spearheading this, the politician gamer (meme payment required if used)), there a probably a lot like me that will be sceptical of this idea. Things do need to change, but at this time I cant help think, whats really in it for you.I want to start playing again, but currently its all about who is gaming the system for their own good not for the people playing it on all servers.

(took so long to write that so many posts before so if it was answered, opps)

[Thelgar.7214]

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Thelgar.7214 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

Yes you can, But you see with Battlegroups, you wouldn't have to leave your community because you didn't like me. Me playing with you would be temporary when it reevaluates as server-links do now. I used

claim

because I knew it would get to you lol. In all honesty I know what I've done and why I did what I did. I'm never one to hide behind that fact. I also don't mind using what I've done as specific examples as to why I know battlegroups would work for everyone.

You don't get to me. I know you vary your acknowledgement of the things you've done to best manipulate your audience. ;)

yet, you've never talked to me directly about any of it.

Your actions, and posts across various forums, a few of which were direct back-and-forths with me, speak for themselves. I don't see what would be gained by hearing another version. I'm not a politician gamer. I'm a gardener gamer. I want to spend only the minimum time necessary kneeling in the muck pulling weeds to be able to enjoy my vegetables. Sorry it isn't the most flattering analogy, but I don't have as much free time as I used to and I want to get back to something else.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

@Missy.7356 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:Right now, the choice is out of your hands. You can't stop me from coming to your server for instance. If Battlegroups were in place, my

alliance

would be a battlegroup thus taking the choice out of MY hands and placing it within a match making scheme. Thus, instead of my alliance doing the things people claim I've done. I wouldn't be able to. My alliance or a large group of guilds, wouldn't be able to just simply mass move and collide with another based off our own wishes.

So a battle group would be max Guild size? or Bigger? Or is a battle group a server size with a different title? Since if all the

friends

played in one battlegroup, how would that be any different to now with BG/JQ/Mags, that no one would want to fight against?

Im just trying to get my head around if it can be gamed to make even more people quit than already has due how to people only think of short term fun rather than what happens in 3 months or more. How do the new players learn if all the vets are in one battlegroup, they become a lootbag and never to play that gamemode again, and smaller player base each time it happens.

Personal Sidenote - A lot of people do not just claim, they saw it, they felt it, they either played with the fallout or quit. And while you are the one spearheading this, the politician gamer (meme payment required if used)), there a probably a lot like me that will be sceptical of this idea. Things do need to change, but at this time I cant help think, whats really in it for you.I want to start playing again, but currently its all about who is gaming the system for their own good not for the people playing it on all servers.

(took so long to write that so many posts before so if it was answered, opps)

A battlegroups size would be a set number shown by anet. The last leak of the system showed that a battlegroup is 1000 players. To put this into perspective, my alliance at it's peak had around 300 bodies between the guilds within it. A battlegroup group doesn't have to hit the size of 1000, and multiple battlegroups combine with the worlds as server links do. A server even as link contains way more than 1000 bodies across all timezones. So for instance if I were to give you a sized estimation of the population it takes to equate to a server like BG JQ and MAG i'd have to say about 10k to 30k. Some MMO servers go greater.

The thing with my alliance, has been happening to the game since way before you even knew my name. The only difference is that I'm not afraid to speak on and or advertise that I'm doing it and the reasons as to why. I'm no afraid to do so, because I'm simply playing the game. I want to continue to play the game with the friends I've made competitively just like the rest. Unfortunately I'm a leader and I have been for these 5 years. They coordinate with other leaders and form bonds. If server structures put us in a pitch regardless if you personally feel pitched or understand the reasons why, you're going to look for something else to do or move to so you can enjoy playing a video game. As a leader should I care about others following me. I cater to them and protect them. If they're not having fun, I try to provide fun for them.

Unfortunately for the GW2 WvW community, there aren't enough restraints to govern the player base and bonds we've formed over the last 5 years in such an complex system. Which is why we're arguing Battlegroups. Because they place restraints on scenarios that you know me for. A server world currently has very little restraints. Its either too little or too much all while the cap is only a threshold and not precise. They can never allow us to know this number, yet they want us to balance ourselves. They can't even use the data and metrics within their calculations in match matching to properly balance us, because of the huge spikes and rates.

There isn't a server I ever tried to destroy. There is no community in this game right now that I do not care about. It's unfortunate that my acts have caused people to quit and feel this way. I'm also the reason people still play and are active. Perhaps the game mode shouldn't be centered around unbound coverage and population as a metric of competitiveness.

[Caliburn.1845]

In regards to "gaming" Battlegroups. Yes players and guilds would totally game the system.

The thing is right now under the server system we have war councils, and server reps, and various guild leaders gaming the system. There is only a relative handful of people who can do it, people who have built up influence over the years, and it is done behind closed doors.

Battlegroups would even the playing field, bringing all those machinations into the open. You don't like the way a certain BG does business? You make your own. There would be no barrier of entry to get into high level WvW politics, you're not behind the curve. It would be an even playing field that resets itself every few months(if they took that route).

Those who have spent years building up a server would lose out of course(although they could probably take most of their server into a Battlegroup with them). But for those of us who want a better, more responsive population system and competitive atmosphere it would help. And I tend to think it would help WvW overall if executed well.

[X T D.6458]

@"Caliburn.1845" said:In regards to "gaming" Battlegroups. Yes players and guilds would totally game the system.

The thing is right now under the server system we have war councils, and server reps, and various guild leaders gaming the system. There is only a relative handful of people who can do it, people who have built up influence over the years, and it is done behind closed doors.

Battlegroups would even the playing field, bringing all those machinations into the open. You don't like the way a certain BG does business? You make your own. There would be no barrier of entry to get into high level WvW politics, you're not behind the curve. It would be an even playing field that resets itself every few months(if they took that route).

Those who have spent years building up a server would lose out of course(although they could probably take most of their server into a Battlegroup with them). But for those of us who want a better, more responsive population system and competitive atmosphere it would help. And I tend to think it would help WvW overall if executed well.

Its nothing more then a playground for elitists who think WvW belongs to them and that they are allowed to pick who should be excluded from playing with them. Knock off the flowery propaganda. This is not about what server you are on, this is about not allowing players to be able to dictate who is allowed to play when and where.

You do not own a server, get over it.

[SugarCayne.3098]

@"Caliburn.1845" said:In regards to "gaming" Battlegroups. Yes players and guilds would totally game the system.

The thing is right now under the server system we have war councils, and server reps, and various guild leaders gaming the system. There is only a relative handful of people who can do it, people who have built up influence over the years, and it is done behind closed doors.

Battlegroups would even the playing field, bringing all those machinations into the open. You don't like the way a certain BG does business? You make your own. There would be no barrier of entry to get into high level WvW politics, you're not behind the curve. It would be an even playing field that resets itself every few months(if they took that route).

Those who have spent years building up a server would lose out of course(although they could probably take most of their server into a Battlegroup with them). But for those of us who want a better, more responsive population system and competitive atmosphere it would help. And I tend to think it would help WvW overall if executed well.

Everything you outline above can be done with the existing system.

You simply have to change servers. Make your own. There's a lot to choose from. Even more so if they remove linking.

Battlegroups will not solve any existing issues and will further complicate WvW with political and personal agendas.

It most certainly will not create an even playing field. And would only make the behind closed doors stuff all the more powerful; impacting the entire game mode.

[Titan.3472]

This whole thread should be renamed "We failed at playing intended WvW mode as a united server Under guild banner : We suggest to change the game itself to allow us to win and blow up everyone else who played by the rules."I speak for myself : I am fine by the rules we play WvW since release (winning or losing) and the changes Anet implemented since. Why would I support any change in favor of a guild-centric system then ? JQ lead wvw for 2years straight and we never came here to ask to change the rules to fit us, instead we build up our BG server and overcome our ennemies.This is fighting spirit is whatever the odds you will take the challenge. But this thread is about how to change the game to turn the wind to the lazy losers mentality.Therefore any change will be doom to fail : losers will keep their mentality and winners will keep winning. (just shuffle some losers mentality in the winning team to make them feel some kind of achievement may be the sole reason...)You realise that some people built up their server like BG for YEARS to finally be able to take out the victorious crown from JQ in the total amount of Victories since game release. Commitment is a word you should read about. And this Victory was achieved by a large part of non-affilliated guild players : I understand how frustrating it have to be to lose against a bunch of pugs when you run organised guild but that is what happen when guilds have no server pride... Pugs give them a lessons.

[Caliburn.1845]

Set aside your narrow parochial concerns. Set aside your personal preferences, what is best for your guild, or what is best for your server. Look at WvW holistically. The gamemode is shedding players, and commanders and guilds. If you track activity levels, you can see a fairly severe decline in kills and deaths across all tiers. Server linkings mask this a bit, but you can still see the shape of the trend. A lot of you guys are on Blackgate so lets use that as an example. Is Blackgate WvW as strong or as organized as it was a year ago? Two years ago? Three years ago? Is it as fun right now as it was a few years ago? Are there as many guilds running? As many players playing? How many commanders do you see regularly tagging up? I was a commander on Blackgate, each map had a commander, and we did not tag down until we had a replacement commander tagged up and ready for the battle hand-off. That no longer happens. Each and every server are pale shades of what they once were.

Many people over the years have declared that WvW is dead. That is foolish, it is not dead. But it is in decline, and it is a steady decline with nothing to halt it. Major structural changes are needed. There are risks, there are problems with any major change. Maybe those changes will take the form of Battlegroups, or Eotm-izing, or time-slicing WvW, but no new system is going to appear out of the box without flaws. I support changing WvW, even while recognizing that it will destroy some of the things we love about WvW.

Because if nothing changes, we'll be left sitting in our T3 keep, sitting on a cannon while we rake in pips, wondering where all the enemy players are at.

[X T D.6458]

@Caliburn.1845 said:Set aside your narrow parochial concerns. Set aside your personal preferences, what is best for your guild, or what is best for your server. Look at WvW holistically. The gamemode is shedding players, and commanders and guilds. If you track activity levels, you can see a fairly severe decline in kills and deaths across all tiers. Server linkings mask this a bit, but you can still see the shape of the trend. A lot of you guys are on Blackgate so lets use that as an example. Is Blackgate WvW as strong or as organized as it was a year ago? Two years ago? Three years ago? Is it as fun right now as it was a few years ago? Are there as many guilds running? As many players playing? How many commanders do you see regularly tagging up? I was a commander on Blackgate, each map had a commander, and we did not tag down until we had a replacement commander tagged up and ready for the battle hand-off. That no longer happens. Each and every server are pale shades of what they once were.

Many people over the years have declared that WvW is dead. That is foolish, it is not dead. But it is in decline, and it is a steady decline with nothing to halt it. Major structural changes are needed. There are risks, there are problems with any major change. Maybe those changes will take the form of Battlegroups, or Eotm-izing, or time-slicing WvW, but no new system is going to appear out of the box without flaws. I support changing WvW, even while recognizing that it will destroy some of the things we love about WvW.

Because if nothing changes, we'll be left sitting in our T3 keep, sitting on a cannon while we rake in pips, wondering where all the enemy players are at.

You keep making this about servers, I keep telling you this is not about servers. I am in a guild, I did not start on BG. I am not interested in implementing mechanics that promote elitist behavior, creates toxicity and discourage team play in a server. I have been around these kind of people, and guilds in the past...why in the hell do you think I would want them to have control over a server?

You do not own a server, get over it, get over yourselves.

[SugarCayne.3098]

@Caliburn.1845 said:Set aside your narrow parochial concerns. Set aside your personal preferences, what is best for your guild, or what is best for your server. Look at WvW holistically. The gamemode is shedding players, and commanders and guilds. If you track activity levels, you can see a fairly severe decline in kills and deaths across all tiers. Server linkings mask this a bit, but you can still see the shape of the trend. A lot of you guys are on Blackgate so lets use that as an example. Is Blackgate WvW as strong or as organized as it was a year ago? Two years ago? Three years ago? Is it as fun right now as it was a few years ago? Are there as many guilds running? As many players playing? How many commanders do you see regularly tagging up? I was a commander on Blackgate, each map had a commander, and we did not tag down until we had a replacement commander tagged up and ready for the battle hand-off. That no longer happens. Each and every server are pale shades of what they once were.

Many people over the years have declared that WvW is dead. That is foolish, it is not dead. But it is in decline, and it is a steady decline with nothing to halt it. Major structural changes are needed. There are risks, there are problems with any major change. Maybe those changes will take the form of Battlegroups, or Eotm-izing, or time-slicing WvW, but no new system is going to appear out of the box without flaws. I support changing WvW, even while recognizing that it will destroy some of the things we love about WvW.

Because if nothing changes, we'll be left sitting in our T3 keep, sitting on a cannon while we rake in pips, wondering where all the enemy players are at.

Once NA let’s go of it’s 24/7 obsession, everyone will be much happier.

I logged in today. Meant to play two hours max.... seven hours later.

Still has that same rush to it. Completely engaging.

[LetoII.3782]

@SugarCayne.3098 said:

Battlegroups will not solve any existing issues and will further complicate WvW with political and personal agendas.

You don't seem to understand, that's part of the fun

[SugarCayne.3098]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@SugarCayne.3098 said:

Battlegroups will not solve any existing issues and will further complicate WvW with political and personal agendas.

You don't seem to understand, that's part of the fun

I’d imagine it sucks for anyone not political who JUST WANTS TO PLAY THE SILLY GAME.

[Namer.9750]

@Titan.3472 said:You realise that some people built up their server like BG for YEARS to finally be able to take out the victorious crown from JQ in the total amount of Victories since game release. Commitment is a word you should read about. And this Victory was achieved by a large part of non-affilliated guild players : I understand how frustrating it have to be to lose against a bunch of pugs when you run organised guild but that is what happen when guilds have no server pride... Pugs give them a lessons.

Implying BG beating JQ wasn't because of all the bought guilds but rather because of bunch of pugs who barely know the difference between backline and frontline.

Also I can name maybe one or two guilds today who would lose to a pug blob, and those guilds themselves are barely any more than pugs with a single tag.

And on the matter of BG, no, it's not a pug blob if it has 15 QQ players repping different tags running with or beside it.

@SugarCayne.3098 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@SugarCayne.3098 said:

Battlegroups will not solve any existing issues and will further complicate WvW with political and personal agendas.

You don't seem to understand, that's part of the fun

I’d imagine it sucks for anyone not political who JUST WANTS TO PLAY THE SILLY GAME.

I mean, it's not like different people can have played different amounts and have different feelings towards the current state of the game! Almost every player who've been playing since launch, and are serious about the game mode understand the issues. You may have taken long breaks, or may be a PvX player, and that lets you still get enjoyment from WvW.

I don't see why pugs are all up in arms about it. The average pug sits around inside a keep or at spawn waiting for a tag. If the tag is a pugmander, they squirrel right off back to sitting around after the first lost engagemet. Only if the tag is a guild group do they actually bother sticking around.

Guilds having a healthier game mode will also improve the game mode for pugs. Battlegroups don't discriminate against pugs: it favours guilds but lets pugs continue as they already do. If the idea was to turn WvW into an instanced 15v15 game mode, you could argue against it, but it's not: it's 'mini-servers with absolute fixed population limits that players can join, whether guild-affiliated or not.'.