Guild Cap for WvW is Too Large!

[SweetPotato.7456]

First of all, why you steal my thunder? There is already a thread about the alliance cap 😛
Second of all, some of the alliance you listed barely have 200 players in them . 
Third of all, some alliance are shuffling, should let the perma-beta go into a second round to see how everything goes after players reshuffle themself before altering the guild cap.

[ArchonWing.9480]

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I'll try again right away.

I'll try again right away. You argue that it is your opinion to let players play together with their friends, because balance is impossible. Okay, then explain me better, we can break server communities (friends playing together) and we can't break the limit of 500 (friends playing together). I'm sorry but that's why I can't agree with your personal opinion.

Well first off, replacing the old system is not even part of this conversation and thus off topic; that's just an issue you pushed in here  so that's a red herring. But if you want.

These are not the same things. . Server communities are just one way  of playing with friends, but putting a hard cap on how many friends and associates is  an absolute limiter.

If you don't understand this, then ask your community.

Edited July 2 by ArchonWing.9480

[Mabi black.1824]

4 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Well first off, replacing the old system is not even part of this conversation and thus off topic; that's just an issue you pushed in here  so that's a red herring. But if you want.

These are not the same things. . Server communities are just one way  of playing with friends, but putting a hard cap on how many friends and associates is  an absolute limiter.

If you don't understand this, then ask your community.

You wrote that you might as well let the players play together since the WR mechanic doesn't work as intended. Your personal opinion predicts that ''let the players play together'' is within that limit of 500 and woe betide anyone who touches it. whereas for me ''we let the players play together'' and inside that server limit. But as it turns out, your opinion definitely matters more than mine.

[Chaba.5410]

4 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

You wrote that you might as well let the players play together since the WR mechanic doesn't work as intended. Your personal opinion predicts that ''let the players play together'' is within that limit of 500 and woe betide anyone who touches it. whereas for me ''we let the players play together'' and inside that server limit. But as it turns out, your opinion definitely matters more than mine.

What if more players than server limit want to play together?

[Mabi black.1824]

11 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

What if more players than server limit want to play together?

That's not the point, people here give up on the idea that WR isn't working, so it's never going to work. I don't know why it's not working, but if the reason is also the 500 limit then I don't see anything insurmountable in reducing it to 250 to begin with.

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

That's not the point, people here give up on the idea that WR isn't working, so it's never going to work. I don't know why it's not working, but if the reason is also the 500 limit then I don't see anything insurmountable in reducing it to 250 to begin with.

Well, it looks like the same logic.  If it isn't working because of server limit, reduce to 500.

The insurmountable part is guilds are 500 limit and changing that has a much bigger effect over the entire game than just some WvW teams.

[ArchonWing.9480]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

You wrote that you might as well let the players play together since the WR mechanic doesn't work as intended. Your personal opinion predicts that ''let the players play together'' is within that limit of 500

I'm going to cut you off right here. You need to read a bit better because nothing you said here even reflects anything I ever said.

I never said I supported the 500 person limit. In fact, I said that it has caused various issues. Literally in the second sentence.

My argument is that reducing the limit would make these problems even worse.

I also never said anything about WR mechanic "not working as intended."

Like I'm pretty sure at this point you're just quoting the wrong person.

Or maybe we can simplify this a bit more?

A >= 500

Therefore

A !< 500

and NOT

A = 500 which is what you're claiming of me.

even if A may = 500

If you can't figure this out, I can't really help you.

Edited July 2 by ArchonWing.9480

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

On 6/30/2024 at 4:02 AM, neven.7528 said:

[HEW] Honestly Everyones Welcome Alliance - AI (NA), CuR, NITE, SOAR (early NA), wHo (NA)

wholesome

[Cael.3960]

17 hours ago, neven.7528 said:

While they may not take into account when people play, they definately take into account how much people play.   Splitting people into more groups will cause the groups who raid nearly daily to be distributed amongst the 15 world's first. As their wxp gain per member will be the highest.  Bag farmers outpace ppt players in wxp gain so they will be distributed first, more casual  guilds will be distributed last regardless of play style.  While we don't know the exact method of their distribution, it should still be distributing the most dedicated first no matter what.  There will still be some groups who just have too many variables in common on some servers just by bad luck, but the impact should be reduced compared to now, especially when time if day is added to the algorithm.

You fail to see the point. Breaking up guilds into small groups may benefit YOU: the solo or exclusively small group player, but it would destroy the large communities of players who want to play together. Is it right to demand that friends should not be able to play with one another just so that you don't feel overwhelmed by a bad matchup? More to the point, do you feel the game would be left in a healthier place if people couldn't play with their friends in this game but they could in a different one? Explain to me how I should tell half the members in my guild that they can't play the game with their friends anymore because someone on the forums is upset about being outnumbered by some sweaty no-life guild in a different matchup? 
 

You need to consider the wide-ranging impacts of getting what you want before you demand other people sacrifice on your behalf. You might realize that a short-term benefit results in a log-term loss for yourself instead. 

 

[Cael.3960]

15 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Our guild currently has 200 players, but I'd like to understand what you're writing here. Even if I'm in a guild of 20 men who choose to run alone for what reason do you claim I'm going to end up in a dead server? WR should match these 20 men with many other alliances, guilds, and individual players. Wasn't the goal here to get servers with similar activity?

I don't think anyone but the competitive balance team has an accurate idea of what metrics are being used to determine the matchmaking of WR. Speculating on what should or shouldn't be taken into account is exactly that: speculation. People are going to expect a structure that best satisfies their own expectations and playstyle. How do we resolve the disparity between players who 'expect' a competitive environment where small-scale fights are plentiful and frequent compared to those who 'expect' objective-based fights with layered defenses and extensive use of siege/tactivators/logtistics AND those who 'expect' large-scale open-field fights?

You can't satisfy everyone. It's important to understand that instead of giving people what they want the better option is often to give people the tools to create the gameplay they enjoy instead. Dedicated players will find a way to get those small-scale fights, those siege/defend situations, or those large-scale battles that they come to the game mode for. Your community will shape the kind of WvW experience you will find in a matchup. If you don't care to shape that community via Alliances, guilds, visible tags or map-chat... you get whatever the MMR determines you'll get. If you're unhappy with the team you've been bundled with, it's possible you might have had a more satisfying experience by banding together with a larger number of like-minded players. In my opinion WR will reward most those players who group together for a particular gameplay experience as opposed to those seeking simply to 'win' a matchup. An alliance of small-content guilds or roaming players has an equally high chance of creating the gameplay they enjoy as an alliance of large-scale fight groups. And, like all iterative MMR systems, it gets more accurate and more reliable with increased time and data to work off of. Complaining about the situation during it's first generation is premature and displays an incredible degree of impatience and entitlement.