Reduce WvW Guild Cap from 500 to 200

[ConorRhysT.3819]

Limit each map to 3 Golems. Issue fixed.

[Riba.3271]

6 minutes ago, ConorRhysT.3819 said:

So your main issue is Golems...

As an original Aurora Gladian which pioneered the Golem Rush (with Golem Rushes of 30+ golems)... I also never use Golems.

They are no fun. 

Issue with golems is that they're affected by boons now and guild golems cost only 50 supply. So they do more damage than rams and can also be used for multiple gates.

Regarding safer long range strategies, it is mostly that Trebs and catas are unusable since 1 defender can use 2 different type of shield gens to slow you down massively. But you were on low tier AG and didn't face against more advanced Gandara/Desolation siege strategies much, so you wouldn't know about such tricks. Same of course applies to defenders using trebs or any siege: shield gens just block it all.

Edited July 7 by Riba.3271

[ConorRhysT.3819]

5 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Issue with golems is that they're affected by boons now and guild golems cost only 50 supply. So they do more damage than rams but can be used for multiple gates.

Regarding safer long range strategies, it is mostly that Trebs and catas are unusable since 1 defender can use 2 different type of shield gens to slow you down massively. But you were on low tier AG and didn't face against more advanced Gandara/Desolation siege strategies much, so you wouldn't know about such tricks.

I may be absolutely wrong. But I know most siege strategies.

I do agree, Golems are very mindless and meme though. 

Trust me when I say, we abused them.

 

Regarding mis-balance with anything else including Dolyaks, I disagree.

When I captured the keeps - Skrittburg failed to take camps defended by 3/4 good roamers each - so they created strike squads on Dolyaks to stop the keep tiering up. Very nice play from them. It was good all around.

But seems like the general conclusion of the conversation is:

1. Limit Golems to 3/4 per map
2. Change limit of wall repair from 55 to 35%
3. Set Guild WvW limit to 200

 

These 3 things, would improve the game mode, which is already exceptionally fun.

Edited July 7 by ConorRhysT.3819

[ConorRhysT.3819]

7 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Issue with golems is that they're affected by boons now and guild golems cost only 50 supply. So they do more damage than rams but can be used for multiple gates.

Regarding safer long range strategies, it is mostly that Trebs and catas are unusable since 1 defender can use 2 different type of shield gens to slow you down massively. But you were on low tier AG and didn't face against more advanced Gandara/Desolation siege strategies much, so you wouldn't know about such tricks.

Just understood now what you said about Long-Range.

 

So additional point:

Shield Gens, to reduce siege damage by 50% rather than reject completely to walls & gates.

Edited July 7 by ConorRhysT.3819

[Riba.3271]

8 minutes ago, ConorRhysT.3819 said:

1. Limit Golems to 3/4 per map
2. Change limit of wall repair from 55 to 35%
3. Set Guild WvW limit to 200

1. Disagree. Doesn't make sense since those 3 golems might be hidden in lake somewhere by a griefer. Actual solution: Golems unaffected by boons again and guild golems cost 80 supply instead of 50

2. This is good

3. This would improve current system, but whole system should be replaced with 4-5 tiers of solo servers instead

4. Shield gens need to be capped to 1/spot. This can be done by making shield gen bubble happen "around" the shield gen (like catas), and capping them to 1/spot.

5. Castles should require at least 100% more dolyaks to upgrade & Packed dolyaks should count as 1 for upgrade instead of 2, and carry 3 times more supply instead of 2. Right now they're just better than speedy dolyaks in every way: They should be better at one thing and worse at other.

6. Damage that arrow carts and trebutchets do to siege should be increased by at least 33%.

Edited July 7 by Riba.3271

[ConorRhysT.3819]

3 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

1. Disagree. Doesn't make sense since those 3 golems might be hidden in lake somewhere by a griefer. Actual solution: Golems unaffected by boons again and guild golems cost 80 supply instead of 50

2. This is good

3. This would improve current system, but whole system should be replaced with 4-5 tiers of solo servers instead

4. Shield gens need to be capped to 1/spot.

5. Castles should require at least 100% more dolyaks to upgrade & Packed dolyaks should count as 1 for upgrade instead of 2, and carry 3 times more supply instead of 2. Right now they're just better than speedy dolyaks in every way: They should be better at one thing and worse at other.

6. Damage that arrow carts and trebutchets do to siege should be increased by at least 33%.

All sounds like good suggestions to me.

[manu.7539]

Its sad for large guilds but reducing the size of guilds is probably the only way to balance teams. The issue are alt accounts, mostly owned by some very active players. Grouped together and switching from alts to alts at every relinks, these players can easily cheat the balance system, no matter how good it is.

Edited July 7 by manu.7539

[ConorRhysT.3819]

2 minutes ago, manu.7539 said:

Its sad for large guilds but reducing the size of guilds is probably the only way to balance teams. The issue are alt accounst, mostly owned by some very active players. Grouped together and switching from alts to alts at every relinks, these players can easily cheat the balance system, no matter how good it is.

I am also very guilty of alt-ing in GW2. 

sPvP, WvW, and just noticed now - even this forum account.

I don't know the fix for that.

[manu.7539]

1 minute ago, ConorRhysT.3819 said:

I am also very guilty of alt-ing in GW2. 

sPvP, WvW, and just noticed now - even this forum account.

I don't know the fix for that.

I dont have any, got nothing to fix 😛

[ConorRhysT.3819]

Just now, manu.7539 said:

I dont have any, got nothing to fix 😛

I have 9 fully paid ALTs all the way up to SOTO. RIP... my wallet...

[ConorRhysT.3819]

No wonder aNet doesn't want to address the issue 😅

[manu.7539]

11 minutes ago, ConorRhysT.3819 said:

No wonder aNet doesn't want to address the issue 😅

Easy way to fix it is to reduce guilds. or to consider the activity of the last 12 months for each accounts.  You played more than X hours in WvW in the last 12 months = 1 WvW player. It could still be possible to cheat but at least it would make it harder to make in a regular base.

Edited July 7 by manu.7539

[ConorRhysT.3819]

Just now, manu.7539 said:

Easy way to fix it is to reduce guilds. or to consider the activity of the last 12 months for each accounts.  You played more than X hours in WvW in the last 12 months = 1 WvW player. It could still be possible to cheat but at least it would make it harder to make to in a regular base.

Good suggestion, but before I call it a night.

Remember its hard to remove profit from the idea of aNet, when they will sell the ability to flash to your enemy / guildees for $20.

https://snipboard.io/qsjQTi.jpg

 

Hope BumP is having fun in WvW restructuring anyway Manu, see you on the battlefield.

[ConorRhysT.3819]

See you out there

[manu.7539]

Just now, ConorRhysT.3819 said:

See you out there

cya 🙂

 

[Riba.3271]

2 hours ago, manu.7539 said:

Its sad for large guilds but reducing the size of guilds is probably the only way to balance teams. The issue are alt accounts, mostly owned by some very active players. Grouped together and switching from alts to alts at every relinks, these players can easily cheat the balance system, no matter how good it is.

Yea this is what I made a whole thread about why world restructuring won't prevent people from gaming extra population advantage. Just gather 500 people playing with 1 account this restructuring, and use other accounts the next one. This will give you 500 people advantage.

Only working system is solo servers where Full status preventing transfers to extent, and even if whole server intentionally tanks to open up, the stacked servers will be stuck in tier 1 fighting other stacked servers. Anyone who wants to avoid them, can just transfer to lower tier.

Edited July 7 by Riba.3271

[Spiral.3724]

The next team rematch is gonna be ... challenging. Some alliances are gathering HUGE amounts of players, maxing out their alliance guild population. What's gonna happen with rematch when there is a 500-person active WvW guild on one team? 
This restructing is actually making WvW more clique-y, IMO.

[meerfunkuhtron.9725]

On 7/6/2024 at 6:06 PM, ConorRhysT.3819 said:

Just break up kitten alliance guilds like RG and WsR (both making gameplay worse), etc - and it'll be even better,

On 7/6/2024 at 4:06 PM, ConorRhysT.3819 said:

There are still a few instances of people trying to hold on to the Server World Stagnation out of habit / routine.

So, I want to highlight these two things that you've stated, because I think you're lumping in two different groups of people.

One group wanted what we're getting now with WR and the concept of Alliances. This group of people don't care about keeping servers intact because they have enough numbers to fill a world, so they won't be negatively affected by random reshuffles. Their reasoning for pushing for this is same as yours - better fights! (for them) These are the same groups that have formed the alliances that you're complaining about. I just find that a bit ironic.

The second group of people who wanted stand-alone servers to stay intact have different priorities. We (as I'm one of the people who wanted to keep servers) cared more for the communities the servers established. And it's not just some sentiment about friendships and close ties, though that does play a part. It has more to do with people having the ability to play WvW in ways that are fun for them, not just for a select few.
For example, if you're a player that likes small scale fights, would you like to be in an alliance/server that only blobs and who also gets constantly matched against other blobs? Probably not. If you're a player who cares about defending objectives, would it be fun playing with others who don't care about defending at all? Probably not either.
Point is, servers allowed for the existence of individual players and guilds who may have differences in playstyles, but worked well together because they've established a community with a common goal. The server I was a part of had a mix of blobbing + small scale + roaming, but we all collectively cared about defending our home borderlands. The Garrison was more important than SMC, and that was well understood. If you were a player that didn't care for that and wanted to play the game mode differently, you were free to find another server that had what you wanted. Those who enjoyed it, stayed.

In a way, the servers guaranteed that the kind of gameplay you want is what you're going to get when you log into WvW. It wasn't perfect but IMO, there were other solutions that would have worked better than what we have now. I won't share much about those as this comment would be even longer. But... the problem is, those solutions meant that Anet will need to dedicate resources to manage WvW more consistently, which they either don't have the capacity or care for (or both). So we're left with something where players manage themselves combined with an automated system that may or may not work.

Anyway, here's to hoping that your fun lasts. For the rest of us though whose fun was tied to the cohesion and stability that servers provided, it's hardly any fun at all.

Edited July 9 by meerfunkuhtron.9725

[Vyseman.2947]

I would even reduce it to like 50 for an Really active Alliance Guild or 100 with some inactive ones who maybe play once or twice per month 

[Cuks.8241]

I'm not sure who would get hit more by reducing the guild size, the blobs or the more casual players. I can only speak from my own experience. We have a core guild and an alliance guild. Core guild which is close to 150 players can muster a full squad on raid nights. Depends a bit, now there are vacations but also hype for new system.

While the rest of the alliance are some smaller guilds and pugs. We will probably add another decent guilds but in the end this is still just over 200-300 players. 

If guild sizes are reduced the first to take a hit would be the pugs and maybe some less dedicated players in guilds. It would just make everything more exclusive, there would be less casual play within community for all and we would still raid with a big blob on selected raid nights. 

And if you just reduce and reduce you basically completely destroy communities and only the most dedicated players will stay as a team. 

[ChrisWhitey.9076]

If groups have to cut the size of groups it will defiantly make the smaller group sizes more competitive. A lot of the past recent changes have not been great for casual players and I would be concerned if this continues to be the way things are shifting.

[One more for the road.8950]

People crying about destroying communities on the servers, that had more people than you could possibly know, but hey, let's reduce guild sizes.

[TexZero.7910]

On 7/8/2024 at 3:27 PM, Spiral.3724 said:

The next team rematch is gonna be ... challenging. Some alliances are gathering HUGE amounts of players, maxing out their alliance guild population. What's gonna happen with rematch when there is a 500-person active WvW guild on one team? 
This restructing is actually making WvW more clique-y, IMO.

The answer is obvious no ?

They'll have nothing to fight but doors, be bored, log off, come forum warrior about how bad the matchup is all without realizing that they are the problem.