World Restructuring

[Namer.9750]

I'm glad the response to this thread is actually massively in favour of the Alliances system. Lots of different people enthused for this, only a handful of the same naysayers repeating old points over and over.

[DeKong.6203]

I dunno if this is the solution, but we needed a change, and i think this is it! Will it work? We don't know till we try! And we'll still all be here aslong as you listen to us, and this shows us that you have been! Thank you Anet!

[Graf.1945]

If this new idea for wvw is implemented, it will lead to factions and power guilds having control over "their" server. I don't believe this will be good for game play and smaller guilds who want to wvw in an environment where they have some control due to knowing long time players and guilds who are present, or the glue that the server provided as an identity. When I was on other servers, as I am now again for over 2 or more years on CD, my identity was more with the server than with which guild I was rep'ing. Of course my guilds mean a lot, as do the friends/players. Yet it has always, in the end been, the server which provided the core pride in my wvw activities. I'm apprehensive of the impending factionalization* and power guild structures that will be the result of these proposed changes. As such the ideas suggested by Anet are more than disruptive to how server based wvw has been working, with it's flaws so far, they will indeed fracture the fabric of the community of players. I believe this is the incorrect path to take regarding wvw.

[zerorogue.9410]

Let me just put this Simple YOU ARE DESTROYING WvW WvW Has survived on one and one thing alone, community. A feeling that when you go into wvw you see players you have always known. This is essentially cutting off player's arms and legs because you can't figure out how to match up two Athletes. With this system were going from community to . No more rankings, No more competition, No more strategy. Just Generic large scale pvp. We can go play battlefield for that!

Yes alliances will allow SOME of the people you've seen, but they are limited and people will have to be cut out to keep them. This will create toxic and anger within groups as Guild A has too many players to ally with Guild B so Guild B kicks 20 players.

This is Just putting a band-aid on a band-aid. It fixes nothing. WvW needs dynamic balancing, that can adapt minute by minute. You can't predict when player's are going to play a game. you can do a good job, But players can also take advantage of this.What if a guild decides to run on a different time?What if One world of player's get's matched up with one world of pro's?

The only thing this will do is make WvW slightly better at the cost of anything unique about it. DO NOT DO THIS. PLEASE!

[Kilo.2539]

The only thing easier than playing Scourge at the moment is picking out the BG players in this thread - lol

[nia.4725]

I am afraid this will completely kill WvW for a lot of people (and guilds).

Me and a friend are in a guild that does all kinds of content -pvp,pve,wvw-. Even though that guild is not dedicated to WvW, it is very active there. I'm more a casual wvw player, only participating there with that guild because I do not have the time to dedicate enough time to WvW to be in a WvW only guild. My friend, however, has a WvW guild and plays with both guilds actively. One is his WvW guild, the other is his main guild in general.

With this changes, won't he be able to play with both guilds if they don't end up in the same world? Will I be able to play with him? I'm afraid that not only this will prevent a lot of people (like me) from playing with friends who happen to have a WvW guild, but also it will kill WvW for those non-WvW-dedicated guilds that are active in that mode. Because, let's say, my guild has a group of ~15 people who play WvW together and roam 3 times per week. But that group would be completely screwed with the new changes, because a lot of its members also have WvW guilds and will be forced to choose between those WvW guilds and our general guild, resulting in less people able to play with this general guild.

This will end up making impossible to play WvW for casual people like me, unless we accept we will be playing alone. It will magnify the difference between active, experienced people and casual players who still like to WvW and it also will prevent us from mixing and playing together because the active ones will be forced to choose between guilds. It also will kill any guild that includes WvW in their activities, without fully dedicating to it.

And the solution to this isn't saying "join the same WvW guild then". Why does he have to choose between guilds, knowing that choosing one could mean he won't be able to play with that other one he's now active with, too.

[Namer.9750]

@"Graf.1945" said:If this new idea for wvw is implemented, it will lead to factions and power guilds having control over "their" server. I don't believe this will be good for game play and smaller guilds who want to wvw in an environment where they have some control due to knowing long time players and guilds who are present, or the glue that the server provided as an identity. When I was on other servers, as I am now again for over 2 or more years on CD, my identity was more with the server than with which guild I was rep'ing. Of course my guilds mean a lot, as do the friends/players. Yet it has always, in the end been, the server which provided the core pride in my wvw activities. I'm apprehensive of the impending factionalization* and power guild structures that will be the result of these proposed changes. As such the ideas suggested by Anet are more than disruptive to how server based wvw has been working, with it's flaws so far, they will indeed fracture the fabric of the community of players. I believe this is the incorrect path to take regarding wvw.

This already happens.. It's happened many many times over the past few years. The people who 'control' the server can ban guilds from the server TS/Discords, or even just outright nuke the voice comms (a.k.a. Hellhammer it). They can pay other guilds to move into the server or withhold the money. I don't think CD has played server politics, but for most other servers, this is nothing new.

Also how would guilds even have 'power' over their server under the new system? At most, the only person with any power to affect other guilds is the originator of a guild alliance, that's it. What would even be the correct path to take, according to you?

[Kylar.2046]

I think I like this Anet.

I've transferred too many times to care about which server i'm actually on. However what many people who haven't transferred don't realise is there are a lot of cool communities out there. There are tags worth following in every server. You can have friends across servers and enjoy fighting against them... that's fun too.

My guild has transferred to a link server to ensure different matchups every relink. We get to fight a lot of different guilds and we get to ally a lot of the guilds we have fought and respected from across the battlefield. I know commanders on several servers and I am excited to get the chance to play with them again, as well as new ones I haven't met yet.

I have a couple reservations but I think this sounds like it'll be fun.

Cheers all, see you out there!

[rank eleven monk.9502]

To those who are saying this will 'completely destroy WvW' etc, just read through this thread again and check the reddit thread as well.

This might come as a bad change for a few, but the reception of this is OVERWHELMINGLY positive, which is incredibly rare on this forum. Can't satisfy everyone.

[Traveller.7496]

I'm really concerned about the loss of server & community pride. My regular guild is scattered all over so I will probably have to look into getting in a separate guild.

[Depraved Ambience.7942]

I can't imagine these changes being good for roamers or tiny (like, struggling to get players on to do WvW guild missions) guilds. Small guilds will never be able to compete with the large, alliance-based guilds for members now. Just more proof than ANet only wants players in large guilds.

I think attempting to make WvW more "granular" in order to control populations is the wrong way to go about it. You want to change when players are playing? Change the rewards. Give them a buff that doubles the amount of reward track progress if they're on during a low-coverage time for their server. Adjust the Outnumbered buff. Free legendaries for players on at a random low-coverage tick. \o/ That'll really get their attention. (Sorry, BG, no loot for you.)

I think this restructuring plan is nothing more than trying to herds cats. I commend ANet for acknowledging that coverage problems are actually a problem, but people suck and will find ways to exploit even the best-intentioned system. Good luck. See you in WvW GvG!

[Kamsin.8541]

Alliances, Guilds, it's a good idea but... I'm afraid players will twist this with the creation of giant guilds (200+, 500+.. players/guild) instead of alliances. They could also manipulate datas with fake WvW players inside their guild, not a good idea but still... In this scenario, one guild become one server, how to avoid this ?In the end, are you aware that some players, some guilds will try everything to exploit the new system ?Sorry for being pessimistic, it's maybe a great idea...

[Rod.6581]

@zerorogue.9410@nia.4725

So you are saying this changes will kill WvW as it is? Good! It needs to die.WvW has been in a terrible place for years now and desperately needs a change.

[Blodeuyn.2751]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@lksaar.8065 said:Do WvW alliances have a hardcap of guilds aswell? I.e. could I create an alliance with 500 1-man wvw guilds?No. There will be some cap to the number of guilds in an alliance.

I hope the cap is high enough that my small guild is not penalised. We should not have to throw away our name so we can play with the server we have come to love. I'm sure there are many others who feel the same way.

[Arv.1452]

I don't understand why you make the alliance cap 500-1000.I do not think there are WvW guilds with players that main THAT guild (not counting community guilds) that have the guild cap of 500.Alliances should be of those close guilds that know they fight well together.With a cap a lot lower than 500 - say 250 - they will get the chance to meet new guilds to fights along side with thanks to this new system.

1 BL has a cap of 80 players or something?So, 3 BLs and EB account for ~320 players to be able to be active in WvW simultaneously.An Alliance shouldn't be able to cover all BLs and EB at 1 moment in time.

I understand that you want to spread the activity of players over the available 24h, but still... the math doesn't add up for me.

[Richard.8207]

@zerorogue.9410 said:This is Just putting a band-aid on a band-aid. It fixes nothing. WvW needs dynamic balancing, that can adapt minute by minute. You can't predict when player's are going to play a game. you can do a good job, But players can also take advantage of this.

Yes, dynamic load balancing. Trying to predict eight weeks of behavior is insane, especially since players are really good at gaming any system created. Why destroy the server communities and virtually guarantee a toxic environment just to make the problem harder to solve?

[Rayya.2591]

5 years too late, but still goodgood job a net

[Norbe.7630]

@Kilo.2539 said:The only thing easier than playing Scourge at the moment is picking out the BG players in this thread - lol

wanna bet 100g for the best one who can spot the most by the end of the day?

[Silver.2076]

I claim that most people cannot predict to what extent the whole WvW changes in relation to them. The fact is, we need something new, new is always better;)

Seriously, I think as far as I can simulate it for myself, that could be something! Finally, guilds find their relevance.

I think that through the alliances we will also be able to build up/select our new community or keep it from the existing one.

I can't wait, I'm looking forward to it!

ps. Only the news that no new borderlands will be added in the near future and there are no plans for mounts is still bothering me.

But basically there are just no interesting items for WvW players in the shop. Why actually there are no fancy skins for siege weapons or more magnificent banners and suchlike. Well, one at a time.

[Eramonster.2718]

@Fazz Um.1537 said:I don't understand why you make the alliance cap 500-1000.I do not think there are WvW guilds with players that main THAT guild (not counting community guilds) that have the guild cap of 500.Alliances should be of those close guilds that know they fight well together.With a cap a lot lower than 500 - say 250 - they will get the chance to meet new guilds to fights along side with thanks to this new system.

1 BL has a cap of 80 players or something?So, 3 BLs and EB account for ~320 players to be able to be active in WvW simultaneously.An Alliance shouldn't be able to cover all BLs and EB at 1 moment in time.

I understand that you want to spread the activity of players over the available 24h, but still... the math doesn't add up for me.

Cap 500-1000 players in an alliance. Players that plays at different time? Some players doesn't play long thus having shorter WvW playtime (the server/alliance will need more players for coverage) I'm guessing. It's an interesting system tho. Will cover the 4 issues highlighted. Would like to know more on how the system captures the roamers etc. (There's the picture explaning the non guilded players outside the alliance but very little info?)

[TheWolf.1602]

it sounds interesting, but will this be the end of the outnumbered buff?Please add the bonus pips to multiple tiers of commitment bonuses:wood +1bronze +2etc.

[Tiscan.8345]

I read a couple of pages in this thread but couldn't find any info if the number of guilds will be increased a player can be in???!?

I know a lot of people who are members of 5 guilds already (for example: 1 bank, 1 raid, 1 "social" guild, 1-2 event-guild (like the guilds that are doing daily triple-trouble-kills, etc.)) and who now would have to ditch one of those guilds to become a member of a wvw-guild to be able to still play with their friends.

[nia.4725]

@Rod.6581 said:@zerorogue.9410@nia.4725

So you are saying this changes will kill WvW as it is? Good! It needs to die.WvW has been in a terrible place for years now and desperately needs a change.

I didn't say "WvW as it is", I said "WvW for some people (and guilds)". Please read properly.

I understand that WvW needs a change, but I don't think it is a good idea to make a change that kicks out players and guilds, while giving more power to large and dedicated guilds. What I think is that everyone should be able to play WvW, and this won't make that happen. This will leave people alone, and will kill smaller or non-dedicated guilds.

[Spartacus.1549]

Well, was good knowing you anet and gw2. You obviously prove once more you know nothing of wvw, and how we all played around it. This system will end up chaotic and also WILL be abused to pieces and in ways you haven't even thought of yet and can't even imagine. But i wont even go into the game breaking abuse of this idiotic system, i'll just go for the easy to see problems. Communications, communities, friends, those are the easy 1st issues that gonna appear as soon as this system happens. We don't need another eotm. Communities and server is ALL that kept this already dying mode still going, the fact that YOU and ONLY YOU, in Anet ruined the system more with idiotic ideas of links doesn't mean this new system is what wvw needs. And before you say BUT you can be with your friends with alliances and guilds. AND??? What if i wanna leave, cause i don't like this community anymore? i Become a nomad of wvw? Having a stupid algorithm choose where my fun will be???? Pls! Drugs are bad anet.

[morrolan.9608]

@Traveller.7496 said:I'm really concerned about the loss of server & community pride. My regular guild is scattered all over so I will probably have to look into getting in a separate guild.

There is very little server pride left, it mostly died with the poor linking system.