World Restructuring

brianmiguel.8517 · February 9, 2018

So will guilds need to kick inactive members in order to not take up alliance slots?

shiri.4257 · February 9, 2018

@brianmiguel.8517 said:So will guilds need to kick inactive members in order to not take up alliance slots?

If they're designated as the WvW guild, probably so. Guild Administration should be up to the guild not anet anyways. However, if they're not designated it shouldn't have an affect.

fieraviolet.3160 · February 9, 2018

@brianmiguel.8517 said:So will guilds need to kick inactive members in order to not take up alliance slots?

No, the only players who will count towards your alliance are those that have you flagged as a wvw guild.

Riba.3271 · February 9, 2018

@brianmiguel.8517 said:So will guilds need to kick inactive members in order to not take up alliance slots?

The members need to mark one of their current guilds as WvW guild every 2 months to get counted towards alliance slot for that particular matching. Members that dont mark the guild as the one they chose to go with to a new world, dont count.

Some Call Me Tim.2319 · February 9, 2018

@brianmiguel.8517 said:So will guilds need to kick inactive members in order to not take up alliance slots?

No... the only members that will count will be the ones that have the guild flagged as their WvW guild. Anyone who doesn't have a WvW guild indicated for their account won't be counted in the WvW numbers etc.

kafka.1657 · February 9, 2018

@"brianmiguel.8517" said:So will guilds need to kick inactive members in order to not take up alliance slots?

Of course, a "WvW community guild" might not welcome non-WvW players or those who have designated an entirely different guild for WvW play.

Bahrain.2468 · February 10, 2018

@PabbyGaul.9682 said:
@"Bahrain.2468" said:Noooo........ I don't usually post on the forums, though I'm a huge fan and think GW2 is amazing, thanks to an amazing team behind it :)
Now someone pleaaaase, get this to Arenanet:
WvW should change to Faction vs Faction (Meaningful)
Why would I logon to fight against "
Server X
", I'd much rather fight for my faction "The Vigil" vs "The Order of Whispers"! For example....Faction pride and allegiance is important in PvP, ie: "For the Queen !", it doesnt make sense to fight for "Server X"Now with the new system, its even worse, its a randomly generated server, which makes it even less meaningful who I'm fighting for.
Faction v Faction maps should be UNIQUE and not the current nearly identical copies
Currently we are out there fighting 2 nearly identical maps, which is not that attractive. There's the Alpine and Desert maps, with no background as to WHO actually belongs there? It's just "Server X borderlands". I'd rather be fighting another faction's unique map, with their own objectives. When I roam "Server X borderlands" for 30mins its not nice to travel to the SAME identical enemy "Server Y borderland". We need a meaningful war! The Lannisters vs The Targaryens vs House Stark! Thats a war! When you venture out to The Lannisters area it looks different than House Stark area ;)
Faction v Faction maps should be a bit larger, in line with PoF encouraging mounted travel and less focus on fast travel
When venturing out, you'd want to venture out a borderland that feels massive in size, and unique in terrain. Think of it like an enemy nation or a faction your venturing into. Encourage solo / group / raid content, to be inclusive for all players. Like Camps/Towers/Keeps.
Faction that holds the most territory unlocks a bonus dungeon that has rare bosses and rare loot.
Encourage factions to fight for territory to gain more bonuses and access to a special bonus dungeon with amazing loot and dynamic encounters. Otherwise why am I fighting for territory today? (Meaningful)
That's it :)
One last note:
<3 everyone at Arenanet, and to everyone else in the forums, keep it constructive, always :)

kitten. Must be troll post

What troll post? That's my constructive feedback. Your two sentences are more trolling tbh. I've taken the time to write a full post, and you reply with two newb sentences. Pffft

kafka.1657 · February 10, 2018

My cynical side sees this restructuring as a lucrative means of earning gems from players transferring to stay with their friends. I can't think of any other reason to cap the alliance size at a mere 500.

We are told that the WvW player population averages 2000 - 2500 per server. My above-average server's WvW population is easily double that which means that only ~15% of us will be able to stay together. The other 85% will either accept their relocations or pay a fee to transfer and, if there's space, remain with friends they've run with for 6 years.

Of course, there will always remain that 3rd option of moving on entirely from Guild Wars 2. :'(

Chaba.5410 · February 10, 2018

@kafka.1657 said:players transferring to stay with their friends. I can't think of any other reason to cap the alliance size at a mere 500.

Possibly, but realistically, 500 friends?

Diku.2546 · February 10, 2018

Anet, sorry...but you're going down the wrong path.

kafka.1657 · February 10, 2018

@Chaba.5410 said:
@kafka.1657 said:players transferring to stay with their friends. I can't think of any other reason to cap the alliance size at a mere 500.

Possibly, but realistically, 500 friends?

lol :)

No, the transferring player is not necessarily friends with all 500 alliance members. However, breaking up a large long-standing community into at least 5 or 6 separate alliances will force many players to buy transfers.

MiniMe.1960 · February 10, 2018

After Server linking next crappy idea. I'm not surprised Anet never lets me down on bad decisions.

Euryon.9248 · February 10, 2018

@kafka.1657 said:
@Chaba.5410 said:
@kafka.1657 said:players transferring to stay with their friends. I can't think of any other reason to cap the alliance size at a mere 500.

Possibly, but realistically, 500 friends?

lol :)

No, the transferring player is not necessarily friends with all 500 alliance members. However, breaking up a large long-standing community into

at least

5 or 6 separate alliances will force many players to buy transfers.

OR, maybe they can make do with a couple hundred of their closest friends and make some new ones too. Why would they have to buy transfers to a world that may be full anyway for an 8-week period?

Macilien.3078 · February 10, 2018

A problem (and an opportunity) I see with this new system is accessibility.

I’m in a guild with ca. 400 members of which 10% – 20% actively play WvW. As it is now, if one of our guild members wants to get started with WvW the natural approach is to join one of our guild raids if they are on the same (or a linked) server, else they have to get help from somewhere else or their interest just fizzles out (usually the later).

With the new system a thing I’d like to see is an opportunity for starting (and maybe returning) players to cheaply (ideally for free) join their guild mates.

Conditions could be some or all of these:Transfer is free if

had no transfer in the current season
played no more than 10 hours in the last season
played no more than 10 hours in the current season
WvW-Rank is no more than 149

Dawdler.8521 · February 10, 2018

@"Macilien.3078" said:A problem (and an opportunity) I see with this new system is accessibility.
I’m in a guild with ca. 400 members of which 10% – 20% actively play WvW. As it is now, if one of our guild members wants to get started with WvW the natural approach is to join one of our guild raids if they are on the same (or a linked) server, else they have to get help from somewhere else or their interest just fizzles out (usually the later).
With the new system a thing I’d like to see is an opportunity for starting (and maybe returning) players to cheaply (ideally for free) join their guild mates.
Conditions could be some or all of these:Transfer is free if
had no transfer in the current season
played no more than 10 hours in the last season
played no more than 10 hours in the current season
WvW-Rank is no more than 149
But... It is free :/

Either you:

A) Set the 400 man guild as your WvW guild as is. Everyone will be on the same world, even if people that stopped playing 5 years ago log back on. It's gonna be free to join guild mates (duh, since no one leaves)

B) Trim the fat and create your own alliance. That way you can still be part of a large group if you want to invite several other guilds, while not taking up 400 slots. I am guessing that there will be some extra slots to make sure guilds have some wriggle room (like, if you have a 210 man guild you take up 250 slots). Gonna be free for anyone joining the guild (after the 8 week MMR is over, max 8 weeks wait min 1 week or whatever it is)

C) Leave the guild and make a considerably smaller new WvW guild and join an alliance or roam freely like A). Like B), anyone wanting to join you for free even after the restructure is in place and 8 weeks has started, just join this guild.

It only gonna cost if you are so impatient you need to join right now today in 1 minute. Which as I have said before Anet knows people are but still that's how I understand it will work.

Edit: Point "B" didnt quite work out as intended but kitten it, that works too.

Macilien.3078 · February 10, 2018

@Dawdler.8521 said:
@"Macilien.3078" said:A problem (and an opportunity) I see with this new system is accessibility.
I’m in a guild with ca. 400 members of which 10% – 20% actively play WvW. As it is now, if one of our guild members wants to get started with WvW the natural approach is to join one of our guild raids if they are on the same (or a linked) server, else they have to get help from somewhere else or their interest just fizzles out (usually the later).
With the new system a thing I’d like to see is an opportunity for starting (and maybe returning) players to cheaply (ideally for free) join their guild mates.
Conditions could be some or all of these:Transfer is free if
had no transfer in the current season
played no more than 10 hours in the last season
played no more than 10 hours in the current season
WvW-Rank is no more than 149
But... It is free :/

Either you:

A) Set the 400 man guild as your WvW guild as is. Everyone will be on the same world, even if people that stopped playing 5 years ago log back on. It's gonna be free to join guild mates (duh, since no one leaves)

B) Trim the fat and create your own alliance. That way you can still be part of a large group if you want to invite several other guilds, while not taking up 400 slots. I am guessing that there will be some extra slots to make sure guilds have some wriggle room (like, if you have a 210 man guild you take up 250 slots). Gonna be free for anyone joining the guild (after the 8 week MMR is over, max 8 weeks wait min 1 week or whatever it is)

C) Leave the guild and make a considerably smaller new WvW guild and join an alliance or roam freely like A). Like B), anyone wanting to join you for free even after the restructure is in place and 8 weeks has started, just join this guild.

It only gonna cost if you are so impatient you need to join right now today in 1 minute. Which as I have said before Anet

knows

people are but still that's how I understand it will work.

Edit: Point "B" didnt quite work out as intended but kitten it, that works too.

A: Only those who set their WvW-guild will end up on the same server and it's quite unlikely that people who never (rarely) played WvW will actually set one just in case.

B: We do have a separate guild for our more active WvW-players, but this doesn't help those in the main guild that want to start WvW.

C: What I mean by accessibility is exactly that you don't have to tell people something like: "Great that you want to play WvW, see you in 8 weeks."By that time people likely will have lost interest.

As I see it these people will have little weight in the balancing algorithm anyway and their placement will be rather arbitrary in that regard, so why make it unnecessarily hard for them?

kafka.1657 · February 10, 2018

@Euryon.9248 said:
@kafka.1657 said:
@Chaba.5410 said:
@kafka.1657 said:players transferring to stay with their friends. I can't think of any other reason to cap the alliance size at a mere 500.

Possibly, but realistically, 500 friends?

lol :)

No, the transferring player is not necessarily friends with all 500 alliance members. However, breaking up a large long-standing community into

at least

5 or 6 separate alliances will force many players to buy transfers.

OR, maybe they can make do with a couple hundred of their closest friends and make some new ones too. Why would they have to buy transfers to a world that may be full anyway for an 8-week period?

I like Guild Wars 2 well enough, but I primarily play for the fun of being with a very active server community that even organizes real-life meet-ups a few times each year. I almost envy you if the restructuring is not affecting your community as it is ours.

Sure, many of those left out of their friends' alliances will likely seek new friends rather than pay a transfer fee. Although, many will just as likely seek a new game while they're at it. ...A game where large thriving communities are supported, or at least allowed to remain intact.

Dawdler.8521 · February 10, 2018

@Macilien.3078 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Macilien.3078 said:A problem (and an opportunity) I see with this new system is accessibility.
I’m in a guild with ca. 400 members of which 10% – 20% actively play WvW. As it is now, if one of our guild members wants to get started with WvW the natural approach is to join one of our guild raids if they are on the same (or a linked) server, else they have to get help from somewhere else or their interest just fizzles out (usually the later).
With the new system a thing I’d like to see is an opportunity for starting (and maybe returning) players to cheaply (ideally for free) join their guild mates.
Conditions could be some or all of these:Transfer is free if
had no transfer in the current season
played no more than 10 hours in the last season
played no more than 10 hours in the current season
WvW-Rank is no more than 149
But... It is free :/

Either you:

A) Set the 400 man guild as your WvW guild as is. Everyone will be on the same world, even if people that stopped playing 5 years ago log back on. It's gonna be free to join guild mates (duh, since no one leaves)

B) Trim the fat and create your own alliance. That way you can still be part of a large group if you want to invite several other guilds, while not taking up 400 slots. I am guessing that there will be some extra slots to make sure guilds have some wriggle room (like, if you have a 210 man guild you take up 250 slots). Gonna be free for anyone joining the guild (after the 8 week MMR is over, max 8 weeks wait min 1 week or whatever it is)

C) Leave the guild and make a considerably smaller new WvW guild and join an alliance or roam freely like A). Like B), anyone wanting to join you for free even after the restructure is in place and 8 weeks has started, just join this guild.

It only gonna cost if you are so impatient you need to join right now today in 1 minute. Which as I have said before Anet

knows

people are but still that's how I understand it will work.

Edit: Point "B" didnt quite work out as intended but kitten it, that works too.

A: Only those who set their WvW-guild will end up on the same server and it's quite unlikely that people who never (rarely) played WvW will actually set one just in case.

B: We do have a separate guild for our more active WvW-players, but this doesn't help those in the main guild that want to start WvW.

C: What I mean by accessibility is exactly that you don't have to tell people something like: "Great that you want to play WvW, see you in 8 weeks."By that time people likely will have lost interest.

As I see it these people will have little weight in the balancing algorithm anyway and their placement will be rather arbitrary in that regard, so why make it unnecessarily hard for them?If people loose interest over 8 weeks then what's even the point of arguing? They wont bother playing WvW with you anyway. Also why are you worrying about people not setting their WvW guild due to inactivity? The matchup obviously doesnt matter to them anyway. Either they dont care about where or with who they play or what, they left in 2013 and come in back in 2018 going "omg what is this 8 weeks I cant wait for that long I quit shit game!"?

The question was, is there free transfer. The answer was yes with a delay. Instant would cost. Nothing is made unnecessarily hard on anyone. Well, unless Anet want to introduce a gem cost to joining a guild. Which would be truly evil.

kafka.1657 · February 10, 2018

@"Dawdler.8521" said:
The question was, is there free transfer. The answer was yes with a delay.
Indeed, with a brief 2-month "delay" it would be free. ;)

Strider Pj.2193 · February 10, 2018

Almost at 100k views..... dang...

Macilien.3078 · February 10, 2018

@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Macilien.3078 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Macilien.3078 said:A problem (and an opportunity) I see with this new system is accessibility.
I’m in a guild with ca. 400 members of which 10% – 20% actively play WvW. As it is now, if one of our guild members wants to get started with WvW the natural approach is to join one of our guild raids if they are on the same (or a linked) server, else they have to get help from somewhere else or their interest just fizzles out (usually the later).
With the new system a thing I’d like to see is an opportunity for starting (and maybe returning) players to cheaply (ideally for free) join their guild mates.
Conditions could be some or all of these:Transfer is free if
had no transfer in the current season
played no more than 10 hours in the last season
played no more than 10 hours in the current season
WvW-Rank is no more than 149
But... It is free :/

Either you:

A) Set the 400 man guild as your WvW guild as is. Everyone will be on the same world, even if people that stopped playing 5 years ago log back on. It's gonna be free to join guild mates (duh, since no one leaves)

B) Trim the fat and create your own alliance. That way you can still be part of a large group if you want to invite several other guilds, while not taking up 400 slots. I am guessing that there will be some extra slots to make sure guilds have some wriggle room (like, if you have a 210 man guild you take up 250 slots). Gonna be free for anyone joining the guild (after the 8 week MMR is over, max 8 weeks wait min 1 week or whatever it is)

C) Leave the guild and make a considerably smaller new WvW guild and join an alliance or roam freely like A). Like B), anyone wanting to join you for free even after the restructure is in place and 8 weeks has started, just join this guild.

It only gonna cost if you are so impatient you need to join right now today in 1 minute. Which as I have said before Anet

knows

people are but still that's how I understand it will work.

Edit: Point "B" didnt quite work out as intended but kitten it, that works too.

A: Only those who set their WvW-guild will end up on the same server and it's quite unlikely that people who never (rarely) played WvW will actually set one just in case.

B: We do have a separate guild for our more active WvW-players, but this doesn't help those in the main guild that want to start WvW.

C: What I mean by accessibility is exactly that you don't have to tell people something like: "Great that you want to play WvW, see you in 8 weeks."By that time people likely will have lost interest.

As I see it these people will have little weight in the balancing algorithm anyway and their placement will be rather arbitrary in that regard, so why make it unnecessarily hard for them?If people loose interest over 8 weeks then what's even the point of arguing? They wont bother playing WvW with you anyway. Also why are you worrying about people not setting their WvW guild due to inactivity? The matchup obviously doesnt matter to them anyway. Either they dont care about where or with who they play or what, they left in 2013 and come in back in 2018 going "omg what is this 8 weeks I cant wait for that long I quit kitten game!"?

The question was, is there free transfer. The answer was yes with a delay. Instant would cost. Nothing is made unnecessarily hard on anyone. Well, unless Anet want to introduce a gem cost to joining a guild. Which would be truly evil.

The problem is simply that it's quite hard to keep someone enthusiastic about a gamemode they can't play (properly) for the duration of 8 weeks.

The question never was whether you can transfer for free, but under which circumstances it should be free and instant and in my eyes getting new players into the gamemode is quite a good reason.

Euryon.9248 · February 10, 2018

@Macilien.3078 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Macilien.3078 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Macilien.3078 said:A problem (and an opportunity) I see with this new system is accessibility.
I’m in a guild with ca. 400 members of which 10% – 20% actively play WvW. As it is now, if one of our guild members wants to get started with WvW the natural approach is to join one of our guild raids if they are on the same (or a linked) server, else they have to get help from somewhere else or their interest just fizzles out (usually the later).
With the new system a thing I’d like to see is an opportunity for starting (and maybe returning) players to cheaply (ideally for free) join their guild mates.
Conditions could be some or all of these:Transfer is free if
had no transfer in the current season
played no more than 10 hours in the last season
played no more than 10 hours in the current season
WvW-Rank is no more than 149
But... It is free :/