World Restructuring

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

@Caliburn.1845 said:I think a lot of people don't fully understand that WvW right now is very stratified and exclusive because for most of us winning does not matter, if anything many of us try to avoid winning. So we run closed, try to shake pugs, and look for the fights we consider quality.

All these fears about guilds being super exclusive, and toxic, and kicking people to the curb are sort of silly when we see that numerous guilds and some entire servers are ALREADY LIKE THIS.

Exactly my point.

[Caliburn.1845]

@hunkamania.7561 said:

@Caliburn.1845 said:

@hunkamania.7561 said:

@Caliburn.1845 said:

If alliances succeed in making people care about winning,

Where did it say that alliances would make people care about winning? It's just a population balance is all I got from it unless there's some info i didn't see.

The excuse a lot of people use for not playing to win is population balance. "We can't win, they just have more people than us etc etc." Take the population balance problem away, make everyone(at least early on) think they have a chance to be #1, and you'll see people try to win the week again.

Just ask someone like Xushin, he is already sniffing around talking to off-hour guilds for his potential alliance. And he is not alone.

Number 1 for what? You get nothing for winning. Balance doesn't change the waste of time with no reward ppt is. Xushin is a PPT guy still to this day so he's always gonna be about coverage and all that stuff.

You don't care care about being #1, and I don't care. But you have to admit that WvW works better, people play more and put in longer hours, when they want to win. Or they are under the illusion that winning matters. If population balance and alliances are done correctly, then as the 8-week cycle progresses(if your alliance+world advances up the ranks) you'll find more and tougher fights. Which is primarily what those of us who don't care about winning do want.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Diku.2546 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

In spvp, pro/league bound teams on TS bent on getting to the top of the leaderboards at any cost trounced solo "hot join" pugs and other loosely organized players. They trounced them and sped to the top.

Why do you drawn an analogy between small sPvP teams where an entire team could enter a match together (not anymore) and essentially "force" out any hotjoins on that team with a World which will be composed of hotjoins plus allied players?

---

Hope this helps to shed some light on this topic. I'd like to quote a famous swordsman.

“Know the smallest things and the biggest things, the shallowest things and the deepest things. As if it were a straight road mapped out on the ground, the first book is called the Ground book.”

---

Also, another good reference is "Crossing the Ford".

"In strategy also it is important to "cross at a ford". Discern the enemy's capabilityand, knowing your own strong points, "cross the ford" at the advantageous place, as agood captain crosses a sea route. If you succeed in crossing at the best place, you maytake your ease. To cross at a ford means to attack the enemy's weak point, and to putyourself in an advantageous position. This is how to win in large-scale strategy. The spiritof crossing at a ford is necessary in both large — and small-scale strategy.

You must research this well. "

---

Book of Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashi

https://www.nateliason.com/lessons/book-five-rings-miyamoto-musashi/

What?

The Restructuring information says all Worlds will be composed of hotjoin pugs, guilds, and alliances. Are you agreeing with Eater of Peeps that a few Worlds will be like a full 5-man sPvP team without hotjoins and other Worlds will be only composed of hotjoin pugs? If you have something to say, you should say it directly instead of trying to be cryptic about it.

This new change is no differnt from season 1 of pvp. If someone is a pug and they want to play with good alliances? WHats to stop an individual from tanking their rating for 8 weeks so the following 8 weeks they get to play with good alliances? Or in the sense of an alliance, whats to stop an alliance from deliberately tanking their rating in order to fight against weaker alliances they can then trounce. How is this even a solution? They already tried this and it failed spectacularly in spvp.

It's very different. There will be at most 2 alliances which will make up 40% of the 'world'. I.e. Based on your analogy: 2 out of 5 sPvP spots. The remainder will be made up of essentially HoT joins.

The analogy doesn't work.

It does work, If someone deliberately tanks their personal ranking, they will be placed on wvw maps in the next 8 weeks with the best alliances. Its theoretically possible that if you tank your personal wvw rating far enough, you might get to play with good alliances for the next 2-3 wvw matchup changes. This is what people did in spvp, to get an advantage, and it worked and anet was forced to change it.

The post above this one from @Auri.1365 explains that placement will be based on play hours per the FAQs. There is no personal ranking system other than WvW ranks, which, in either case, would move the experienced PUGs into worlds with less successful Alliances if what you atebstating is used forMatchups.

You can't tank your WvW ranks. You could tank play hours, but most vets don't want that.

And let's, for arguments sake, say people do, you would get 8 weeks of that, but then they would be bumped for the next 8 weeks.

Or they would try to join a guild in the Alliance,

There will be ways to game the alliances, if people want to, much like the way people games the current system and the links.

But it won't be to the detriment of PUGs any more than if the guilds.

It didn't work in spvp when they tried it the first time at all, I fail to see how this is any different at all, Simply saying that people aren't interested in doing this doesn't mean they wont. For all you know since this change eliminates server rankings, because there are no servers, which in turn makes PPTs a fairly useless system that's only useful in telling which color team on that specific wvw instance is winning for that 8 weeks, they might assign ranking to alliances that are made publicly visible to all. LIke this alliance is number 1 and this is number 2 ect. ect. (we already know they are doing this in some hidden manner to some extent in order to place alliances in certain worlds in order to balance the playerbase.) If they do this then people will definitely game this system in the same manner they did in spvp, because these alliances will want to be number 1 as well as all the individual players in them.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:And if you can't get into a solid 500-player alliance? This seems soo risky, leaving the fate of players experience and sense of belonging in wvw, an open game mode, at the whim and sole discretion of guild leaders, who we all have to make nice with now or else. I just don't understand how anet could make such a decision and not factor this glaring variable in.

Why do you want to play with these people?

I don't like socializing in a guild setting, I don't like people telling me what to do or how to play. I enjoy the familiarity that a server brings and playing with these players on the server but not socializing with them or having them tell me what to do or how to play. When you join a guild, they expect you to interact which I don't want to do, they also expect a ton of other rules, show up this time per week, make sure you rep our guild, respect our officers and guild members, don't say things we dont like ect. ect. ect. I don't want to adhere to this just to play a game mode and enjoy the comradere I have with players in the manner I have it, uninterrupted for the past 6 years in a game mode that should be open to everyone and not moderated or disrupted by the whims of a guild leader/officers or other individuals. I shouldn't have to adhere to these rules made up by a guild leader just to play with the few acquaintances I have made without being cast to the winds. I enjoy playing with other players, but not getting too close and certainly not socializing in a manner in which I am required to play nice and reign in my views on everything or else.

An open game mode, and our capacity to enjoy a cohesive familiar environment that we have enjoyed for the last 6 years will now be dependent on our social skills and our desire to socialize, and I don't agree with this change.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Yah and what if you day something they don't like, or bring a build they don't like, or don't adhere to everything they say? Now with the new system you'll be scattered to the winds. Seems like a pretty harsh punishment, and the guilds have too much power.

No. You'll be in their world for the remainder of the 8 week matchup.

If you are in a guild, then getting kicked from a guild happens.

right and cast to the winds like I said, and all cohesion that you have left (your guild members) is lost and now its Eotm for you. compare that to now we have servers and a community, with this change, it will be the end of all community, and your sense of community will be dictated by the whims of a guild leader/officer, so like I said, they have too much power.

Well yeah if the approach to community is that the community you refuse to be part of must support you because you consider it a right to be part of it despite refusing to be part of it, there's gonna be a problem.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:And if you can't get into a solid 500-player alliance? This seems soo risky, leaving the fate of players experience and sense of belonging in wvw, an open game mode, at the whim and sole discretion of guild leaders, who we all have to make nice with now or else. I just don't understand how anet could make such a decision and not factor this glaring variable in.

Why do you want to play with these people?

I don't like socializing in a guild setting, I don't like people telling me what to do or how to play. I enjoy the familiarity that a server brings and playing with these players on the server but not socializing with them or having them tell me what to do or how to play. When you join a guild, they expect you to interact which I don't want to do, they also expect a ton of other rules, show up this time per week, make sure you rep our guild, respect our officers and guild members, don't say things we dont like ect. ect. ect. I don't want to adhere to this just to play a game mode and enjoy the comradere I have with players in the manner I have it, uninterrupted for the past 6 years in a game mode that should be open to everyone and not moderated or disrupted by the whims of a guild leader/officers or other individuals. I shouldn't have to adhere to these rules made up by a guild leader just to play with the few acquaintances I have made without being cast to the winds. I enjoy playing with other players, but not getting too close and certainly not socializing in a manner in which I am required to play nice and reign in my views on everything or else.

An open game mode, and our capacity to enjoy a cohesive familiar environment that we have enjoyed for the last 6 years will now be dependent on our social skills and our desire to socialize, and I don't agree with this change.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Yah and what if you day something they don't like, or bring a build they don't like, or don't adhere to everything they say? Now with the new system you'll be scattered to the winds. Seems like a pretty harsh punishment, and the guilds have too much power.

No. You'll be in their world for the remainder of the 8 week matchup.

If you are in a guild, then getting kicked from a guild happens.

right and cast to the winds like I said, and all cohesion that you have left (your guild members) is lost and now its Eotm for you. compare that to now we have servers and a community, with this change, it will be the end of all community, and your sense of community will be dictated by the whims of a guild leader/officer, so like I said, they have too much power.

Well yeah if the approach to community is that the community you refuse to be part of must support you because you consider it a right to be part of it despite refusing to be part of it, there's gonna be a problem.

It's only a problem if you have a problem with authority and made up rules that guild leaders make up that are usually quite restrictive or oppressive in certain situations, like mandatory repping of that guild only, or mandatory TS, or mandatory that you play in their squad only, or mandatory that you play a certain number of hours a week, or sometimes donate money a certain amount a week so they can do whatever with it. I mean whats to stop guild leaders from doing this? Nothing the advice is to simply quit when they do, and now when you do with this new change, you can say goodbye to all of your friends in the guild because 1 guild leader or officer dosen't like you and its off to oblivion to never play with you're friends or comrades or acquaintances again, because after 8 weeks is up, your off to some random wvw map where you cannot play with them anymore. The guild leaders are getting more power then they currently have right now over other players, and I don't think its right. Where is the protection for pugs who don't want to join alliances or guilds or even guild members who might not like their guild leaders, where is our compromise or solution for maintaining a cohesive/familiar wvw environment/experience that isn't dictated by the whims of small group of individuals?

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

It's only a problem if you have a problem with authority and made up rules that guild leaders make up that are usually quite restrictive or oppressive in certain situations, like mandatory repping of that guild only, or mandatory TS, or mandatory that you play in their squad only, or mandatory that you play a certain number of hours a week, or sometimes donate money a certain amount a week so they can do whatever with it. I mean whats to stop guild leaders from doing this? Nothing the advice is to simply quit when they do, and now when you do with this new change, you can say goodbye to all of your friends in the guild because 1 guild leader or officer dosen't like you and its off to oblivion to never play with you're friends or comrades or acquaintances again. See they guild leaders are getting more power then they currently have right now, and I don't think its right. Where is the protection for pugs who don't want to join alliances or guilds or even guild members who might not like their guild leaders, where is our compromise or solution?

Guild leaders still have this power today. when they kick people and transfer off a said server. Its in reality no different. Considering a pug can transfer despite alliances to play with whom they want. Kicking them out of a guild doesn't boot them off the server until the end of week 8. The matchmaking system would take your friends and who you play with into account, as the mega world system already does when it places you in an Lions Arch.

[Chaba.5410]

@Eater of Peeps.9062 said:

@"Chaba.5410" said:"Why do you say all those guilds in your example are fighting guilds?"

Because that was the example I formulated to illustrate my point.

"What is it about restructuring that you suggest will prevent anything other than fighting guilds?"

I didn't suggest this - you did.

Oh. I assumed that since we are talking about the WvW restructuring, you are trying to make an argument against the restructuring based on the idea that only fighting guilds would be the only tags on a map.

"Your example sounds way too hypothetical."

It was hypothetical - I don't understand how a perfectly valid possible scenario can be "too hypothetical." I am not sure what that means as I don't know how a hypothetical can be too much of a hypothetical.

A theorycrafted example isn't "perfectly valid". A "perfectly valid" example would be taken from real-time analysis of how players play the game right now. I provided an example from what actually happened on Saturday, not something I made up. I can't see the restructuring as preventing anything like the pug squad I experienced on Saturday from occurring so I don't understand why you say that pug vs. guild experience will only be different once restructuring occurs.

"I have suggested a random assignment free-for-all for everyone - you can meet up with your guildies once assigned. Open squads for everyone - everything random. It would definitely be more challenging/vibrant = it would be all inclusive and everyone working 24/7 to win. Isn't this the goal, to revitalize, rather than to impose an exclusionary punitive system that will result in more attrition and cliquishness."

"We don't know how Anet plans to form teams other than through consideration of participation levels, play hours, etc. Why do you think that randomness would lead to inclusiveness and teamwork? Can you give an example where randomness leads to kumbaya? I doubt very much that all players would suddenly change their behaviors and attitudes and become team players just because they were randomly assigned. This sounds like the topic of many a fiction story, like strangers on an airplane that crashes on an island that holds mysterious secrets."

Because then everyone is working towards the same goal - winning - and no one is feeling excluded or kicked to the curb because guilds won't take them (since guilds would be mandatory if a player wants to be part of a squad as all squads will most likely be closed either due to exclusionary rules or due to maximum fill/size, and guild joining would be mandatory if a player wants to be as effective as possible/not die as often/obtain maximum protections (for the same reasons)).

You seem to be making a leap from "randomized teams" -> "everyone working towards the same goal". What is it about randomized teams that magically makes everyone want to play the same way? Have you considered that players immediately begin to differentiate themselves by perceived willingness to organize/socialize/improve when random teams are formed? How does having a randomized team prevent that from occurring?

[Chaba.5410]

@Eater of Peeps.9062 said:

@Caliburn.1845 said:I think a lot of people don't fully understand that WvW right now is very stratified and exclusive because for most of us winning does not matter, if anything many of us try to avoid winning. So we run closed, try to shake pugs, and look for the fights we consider quality.

All these fears about guilds being super exclusive, and toxic, and kicking people to the curb are sort of silly when we see that numerous guilds and some entire servers are ALREADY LIKE THIS.

Exactly my point.

I didn't see that as your point. I see you arguing against the WvW restructuring based on things that already happen with server-based WvW, as if they don't exist now but will be introduced with the restructuring. That to me doesn't sound like a reason to oppose restructuring.

[Diku.2546]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@"Diku.2546" said:I'd like to apologize for being cryptic, but I'm referencing a famous & well-know swordsman's teaching.

Miyamoto Mushashi's Book of Five Rings....is a very literal documentation of his life's wisdom as a warrior.

I hope I don't muddle up what Miyamoto Mushashi is saying below with my edits....but here goes:

---

Know the small things & big things.

How to win in large-scale applies to small-scale. Reverse can be said to be true.

As Miyamoto Musashi tried to impart to his followers regarding "His Way" (Heiho).

"You must research this well. "

---

Strategy: "Heiho" is a word of Chinese derivation meaning military strategy. "Hei" means soldier and "Ho" meansmethod or form.

I expect he is advocating the idea he presented in the last forum iteration in which he was asked to stop posting it.

---

This post has nothing to do with what I'm advocating & your insensitive post wasn't nice at all.

Miyamoto Musashi wrote down the wisdom he gained on how he survived in spite of any given situation...in the Book of Five Rings.

Please read the below with respect...the wisdom below was gleaned from surviving many small & large battles that left many samurai dead.

---

"Crossing the Ford".

"In strategy also it is important to "cross at a ford". Discern the enemy's capabilityand, knowing your own strong points, "cross the ford" at the advantageous place, as agood captain crosses a sea route. If you succeed in crossing at the best place, you maytake your ease. To cross at a ford means to attack the enemy's weak point, and to putyourself in an advantageous position. This is how to win in large-scale strategy. The spiritof crossing at a ford is necessary in both large — and small-scale strategy.

You must research this well. "

Book of Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashihttps://archive.org/stream/MiyamotoMusashi-BookOfFiveRingsgoRinNoSho/Book_of_Five_Rings_djvu.txt

---

My post was meant to shed light on strategies that win in sPvP can equally be applied to strategies to win in WvW.

What happened to sPvP can be a good indicator of what can happen to WvW...this is what I was trying to say.

Yours truly,Diku

[Chaba.5410]

@Diku.2546 said:My post was meant to shed light on strategies that win in sPvP can equally be applied to strategies to win in WvW.

What happened to sPvP can be a good indicator of what can happen to WvW...this is what I was trying to say.

Yours truly,Diku

OK, but the rules of how teams are formed in sPvP and how individuals are rated are different from WvW, and will remain different. So strategies that were used in sPvP won't automatically be equally applied in WvW.

[Diku.2546]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Diku.2546 said:My post was meant to shed light on strategies that win in sPvP can equally be applied to strategies to win in WvW.

What happened to sPvP can be a good indicator of what can happen to WvW...this is what I was trying to say.

Yours truly,Diku

OK, but the rules of how teams are formed in sPvP and how individuals are rated are different from WvW, and will remain different. So strategies that were used in sPvP won't automatically be equally applied in WvW.

---

Let's agree to disagree. We can later look back & say who had more wisdom after the cards have fallen.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

It's only a problem if you have a problem with authority and made up rules that guild leaders make up that are usually quite restrictive or oppressive in certain situations, like mandatory repping of that guild only, or mandatory TS, or mandatory that you play in their squad only, or mandatory that you play a certain number of hours a week, or sometimes donate money a certain amount a week so they can do whatever with it. I mean whats to stop guild leaders from doing this? Nothing the advice is to simply quit when they do, and now when you do with this new change, you can say goodbye to all of your friends in the guild because 1 guild leader or officer dosen't like you and its off to oblivion to never play with you're friends or comrades or acquaintances again. See they guild leaders are getting more power then they currently have right now, and I don't think its right. Where is the protection for pugs who don't want to join alliances or guilds or even guild members who might not like their guild leaders, where is our compromise or solution?

Guild leaders still have this power today. when they kick people and transfer off a said server. Its in reality no different. Considering a pug can transfer despite alliances to play with whom they want. Kicking them out of a guild doesn't boot them off the server until the end of week 8. The matchmaking system would take your friends and who you play with into account, as the mega world system already does when it places you in an Lions Arch.

Currently if you get kicked out of your wvw, guild you can still play with your friends because they are on the same server as you, with the new system, if you get kicked out of your wvw guild, after 8 weeks when the wvw matches reset, that will no longer be the case.

[Chaba.5410]

@Diku.2546 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Diku.2546 said:My post was meant to shed light on strategies that win in sPvP can equally be applied to strategies to win in WvW.

What happened to sPvP can be a good indicator of what can happen to WvW...this is what I was trying to say.

Yours truly,Diku

OK, but the rules of how teams are formed in sPvP and how individuals are rated are different from WvW, and will remain different. So strategies that were used in sPvP won't automatically be equally applied in WvW.

---

Let's agree to disagree. We can later look back & say who had more wisdom after the cards have fallen.

I wouldn't say more wisdom. I'd say more thorough recognition of the mechanics differences between sPvP and WvW.

[Waffle.3748]

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

I don't understand. A pug playing without a guild is supporting the alliance just as much as the guild is supporting the alliance. A pug playing without a guild is supporting the guild squad as much as guild members in the squad are - except the poor guildless pug is dying more/getting less protections from the squad he/she is running alongside, thus making it much more frustrating for the pug. Why should the pug have to join the guild in order to receive the protections of the squad when the whole point of the squad is to support the alliance (just like the pug) and win (just like the pug).

And that's great for the pug that they want to support their alliance/world. The pug could also join an open pug tag, or open guild raid. Not all guild raids are closed. The "whole point of the squad" is not to support the alliance. The point of a squad is to facilitate a party system for a greater number of players than 5, that's it. If the pug is insistent on running alongside a closed guild raid they should take a more cautious playstyle or safer class/build to survive. One alliance is not going to be enough to dictate how the rest of the world plays for 8 weeks, there are going to be plenty of other guilds or even a whole other alliance in the matchup that will likely have open squads or pugmanders that pugs can play with.

Also, why shouldn't the guild support all players? The goal is to be nice and allow all casual play and win. The pug is supporting the guild by playing. Why shouldn't the guild have to reciprocate. We don't want to have exclusion or elitism going on or encouraged. This is why self policing by guilds who are competitive and want to win is not a good idea as it will come at the expense of guildless players and solo pugs.

Because they are allowed to play how they want? People have different goals in the game, you know. Maybe that closed guild raid just wants to chill together and play. If you want to start an open pug tag all you need is a commander tag. Have you considered that guilds need their own time together to play and have fun with each other? Why are you trying to stifle their way of playing by forcing them to play with people they might not want to? Guildless players and solo pugs are not on the mind of guilds that are running a closed squad, as they are wanting to play AS A GUILD by themselves most of the time.

Also, I am not sure what you mean by "you consider it a right to be part of it" (ie - the guild community) means. No one is asking for the right to be part of a guild, in fact, it appears the person you were addressing was advocating for not being forced to play with a guild to have a meaningful/not hollow wvw experience under the new system and to have a place in the new alliances worlds as a solo guildless pug (where running alongside a zerg ala EOTM is the only option).

If the pug cannot make friends/acquaintances in 8 entire weeks, there are other problems to work on. Many server communities will have a large open guild that anyone can join to stay with them if they enjoy playing together as well. If you don't want to join a guild, that's fine. You'll just be assigned a new world after 8 weeks. Perhaps moving around you will find a guild/group that you enjoy playing with and join them.

[HazyDaisy.4107]

They're not talking about every pug, just the ones that have been lucky enough to not have to worry about uncertainty up until now.

[Diku.2546]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Diku.2546 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Diku.2546 said:My post was meant to shed light on strategies that win in sPvP can equally be applied to strategies to win in WvW.

What happened to sPvP can be a good indicator of what can happen to WvW...this is what I was trying to say.

Yours truly,Diku

OK, but the rules of how teams are formed in sPvP and how individuals are rated are different from WvW, and will remain different. So strategies that were used in sPvP won't automatically be equally applied in WvW.

---

Let's agree to disagree. We can later look back & say who had more wisdom after the cards have fallen.

I wouldn't say more wisdom. I'd say more thorough recognition of the mechanics differences between sPvP and WvW.

Let's just continue to agree to disagree.

---

We are probably talking about the same thing...talking about the individual details of the trees & the other talks about the different group patterns of trees in a forest.

The wisdom that I'm referring to was gleaned from Miyamoto Musashi surviving many small & large battles that left many samurai dead.

I'm hoping to encourage folks to see from a different perspective to understanding How to Win...in Small scale & Large scale.

What patterns you learn in small-scale....based on Miyamoto's wisdom...can be applied to the large-scale.

Players will attack the enemy's weak point & put themselves in an advantageous position.

"Crossing the Ford" is a basic strategy that manifests as "Over-Stacking" in WvW.

We already have an example of sPvP "Crossing the Ford" in relation to the game mode, but the future of WvW can very well depend on past results that occurred in sPvP.

How we deal with this fundamental behavior will allow us to create a Healthy Competitive game mode, or we'll end up with too much match-up manipulation going on behind the scenes that will prevent us from ever having a Healthy Competitive game mode.

---

"Crossing the Ford".

"In strategy also it is important to "cross at a ford". Discern the enemy's capabilityand, knowing your own strong points, "cross the ford" at the advantageous place, as agood captain crosses a sea route. If you succeed in crossing at the best place, you maytake your ease. To cross at a ford means to attack the enemy's weak point, and to putyourself in an advantageous position. This is how to win in large-scale strategy. The spiritof crossing at a ford is necessary in both large — and small-scale strategy.

You must research this well. "

Book of Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashihttps://archive.org/stream/MiyamotoMusashi-BookOfFiveRingsgoRinNoSho/Book_of_Five_Rings_djvu.txt

---

Let me also reference another famous & well known soldier from more recent times named G.I. Joe:

Knowing is half the battle...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-castrucci/what-i-know-from-gi-joe-k_b_9403372.html

G.I. Joe emphasized the use of knowledge to acquire an advantageous position when engaging the enemy.

It can be further emphasized that the use of knowledge can even be applied to winning in our normal daily lives. :)

If you found this post informative...please take a look at some of my old posts that can hopefully provide knowledge...where "Knowing is half the battle".

---

How Not to "Cross the Ford"

Washington Crossing the Delaware - GEICOhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH9yvMGeHfo

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

It's only a problem if you have a problem with authority and made up rules that guild leaders make up that are usually quite restrictive or oppressive in certain situations, like mandatory repping of that guild only, or mandatory TS, or mandatory that you play in their squad only, or mandatory that you play a certain number of hours a week, or sometimes donate money a certain amount a week so they can do whatever with it. I mean whats to stop guild leaders from doing this? Nothing the advice is to simply quit when they do, and now when you do with this new change, you can say goodbye to all of your friends in the guild because 1 guild leader or officer dosen't like you and its off to oblivion to never play with you're friends or comrades or acquaintances again. See they guild leaders are getting more power then they currently have right now, and I don't think its right. Where is the protection for pugs who don't want to join alliances or guilds or even guild members who might not like their guild leaders, where is our compromise or solution?

Guild leaders still have this power today. when they kick people and transfer off a said server. Its in reality no different. Considering a pug can transfer despite alliances to play with whom they want. Kicking them out of a guild doesn't boot them off the server until the end of week 8. The matchmaking system would take your friends and who you play with into account, as the mega world system already does when it places you in an Lions Arch.

Currently if you get kicked out of your wvw, guild you can still play with your friends because they are on the same server as you, with the new system, if you get kicked out of your wvw guild, after 8 weeks when the wvw matches reset, that will no longer be the case.Thats what I just said. But you are still match made as an individual based on whom you play with. So the chances of you still being on the same world after the reshuffle given your example is still pretty high. Even if it messes up, you can still transfer as Arena Net pointed out.

[Shining One.1635]

@HazyDaisy.4107 said:They're not talking about every pug, just the ones that have been lucky enough to not have to worry about uncertainty up until now.This is a good point. Pugs on most larger hosts would not have had to deal with any major changes. I'm a pug on a medium link, so I'm used to the changes. I've come to enjoy the variety. I just spent the last couple hours roaming, havocing, and zerging with guys I spent the previous week fighting against. It was a blast! I can't figure out what part of the WvW experience I'm missing out on.

[LetoII.3782]

@Shining One.1635 said:I can't figure out what part of the WvW experience I'm missing out on.Just the part where you open the scoreboard to feel superior.It's silly I agree but A LOT of mmorpg players seem to need that ego boost.

[Selwynn.2758]

I've been Jade Quarry since beta, and wvw is 100% of my game time. This change takes all the love and pride had for JQ and all the joy, pain sweat tears and success I've shared with a community that maintained world pride even through the dark time... And took a fat dump right in its mouth.

[Selwynn.2758]

Sounds absolutely awful, and caters to pve and spvpers who think everything should be an artifically maintained esport rather than a living breathing world where imbalance happens and you deal with it and bond over it. You talk about lack of server pride, but that's Exactly what I had, on Jade Quarry, the server I ever played on since literally beta. My friends extend beyond my guild. It includes many people who have been on the server forever. Some times individual people, not even part of a guild but connected just the same. And it includes people from all over the world, even speaking different languages. Trying to preserve those connections in a 500-1000 person alliance will never happen. Perhaps this will be a great new thing for people who don't already have a deep connection to a core community, but for me it means the final death of everything I loved in the game. WvW was life to me and server pride was the only thing that distinguished this from anything else. So, so long.

[Kraggy.4169]

So for those of us (the majority?) who don't WvW we get to lose our attachment to the world and other players we've known for years and get scattered to the four winds to appease the WvWers who endlessly complain about 'balance'.

Have I got that right?

Several posters have pointed out the obvious flaws in this 'brave new world' which will mean ANet's plans will end up achieving the same nothing as they've managed to achieve for WvW 'balance' over the years leading up to this point, and in the process will destroy world communities which mean a lot some of us who have zero interest in WvW.

[Caliburn.1845]

No, you don't have it right. You lost those world communities when megaservers went in.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Selwynn.2758" said:Sounds absolutely awful, and caters to pve and spvpers who think everything should be an artifically maintained esport rather than a living breathing world where imbalance happens and you deal with it and bond over it. You talk about lack of server pride, but that's Exactly what I had, on Jade Quarry, the server I ever played on since literally beta. My friends extend beyond my guild. It includes many people who have been on the server forever. Some times individual people, not even part of a guild but connected just the same. And it includes people from all over the world, even speaking different languages. Trying to preserve those connections in a 500-1000 person alliance will never happen. Perhaps this will be a great new thing for people who don't already have a deep connection to a core community, but for me it means the final death of everything I loved in the game. WvW was life to me and server pride was the only thing that distinguished this from anything else. So, so long.

So how many of these "friends" could you name off hand? 15? 25? 50? How many are "many", really? Or what, are we talking several thousands? Do you know the entire server so well you can name everyone? And even if you do... how many of them care about you? How many even want to play with you? People seem to look at it from one singular point of view - their own, as if all other players are just there to serve them and their pleasure.

I doubt many will have "friends" exceeding 50 people out of the thousands on an average server. The core community is probably tiny to begin with. Even on Far Shiverpeaks which I think have a great and fairly sizeable community, lots of regulars... I could name like 10 peeps I "know" off hand and maybe 4-5 guilds where I basicly only know a few people in each. Hell I could barely name 10 people in the community guild I am already part of. And some of the guilds went away yesterday too, so the list of guilds and people already went down. I dont see how new alliances or community guilds will be limited by this.

I also find it amusing that people talk as if the change is already implemented. If you are this fixed on the death of WvW for you, it doesnt matter anymore. You've already decided no matter how it turns out. It's already dead to you. You've given up. And that's kind of sad I guess.

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Eater of Peeps.9062 said:

@"Caliburn.1845" said:I think a lot of people don't fully understand that WvW right now is very stratified and exclusive because for most of us winning does not matter, if anything many of us try to avoid winning. So we run closed, try to shake pugs, and look for the fights we consider quality.

All these fears about guilds being super exclusive, and toxic, and kicking people to the curb are sort of silly when we see that numerous guilds and some entire servers are ALREADY LIKE THIS.

Exactly my point.

I didn't see that as your point. I see you arguing against the WvW restructuring based on things that already happen with server-based WvW, as if they don't exist now but will be introduced with the restructuring. That to me doesn't sound like a reason to oppose restructuring.

It is my point. The proposed solution will intensify/highlight/worsen the existing problems within wvw now, not alleviate them.

I am not against restructuring wvw - I am all for that. And I think with some minimal tweaking to the overall proposed system, many of the problems many of us on here are worried about can be adjusted/avoided - for example, allowing closed squads only after the numbers hit 45 out of 50 - or not giving guild leaders absolute power over their guild mates since doing so in the proposed system could potentially result in someone being ousted from a guild (or theoretically, all guilds) and have nowhere to go = EOTM, etc. or not allowing boots from guilds without cause or providing pugs with some rights separate and apart from/in addition to the "rights"/powers so freely proposed for guild leaders.

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Diku.2546 said:My post was meant to shed light on strategies that win in sPvP can equally be applied to strategies to win in WvW.

What happened to sPvP can be a good indicator of what can happen to WvW...this is what I was trying to say.

Yours truly,Diku

OK, but the rules of how teams are formed in sPvP and how individuals are rated are different from WvW, and will remain different. So strategies that were used in sPvP won't automatically be equally applied in WvW.

We don't know what algorithms anet will use to place pugs/guilds/alliances into worlds during each matchup period. I'm pretty sure this poster is advocating anet be wary of not using the same type(s) of algorithms in the new wvw that were utilized in spvp as that resulted in huge attrition and many disgruntled/demoralized players.

It seems pretty obvious that anet is considering some type of ranking system since they have openly acknowledged that more seasoned vet pugs (hours played being one factor) will be paired with less seasoned guilds for balance (how fun for those pugs - teaching again, endlessly - just like in spvp - and when they grow frustrated with teaching guilds they drop out of those guilds and now run aimless EOTM mode and then they grow disinterested in the game mode altogether) - this approach could be nothing more than a repeat of the spvp fiasco - which I am sure ardent lovers of this game want to avoid.

That's all that is being said in here by those you characterize as being opposed to restructuring.

I for one cant understand why you are being so threatened by or vocal about our legitimate protests made in anticipation of a system which could, if not done carefully, be a rinse and repeat of the obviously flawed spvp system. We are trying to make anet aware in advance of implementation of issues that could prove mode breaking. No one wants that.

As long as we are heard, which is what Gaile asked us all to do, and anet at least considers our perspectives/concerns and implements something to avoid what we fear, then that is all we ask for. Why you should be constantly attacking our concerns in a post that is asking to state our views I will never understand. We ae entitled to our opinions -- our concerns for the new game mode are legitimate. Someone needs to speak on behalf of pugs (especially those who prefer to run guildless) since the guilds' positions are always advocated/considered/implemented, and as we have seen, that is not necessarily optimal for the game.