World Restructuring

[Diku.2546]

Imagine after being 1st for over 5 years...BlackGate suffers being in 3rd place boo boo.

Get rid of the Fixed Tiers with the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places & make it into a King of the Hill battle...where only 1 Server can be Ranked 1st among All Servers for EU or NA.

Nobody likes being forced into 3rd place by the 1st & 2nd place teams in a fight.

We really Need to Re-design the Match-Up mechanics for WvW.

---

Simple as A, B, C

A ) Re-design

& Use it to create Player-Driven Match-Ups with Weekly Limits on Which Servers & How many Servers that we can choose to fight on.

B ) Re-design EotM to be the formal lobby that players pass through on their way to enter any Main WvW Server map or maps based on their Match-Up choices.

C ) Re-design EotM to use this proposed Alliance Linking instead.

---

All Guilds get a fair chance to recruit 1st time WvW players in EotM in the Long-Term.

Players can let their PIP decay without being able to earn any while they hang out in EotM.

WvW Needs to encourage a competitive & healthy game mode in the Long-Term.

WvW Needs Simple Match-Up mechanics without the complex & confusing algorithms.

We Need to make future development easy & focus on improving Balance & QoL.

---

Being 3rd place...feels pretty bad huh?

Hope this makes BlackGate folks feel better.

The Original "BABY TWINS, LEVI & ALEKSI BOOBOO KISS"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kljinyzl4B4

[Descargo.8123]

So can Alliances claim points? Are we getting a new room in the guild hall for alliances? Will alliances have halls?

[XenesisII.1540]

@"Descargo.8123" said:So can Alliances claim points? Are we getting a new room in the guild hall for alliances? Will alliances have halls?

What for? Alliance is just a group of guilds, they all have their own guild halls and claims still.

Current:Server 1. Picked at character creation, can transfer there.Example population consist of:Solo Guild 1, Guild 2, Guild 3, Guild 4, Guild 5, Guild 6, etcSolo players.

Change:World 1. Balances population according to alliance/guild/playing stats, can transfer there, remade every 8 weeks.Example population consist of:Alliance of Guild 1, Guild 2, Guild 3.Alliance of Guild 1, Guild 2.Solo Guild 1, Guild 2, etc.Solo players.

Every, single, thing, about wvw remains the same, guilds are still separate, you can rep whomever, you can claim whatever with a guild. Guilds can change alliances, you can change who will be your main wvw guild which only determines who you get placed with at world creation. The only addition they may consider is an alliance chat channel. If multiple guilds feel the need to use one "alliance" guild hall and claiming to show their unity, then make a new guild with those members.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Ermm, I believe alliance is permanent thus there is no decay timer.

As for those stackers and bandwagoners alike trying to create mega alliances, well, we have to wait and see what limit will the anet set. Perhaps, the limit is low enough that stackers and bandwagoners alike can't take advantage of.

This is exactly why the cap should be set close to 500.

I don't think it would be 500 though. Likely to be half.

[morrolan.9608]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@morrolan.9608 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Ermm, I believe alliance is permanent thus there is no decay timer.

As for those stackers and bandwagoners alike trying to create mega alliances, well, we have to wait and see what limit will the anet set. Perhaps, the limit is low enough that stackers and bandwagoners alike can't take advantage of.

This is exactly why the cap should be set close to 500.

I don't think it would be 500 though. Likely to be half.

I think 500 has to be the lower limit because thats the guild cap.

[Dawdler.8521]

@joneirikb.7506 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@joneirikb.7506 said:Are there any ways to deal with people making 2 different alliances, with 2 different guilds, having all the same members, and just swap theoretically 500 people every other matchup, trying to manipulate 1 alliance to decay to get grouped with a stronger in general world, then everyone rep that for the next season and overwhelm the enemy. While letting the other alliance "decay" with inactivity again ?

Who says there is "decay" that impact anything? We dont know how the matchup system work in detail or how it assign alliances and players to world based on the algorithm. We just know the broad concept as Anet has laid it out.

Technically this wouldnt matter as that empty alliance would just get replaced by other alliances and players to create a decently balanced world weighed against the rest. If you cant move until the end of a season you cant go back anyway. And if you try to move an entire alliance the first week, I am sure there are failsafes to transfering just like now (ie world is full).

A bit of an assumption on my part, but figured that they would continue to use the existing system of "play hours" to determine worlds. As such it would make sense for them to measure how much play hours an alliance had, to see where to put it for the next season.

Thus, if Alliance A has 500 players (theoretically) that has played active they will have lots of "play-hours", thus will be put in a new alliance (for the new season) with other alliances and guilds and a singles, based on that.

But if every single one of those players are also in another Alliance B, and clicks to select this alliance for the next Season, does the system catch up on this, and adapt ? If not we might be stuck with 500 players (theoretically) that could strongly unbalance 2 different new worlds for a Season, and perhaps repeat it several times.

Basically, if the play-hours are tracker per individual, and thus into the Alliance B, then it would be ok and the system would adapt this, and adjust properly. If it follows the Alliance, then we can get some pretty wrong numbers, and thus some silly match-ups again.

Another assumption you are making is that seasons are linked somehow between the performance the last season and the new.

I highly doubt it work like that.

At season start the algorithm will probably only balance out players (alliances/guilds) based on total performance, to form X amount of worlds with roughly the same playtimes. It doesnt matter how your alliances performed the last season or if you moved to new. Hours played is hours played (ignoring any other possible factors like rank etc). The matchups will be completely random the first weeks until world rankings start to settle and worlds fight their way up - just like how sPvP seasons start every season.

So your concern doesnt exist. Even if alliance A moves all its players to alliance B for some imagined advantage, its completely irrelent. All they did was move alliances with zero impact to world generation at season start.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@morrolan.9608 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Ermm, I believe alliance is permanent thus there is no decay timer.

As for those stackers and bandwagoners alike trying to create mega alliances, well, we have to wait and see what limit will the anet set. Perhaps, the limit is low enough that stackers and bandwagoners alike can't take advantage of.

This is exactly why the cap should be set close to 500.

I don't think it would be 500 though. Likely to be half.

I think 500 has to be the lower limit because thats the guild cap.

500 would be too high, even if is the guild cap. Working on the guild cap, we need to assume WvW only 500-men guild. There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves. Let say if there are two such guilds on a server, the server easily can be overwhelming at certain timezones. Looking at the graph, anet seems to want more than one alliance on a server while having random guilds and pugs thus two 500-men alliances don't really fit the balance that well.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"SkyShroud.2865" said:There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves.

Lol no. Entire servers are 2500+ people and they have nowhere near "full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play.

Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works.

There is nothing forcing people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"SkyShroud.2865" said:There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves.

Lol no.

Entire servers

are 2500+ people and they have

nowhere near

"full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play.

Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works.

There is nothing

forcing

people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap.

I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking.

[Dawdler.8521]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves.

Lol no.

Entire servers

are 2500+ people and they have

nowhere near

"full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play.

Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works.

There is nothing

forcing

people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap.

I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking.

This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have.

For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each every single day of the week. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality.

The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap.

[XenesisII.1540]

It's going to be 500 at minimum, it's not something they can change since it will affect the entire game and there will be an outcry about lower limits for pve, hell there have been requests to increase limits to 1000 over the years. If you tried to limit alliances to like 250 they'll just make one guild and go over the limit anyways, so it's pointless to discuss that part of it.

Besides the only real difference maker for any sized guild or alliance is the number of commanders they have and at whatever times.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves.

Lol no.

Entire servers

are 2500+ people and they have

nowhere near

"full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play.

Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works.

There is nothing

forcing

people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap.

I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking.

This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is

servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size

. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have.

For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each

every single day of the week

. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality.

The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap.

You need to re-read. When I meant two such zerg, it is not derived from a single 250 but two 250. A single 250 can run a 20-30 sized zerg 24 hours. Two 250 can combine run 40-60 24 hours. Then you add in random guilds and pugs, the off hours will be greatly unbalanced. Also, let's not forget that if guilds if so want to abuse it, same timezone can all stack on the same alliance and immediately create a unbalance.

Also, these numbers is base on actual experience than fantasy. Even in a regional pvp mmorpg, a 500-men size alliance can rally 20-30 people at sleeping hours. This 20-30 sized zerg is already considered a floor than a ceiling for a game like gw2 that has people from all over the world.

[Dawdler.8521]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves.

Lol no.

Entire servers

are 2500+ people and they have

nowhere near

"full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play.

Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works.

There is nothing

forcing

people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap.

I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking.

This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is

servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size

. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have.

For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each

every single day of the week

. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality.

The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap.

You need to re-read. When I meant two such zerg, it is not derived from a single 250 but two 250. A single 250 can run a 20-30 sized zerg 24 hours. Two 250 can combine run 40-60 24 hours. Then you add in random guilds and pugs, the off hours will be greatly unbalanced. Also, let's not forget that if guilds if so want to abuse it, same timezone can all stack on the same alliance and immediately create a unbalance.

Also, these numbers is base on actual experience than fantasy. Even in a regional pvp mmorpg, a 500-men size alliance can rally 20-30 people at sleeping hours. This 20-30 sized zerg is already considered a floor than a ceiling for a game like gw2 that has people from all over the world.

You cant "abuse" it by stacking the same timezone. Thats a ridiculous claim and self-moderated by the fact borders get queued because they dont have infinite space. Its the same as saying that queues in primetime is exploiting the game and players playing the game is undesirable.

Also if two capped 500 man guilds/alliances with at least 250 in each logging on daily, you are literally talking about half a server. Kitten yeah thats alot of people. And they would still have to log 5h+ every single day, every week. Still. Not. Reality.

Whats next? Shall we boost that zerg population to not two or three and not even four but five 500 man alliances stacking a server, populating it 24/7, oh the horror, the horror!!!

... oh wait thats what Anet said was what your average world would be sized as. Nevermind.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves.

Lol no.

Entire servers

are 2500+ people and they have

nowhere near

"full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play.

Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works.

There is nothing

forcing

people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap.

I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking.

This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is

servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size

. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have.

For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each

every single day of the week

. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality.

The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap.

You need to re-read. When I meant two such zerg, it is not derived from a single 250 but two 250. A single 250 can run a 20-30 sized zerg 24 hours. Two 250 can combine run 40-60 24 hours. Then you add in random guilds and pugs, the off hours will be greatly unbalanced. Also, let's not forget that if guilds if so want to abuse it, same timezone can all stack on the same alliance and immediately create a unbalance.

Also, these numbers is base on actual experience than fantasy. Even in a regional pvp mmorpg, a 500-men size alliance can rally 20-30 people at sleeping hours. This 20-30 sized zerg is already considered a floor than a ceiling for a game like gw2 that has people from all over the world.

You cant "abuse" it by stacking the same timezone. Thats a ridiculous claim and self-moderated by the fact borders get queued because they dont have infinite space. Its the same as saying that queues in primetime is exploiting the game and players playing the game is undesirable.

Also if two capped 500 man guilds/alliances with at least 250 in each logging on daily, you are

literally talking about half a server

. Kitten yeah thats alot of people. And they would

still

have to log 5h+ every single day, every week. Still. Not. Reality.

Whats next? Shall we boost that zerg population to not two or three and not even four but

five

500 man alliances stacking a server, populating it 24/7, oh the horror, the horror!!!

... oh wait thats what Anet said was what your average world would be sized as. Nevermind.

Ermm...it sounds that you are assuming that all timezones have sufficient people to queue a map, for all the servers which in reality not the case.

Why would they need to logon 5hrs+? Your math and math seems to be completely different. It seems to me that your zerg size is at 50-man which to me is a blob.

[BlueMelody.6398]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves.

Lol no.

Entire servers

are 2500+ people and they have

nowhere near

"full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play.

Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works.

There is nothing

forcing

people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap.

I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking.

This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is

servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size

. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have.

For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each

every single day of the week

. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality.

The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap.

You need to re-read. When I meant two such zerg, it is not derived from a single 250 but two 250. A single 250 can run a 20-30 sized zerg 24 hours. Two 250 can combine run 40-60 24 hours. Then you add in random guilds and pugs, the off hours will be greatly unbalanced. Also, let's not forget that if guilds if so want to abuse it, same timezone can all stack on the same alliance and immediately create a unbalance.

Also, these numbers is base on actual experience than fantasy. Even in a regional pvp mmorpg, a 500-men size alliance can rally 20-30 people at sleeping hours. This 20-30 sized zerg is already considered a floor than a ceiling for a game like gw2 that has people from all over the world.

Current world size is already 5x this number. Max guild size is already 500. If this were going to be a realistic scenario, it would already be happening regularly, with 500-man wvw guilds "stacking" a server.

Alliances are going to make this kind of stacking less likely, not more likely. I don't understand your complaint at all.

[Dante.1763]

Just gonna throw this up, i dont know if this has been put in game yet, if not, i cant wait. After get thrown against blackgate this week and getting ganked multiple times when leaving the starting safe spot on the borderlands by people camping spawn in groups of 4, this needs to happen so bad.

[Dawdler.8521]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves.

Lol no.

Entire servers

are 2500+ people and they have

nowhere near

"full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play.

Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works.

There is nothing

forcing

people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap.

I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking.

This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is

servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size

. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have.

For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each

every single day of the week

. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality.

The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap.

You need to re-read. When I meant two such zerg, it is not derived from a single 250 but two 250. A single 250 can run a 20-30 sized zerg 24 hours. Two 250 can combine run 40-60 24 hours. Then you add in random guilds and pugs, the off hours will be greatly unbalanced. Also, let's not forget that if guilds if so want to abuse it, same timezone can all stack on the same alliance and immediately create a unbalance.

Also, these numbers is base on actual experience than fantasy. Even in a regional pvp mmorpg, a 500-men size alliance can rally 20-30 people at sleeping hours. This 20-30 sized zerg is already considered a floor than a ceiling for a game like gw2 that has people from all over the world.

You cant "abuse" it by stacking the same timezone. Thats a ridiculous claim and self-moderated by the fact borders get queued because they dont have infinite space. Its the same as saying that queues in primetime is exploiting the game and players playing the game is undesirable.

Also if two capped 500 man guilds/alliances with at least 250 in each logging on daily, you are

literally talking about half a server

. Kitten yeah thats alot of people. And they would

still

have to log 5h+ every single day, every week. Still. Not. Reality.

Whats next? Shall we boost that zerg population to not two or three and not even four but

five

500 man alliances stacking a server, populating it 24/7, oh the horror, the horror!!!

... oh wait thats what Anet said was what your average world would be sized as. Nevermind.

Ermm...it sounds that you are assuming that all timezones have sufficient people to queue a map, for all the servers which in reality not the case.

Why would they need to logon 5hrs+? Your math and math seems to be completely different. It seems to me that your zerg size is at 50-man which to me is a blob.

A full zerg is a full squad, or a 50 man. If you want to assume far beyond realistic effiecency at equally unrealistic numbers, so will I.

And if my math is wrong there then do go ahead and correct me. The way I see it, for you to maintain two 50 man zergs for a day you need 100x24 man hours, or 2400 man hours. 250 people (50% guild cap) at 100% attendance around the clock would need to put in 2400/250 hours each, or 9.6 hours a day. Double that and you would obviously half the hours, so 4.3 hours a day for two such alliances.

If you want to actually reach plausible numbers that the average players is online... say 2h... you will have to double up on the alliances and then you reach - you guessed it - server size. If you want more realistic numbers for the average player, you will probably also assume that there is nowhere near 100% attendance from all those players - they will probably only put in maybe 3-4 days a week. So we are talking double server size for the constant presence you think you will get from just two alliances. Which actually makes sense if you think about how WvW looks today outside primetime.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@BlueMelody.6398 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves.

Lol no.

Entire servers

are 2500+ people and they have

nowhere near

"full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play.

Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works.

There is nothing

forcing

people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap.

I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking.

This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is

servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size

. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have.

For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each

every single day of the week

. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality.

The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap.

You need to re-read. When I meant two such zerg, it is not derived from a single 250 but two 250. A single 250 can run a 20-30 sized zerg 24 hours. Two 250 can combine run 40-60 24 hours. Then you add in random guilds and pugs, the off hours will be greatly unbalanced. Also, let's not forget that if guilds if so want to abuse it, same timezone can all stack on the same alliance and immediately create a unbalance.

Also, these numbers is base on actual experience than fantasy. Even in a regional pvp mmorpg, a 500-men size alliance can rally 20-30 people at sleeping hours. This 20-30 sized zerg is already considered a floor than a ceiling for a game like gw2 that has people from all over the world.

Current world size is

already

5x this number. Max guild size is

already

500. If this were going to be a realistic scenario, it would already be happening regularly, with 500-man wvw guilds "stacking" a server.

Alliances are going to make this kind of stacking less likely, not more likely. I don't understand your complaint at all.

Currently, there isn't a 500-men wvw guild that has 50% online rate. In the past there were and they were in T1 for most part. There were even SEA guilds that easily queue a map by themselves back then. With alliance system, not that hard for anyone to make up a single timezone alliance if they really want to. This argument isn't about they will or will not do it, it is about can or cannot. Stacking happen because they can stack, not because they will or will not. Same thing for blackout, they did it because they can do it not because they know it will work.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves.

Lol no.

Entire servers

are 2500+ people and they have

nowhere near

"full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play.

Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works.

There is nothing

forcing

people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap.

I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking.

This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is

servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size

. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have.

For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each

every single day of the week

. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality.

The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap.

You need to re-read. When I meant two such zerg, it is not derived from a single 250 but two 250. A single 250 can run a 20-30 sized zerg 24 hours. Two 250 can combine run 40-60 24 hours. Then you add in random guilds and pugs, the off hours will be greatly unbalanced. Also, let's not forget that if guilds if so want to abuse it, same timezone can all stack on the same alliance and immediately create a unbalance.

Also, these numbers is base on actual experience than fantasy. Even in a regional pvp mmorpg, a 500-men size alliance can rally 20-30 people at sleeping hours. This 20-30 sized zerg is already considered a floor than a ceiling for a game like gw2 that has people from all over the world.

You cant "abuse" it by stacking the same timezone. Thats a ridiculous claim and self-moderated by the fact borders get queued because they dont have infinite space. Its the same as saying that queues in primetime is exploiting the game and players playing the game is undesirable.

Also if two capped 500 man guilds/alliances with at least 250 in each logging on daily, you are

literally talking about half a server

. Kitten yeah thats alot of people. And they would

still

have to log 5h+ every single day, every week. Still. Not. Reality.

Whats next? Shall we boost that zerg population to not two or three and not even four but

five

500 man alliances stacking a server, populating it 24/7, oh the horror, the horror!!!

... oh wait thats what Anet said was what your average world would be sized as. Nevermind.

Ermm...it sounds that you are assuming that all timezones have sufficient people to queue a map, for all the servers which in reality not the case.

Why would they need to logon 5hrs+? Your math and math seems to be completely different. It seems to me that your zerg size is at 50-man which to me is a blob.

A full zerg is a full squad, or a 50 man. If you want to assume far beyond realistic effiecency at equally unrealistic numbers, so will I.

And if my math is wrong there then do go ahead and correct me. The way I see it, for you to maintain two 50 man zergs for a day you need 100x24 man hours, or 2400 man hours. 250 people (50% guild cap) at 100% attendance around the clock would need to put in 2400/250 hours each, or 9.6 hours a day. Double that and you would obviously half the hours, so 4.3 hours a day for two such alliances.

If you want to actually reach plausible numbers that the average players is online... say 2h... you will have to double up on the alliances and then you reach - you guessed it -

server size

. If you want more realistic numbers for the average player, you will probably also assume that there is nowhere near 100% attendance from all those players - they will probably only put in maybe 3-4 days a week. So we are talking double server size for the constant presence you think you will get from just two alliances. Which actually makes sense if you think about how WvW looks today outside primetime.

And I gave a number of 20-30 24/7 per 500-men guild, maybe you want to read first before typing?

[Krustydog.3072]

I will miss server pride.

[Supernatural Dawn.3194]

@Krustydog.3072 said:I will miss server pride.

For many of us server pride is already dead. Bring on the guild pride.

[LetoII.3782]

@Supernatural Dawn.3194 said:

@Krustydog.3072 said:I will miss server pride.

For many of us server pride is already dead. Bring on the guild pride.

Make guild wars about guilds?

Preposterous!

[Loosmaster.8263]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Supernatural Dawn.3194 said:

@Krustydog.3072 said:I will miss server pride.

For many of us server pride is already dead. Bring on the guild pride.

Make guild wars about guilds?

Preposterous!

TK is gonna 2 man it!!! Maybe 3 if I can a guildie to play more than 5 minutes...

[morrolan.9608]

@Supernatural Dawn.3194 said:

@Krustydog.3072 said:I will miss server pride.

For many of us server pride is already dead. Bring on the guild pride.

Alliance pride FTW!

[Roxanne.6140]

Alliance will kill off hour gameplay because it will be possible for the few you-know-who guilds around to form one alliance themselves and everybody else will be just pve mob.

[Dawdler.8521]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@BlueMelody.6398 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves.

Lol no.

Entire servers

are 2500+ people and they have

nowhere near

"full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play.

Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works.

There is nothing

forcing

people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap.

I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking.

This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is

servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size

. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have.

For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each

every single day of the week

. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality.

The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap.

You need to re-read. When I meant two such zerg, it is not derived from a single 250 but two 250. A single 250 can run a 20-30 sized zerg 24 hours. Two 250 can combine run 40-60 24 hours. Then you add in random guilds and pugs, the off hours will be greatly unbalanced. Also, let's not forget that if guilds if so want to abuse it, same timezone can all stack on the same alliance and immediately create a unbalance.

Also, these numbers is base on actual experience than fantasy. Even in a regional pvp mmorpg, a 500-men size alliance can rally 20-30 people at sleeping hours. This 20-30 sized zerg is already considered a floor than a ceiling for a game like gw2 that has people from all over the world.

Current world size is

already

5x this number. Max guild size is

already

500. If this were going to be a realistic scenario, it would already be happening regularly, with 500-man wvw guilds "stacking" a server.

Alliances are going to make this kind of stacking less likely, not more likely. I don't understand your complaint at all.

Currently, there isn't a 500-men wvw guild that has 50% online rate. In the past there were and they were in T1 for most part. There were even SEA guilds that easily queue a map by themselves back then. With alliance system, not that hard for anyone to make up a single timezone alliance if they really want to. This argument isn't about they will or will not do it, it is about can or cannot. Stacking happen because they can stack, not because they will or will not. Same thing for blackout, they did it because they can do it not because they know it will work.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves.

Lol no.

Entire servers

are 2500+ people and they have

nowhere near

"full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play.

Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works.

There is nothing

forcing

people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap.

I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking.

This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is

servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size

. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have.

For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each

every single day of the week

. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality.

The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap.

You need to re-read. When I meant two such zerg, it is not derived from a single 250 but two 250. A single 250 can run a 20-30 sized zerg 24 hours. Two 250 can combine run 40-60 24 hours. Then you add in random guilds and pugs, the off hours will be greatly unbalanced. Also, let's not forget that if guilds if so want to abuse it, same timezone can all stack on the same alliance and immediately create a unbalance.

Also, these numbers is base on actual experience than fantasy. Even in a regional pvp mmorpg, a 500-men size alliance can rally 20-30 people at sleeping hours. This 20-30 sized zerg is already considered a floor than a ceiling for a game like gw2 that has people from all over the world.

You cant "abuse" it by stacking the same timezone. Thats a ridiculous claim and self-moderated by the fact borders get queued because they dont have infinite space. Its the same as saying that queues in primetime is exploiting the game and players playing the game is undesirable.

Also if two capped 500 man guilds/alliances with at least 250 in each logging on daily, you are

literally talking about half a server

. Kitten yeah thats alot of people. And they would

still

have to log 5h+ every single day, every week. Still. Not. Reality.

Whats next? Shall we boost that zerg population to not two or three and not even four but

five

500 man alliances stacking a server, populating it 24/7, oh the horror, the horror!!!

... oh wait thats what Anet said was what your average world would be sized as. Nevermind.

Ermm...it sounds that you are assuming that all timezones have sufficient people to queue a map, for all the servers which in reality not the case.

Why would they need to logon 5hrs+? Your math and math seems to be completely different. It seems to me that your zerg size is at 50-man which to me is a blob.

A full zerg is a full squad, or a 50 man. If you want to assume far beyond realistic effiecency at equally unrealistic numbers, so will I.

And if my math is wrong there then do go ahead and correct me. The way I see it, for you to maintain two 50 man zergs for a day you need 100x24 man hours, or 2400 man hours. 250 people (50% guild cap) at 100% attendance around the clock would need to put in 2400/250 hours each, or 9.6 hours a day. Double that and you would obviously half the hours, so 4.3 hours a day for two such alliances.

If you want to actually reach plausible numbers that the average players is online... say 2h... you will have to double up on the alliances and then you reach - you guessed it -

server size

. If you want more realistic numbers for the average player, you will probably also assume that there is nowhere near 100% attendance from all those players - they will probably only put in maybe 3-4 days a week. So we are talking double server size for the constant presence you think you will get from just two alliances. Which actually makes sense if you think about how WvW looks today outside primetime.

And I gave a number of 20-30 24/7 per 500-men guild, maybe you want to read first before typing?

And if my math is correct then 20-30 man zergs doing that work would still be server size, not two 500 man guilds.

Is it unreasonable to expect a server to have 40-60 people online at any given time? Thats just ~10-20% capacity of 4 queued maps!!!

Think about that for a moment. What exactly are we arguing?

That WvW at 10% capacity is overcrowded?