World Restructuring

[Sojourner.4621]

@Rampage.7145 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Cyczer.7834 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Cyczer.7834 said:You just have to join them and choose them as your wvw guild and you can keep playing with your friends.

Did Anet say you

have to

?

Guilds is only for sorting players on the world. In the extreme example of someone having 0 guilds joining WvW, I'm assuming he will just join a random world thats not full, for the duration of being logged on. Another random world the next time he logs etc. Alternativly setting that random world as the home world until reset.

At least that would be the logical method.

Thats exactly what it is, you have to join guilds if you dont wanna rely on your luck to being put in same server. Otherwise you'll be placed randomly.

Its not by random. Its based off you contacts and what guilds you are in. who you party with. So if you choose to not have any guild claimed as your WvW guild, it will STILL take into account what guilds you're in when it places you. Furthermore Arena Net has alluded to the fact, that it is still able for such an individual to Transfer during the 8 week Season so you are indeed never trapped.Uhm isnt it kind of hard to take into account what guild you are in if you have no guild and no friends?

I highly doubt the MMR can place you based on data that doesnt exist. Remember we arent all veterans with 5 guilds, new players are gonna have to join WvW too.

if you have no guilds and no friends. why would you care where you're placed.

They just wanna leech of the good guild/commanders of a server, get carried and then say ¨kitten i am maguuma kitten¨, without actually trying to be good and acomplish something on their own. This profile describes anyone complaining on this post basically.

Some of us have concerns about eliminating servers that aren't in any way connected to wvw itself. As far as WvW is concerned, if it is truly effective at the goal it seems to have set, that is "Have roughly equal population coverage in wvw no matter what the time of day" then I will consider it not only a rousing success, but also easily the best thing to ever happen to the wvw community as a whole. That said, there are certain aspects of the non-wvw community that this could impact in an extremely negative way (Yes I am mostly referring to the RP community, yes I know most of you don't care.) It's not a bad thing to bring this to their attention and hope that they can find some ways of addressing those concerns. After all, that's the entire point of them posting this so far in advance, right?

There is a fair point as far as new players go, and how this might affect their impressions about wvw sense of community/etc. I think the best suggestion regarding that so far has actually be 12 weeks instead of 8 for reshuffles... make a wvw season last an entire 3 months instead of just two. That little bit of extra time with the current match-up can make or break how you feel about your current world's guilds/alliances/commanders and help you decide whether you want to stay with them, or try and find a new group in a new match-up.

[EbonFreeman.4051]

Would it be possible to minimize the use of age for the algorithm? The reason why I bring it up is because you can get amazing pairs because of an accounts lack of data (pushing them to a veteran pairing) and also there are veteran players who have tens of thousands of hours and haven't really learned WvW.

[Cyczer.7834]

@"Sojourner.4621" said:

Some of us have concerns about eliminating servers that aren't in any way connected to wvw itself. As far as WvW is concerned, if it is truly effective at the goal it seems to have set, that is "Have roughly equal population coverage in wvw no matter what the time of day" then I will consider it not only a rousing success, but also easily the best thing to ever happen to the wvw community as a whole. That said, there are certain aspects of the non-wvw community that this could impact in an extremely negative way (Yes I am mostly referring to the RP community, yes I know most of you don't care.) It's not a bad thing to bring this to their attention and hope that they can find some ways of addressing those concerns. After all, that's the entire point of them posting this so far in advance, right?

There is a fair point as far as new players go, and how this might affect their impressions about wvw sense of community/etc. I think the best suggestion regarding that so far has actually be 12 weeks instead of 8 for reshuffles... make a wvw season last an entire 3 months instead of just two. That little bit of extra time with the current match-up can make or break how you feel about your current world's guilds/alliances/commanders and help you decide whether you want to stay with them, or try and find a new group in a new match-up.

I just want to understand how the server identity is essential to keep RP community going. For pvp and pve we use mega servers already which doesnt somehow get affected by which server you are in. It'll be same with wvw and Im pretty sure nothing holds you back to join to same guild to keep communicating

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

@Sojourner.4621 said:

@Rampage.7145 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Cyczer.7834 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Cyczer.7834 said:You just have to join them and choose them as your wvw guild and you can keep playing with your friends.

Did Anet say you

have to

?

Guilds is only for sorting players on the world. In the extreme example of someone having 0 guilds joining WvW, I'm assuming he will just join a random world thats not full, for the duration of being logged on. Another random world the next time he logs etc. Alternativly setting that random world as the home world until reset.

At least that would be the logical method.

Thats exactly what it is, you have to join guilds if you dont wanna rely on your luck to being put in same server. Otherwise you'll be placed randomly.

Its not by random. Its based off you contacts and what guilds you are in. who you party with. So if you choose to not have any guild claimed as your WvW guild, it will STILL take into account what guilds you're in when it places you. Furthermore Arena Net has alluded to the fact, that it is still able for such an individual to Transfer during the 8 week Season so you are indeed never trapped.Uhm isnt it kind of hard to take into account what guild you are in if you have no guild and no friends?

I highly doubt the MMR can place you based on data that doesnt exist. Remember we arent all veterans with 5 guilds, new players are gonna have to join WvW too.

if you have no guilds and no friends. why would you care where you're placed.

They just wanna leech of the good guild/commanders of a server, get carried and then say ¨kitten i am maguuma kitten¨, without actually trying to be good and acomplish something on their own. This profile describes anyone complaining on this post basically.

Some of us have concerns about eliminating servers that

aren't

in any way connected to wvw itself. As far as WvW is concerned, if it is truly effective at the goal it seems to have set, that is "Have roughly equal population coverage in wvw no matter what the time of day" then I will consider it not only a rousing success, but also easily the best thing to ever happen to the wvw community as a whole. That said, there are certain aspects of the non-wvw community that this could impact in an extremely negative way (Yes I am mostly referring to the RP community, yes I know most of you don't care.) It's not a bad thing to bring this to their attention and hope that they can find some ways of addressing those concerns. After all, that's the entire point of them posting this so far in advance, right?

There is a fair point as far as new players go, and how this might affect their impressions about wvw sense of community/etc. I think the best suggestion regarding that so far has actually be 12 weeks instead of 8 for reshuffles... make a wvw season last an entire 3 months instead of just two. That little bit of extra time with the current match-up can make or break how you feel about your current world's guilds/alliances/commanders and help you decide whether you want to stay with them, or try and find a new group in a new match-up.The only point to servers is WvW. Without that, we're all on a mega cluster server that share the code and hardware. The term Server is wrongly used. Everyone is on the same server instead use the term world. Again. Servers don't mean anything to PvE or SPvP.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@Sojourner.4621 said:

@Rampage.7145 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Cyczer.7834 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Cyczer.7834 said:You just have to join them and choose them as your wvw guild and you can keep playing with your friends.

Did Anet say you

have to

?

Guilds is only for sorting players on the world. In the extreme example of someone having 0 guilds joining WvW, I'm assuming he will just join a random world thats not full, for the duration of being logged on. Another random world the next time he logs etc. Alternativly setting that random world as the home world until reset.

At least that would be the logical method.

Thats exactly what it is, you have to join guilds if you dont wanna rely on your luck to being put in same server. Otherwise you'll be placed randomly.

Its not by random. Its based off you contacts and what guilds you are in. who you party with. So if you choose to not have any guild claimed as your WvW guild, it will STILL take into account what guilds you're in when it places you. Furthermore Arena Net has alluded to the fact, that it is still able for such an individual to Transfer during the 8 week Season so you are indeed never trapped.Uhm isnt it kind of hard to take into account what guild you are in if you have no guild and no friends?

I highly doubt the MMR can place you based on data that doesnt exist. Remember we arent all veterans with 5 guilds, new players are gonna have to join WvW too.

if you have no guilds and no friends. why would you care where you're placed.

They just wanna leech of the good guild/commanders of a server, get carried and then say ¨kitten i am maguuma kitten¨, without actually trying to be good and acomplish something on their own. This profile describes anyone complaining on this post basically.

Some of us have concerns about eliminating servers that

aren't

in any way connected to wvw itself. As far as WvW is concerned, if it is truly effective at the goal it seems to have set, that is "Have roughly equal population coverage in wvw no matter what the time of day" then I will consider it not only a rousing success, but also easily the best thing to ever happen to the wvw community as a whole. That said, there are certain aspects of the non-wvw community that this could impact in an extremely negative way (Yes I am mostly referring to the RP community, yes I know most of you don't care.) It's not a bad thing to bring this to their attention and hope that they can find some ways of addressing those concerns. After all, that's the entire point of them posting this so far in advance, right?

There is a fair point as far as new players go, and how this might affect their impressions about wvw sense of community/etc. I think the best suggestion regarding that so far has actually be 12 weeks instead of 8 for reshuffles... make a wvw season last an entire 3 months instead of just two. That little bit of extra time with the current match-up can make or break how you feel about your current world's guilds/alliances/commanders and help you decide whether you want to stay with them, or try and find a new group in a new match-up.

I don't see why ANET can't make 1 "official" RP server (long over due, I know) for NA and 1 for EU (or just use 1 for both but I do recall technical limitations for that, like are the servers in continental US or EU?).

Y'know, splitting the balance between RP game play and Non-RP game play.Oh wait...

SplitGameBalance?

[Iozeph.5617]

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:A message from McKenna Berdrow:

Not to be one to shoot the messenger. I appreciate you're now trying to do something about this. That's a good thing. But more I appreciate the timing of it -well beyond the eleventh hour- and that's not so good. I should learn to not respond to these sorts of announcements. Well all should. We should see that it's a waste of time and that nobody with any authority to affect things as they are is currently or ever reading. And even if they are? They don't care. Or they don't have the luxury. Yet after years of having done so I see that it's more for myself than for you, Anet. So here I go again. Read it or not. I don't care.

Megaserver was billed as the answer to population imbalances and it was handled terribly. Now you're wanting to complete this travesty in world versus world, just another step -perhaps the last- toward erasing what little server community/identity was left. It's a poor attempt to try and hide the numbers and the fact that through your own greed, and thereafter neglect, you've allowed the game experience to deteriorate thus far as you willingly milked the money from server transfers.

You've made it possible for servers to be stacked and in turn made WvW the unfair game it's been for several years now. It isn't as though the community hasn't been complaining. It never rubs me the right way when declarations from on high state that you never anticipated the community to do x and x, whether it's a certain style of emergent play, or something as insignificant as expecting you to make good on your promises(when we were told to quit living in the past and to look forward -I loved that one) and so lay whatever inequities came about from your oversights at the community's feet. This, when the only choices presented to us haven't been choices at all -eg. 'if you're currently being beaten down in your tier, then pay a nominal fee in gems to join them and then beat down everyone else with an unfair numbers advantage.' This would have been bad enough for a month or two. But you let this run for years! Let's not even mention your erroding stance on third party cheat programs or the way you've treated smaller guilds beginning with Heart of Thorns.

But now what? What about the people who didn't transfer willy nilly? What do they get for server loyalty? Being paired off in WvW with whomever the latest 'host' server was -instead of just lumping high tier servers together and locking further transfers- was galling enough, either from the abuse received belonging to a 'guest server' or the frustration come from actually once in a long while being paired with a server that wasn't a big bag of dicks only to be sent away once again to another nasty high-tier server pairing.

So now we're getting alliances, when -as you've made it- world versus world and pve are games where nobody knows anybody anymore. And worse yet, this late the only thing left in GW2, community-wise, is the shallow end of the pool. It's either mega guilds, smaller guilds still holding on, and the player poaching going on between them(server stacking thrown into the mix). Going forward we won't have servers? As a fellow player above mentioned in regards to WVW going forward, what's the bloody point?

I didn't believe it possible to take such an awesome gaming experience and progressively cheapen and ruin it in quicker time than even Turbine, and the following merry-go round of holding companies after, did with LotrO. But here we are. Honestly, Anet. I'm not saying this to be edgy or flip- As someone who's loved this game from the moment I came over, sick of LotrO and roled up my first, little Asura, I'm asking -What the hell is wrong with you? Why this horrible slide? Was it corporate culture? Was it burn-out? Was it pressure from above? All of the above? These measures have all the feeling of a Twilight Zone episode where the crew of a sinking ship find themselves bailing water with buckets that never empty out.

Calling people chicken little isn't going to work here. The sky isn't falling. That's abundantly clear. But just as salient is that fewer and fewer players give enough of a toss to look up or to stay around and see if it's still there. Thanks for the fun, I guess. And for letting me vent. You're game's a sewer now, but at least I've come to terms with that.

[gitflap.9031]

Seems to me like a global solution to what is much more of an NA problem. I'm one of those old fashioned types who stayed with the same server since launch. I might play later & longer (and have more fun) because Gandara Garrisson is under threat. I'm not sure that insert generic name here Garrisson is going to motivate me in the same way. Nope, I'm absolutely sure it won't. Maybe the majority of WvWers feel differently but, for the sake of the rest of us, how about trialling the new system in NA for 6 months first and leave EU as it is?

[Steelo.4597]

inb4coverageguilds

I don't see a solution to the coverage problem except shutting down maps outside of peak times and match them to the lowest pop server's activity (of the matchup, of course).

WvW is only competitive where there is a queue.

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

@EbonFreeman.4051 said:Would it be possible to minimize the use of age for the algorithm? The reason why I bring it up is because you can get amazing pairs because of an accounts lack of data (pushing them to a veteran pairing) and also there are veteran players who have tens of thousands of hours and haven't really learned WvW.

Well they don't look at your account's full play time they look at play time in wvw.

[Jorah.2389]

Good News! Now hands to work... dont take forever to make the necessary changes to wvw!

[TheGrimm.5624]

This is going to be a pre-sanity check to the WvW system that is being proposed for Ashes of Creation. The question is what checks and balance will the alliance system bring. Is this a Warhammer Online alliance system or one where biggest guild rules? What prevents abuse and doesn't mean the lose of more player base when people lose that server identity that is there for some today. A lot of people today fight for their server and do still feel server pride. Just because some players don't doesn't mean its not going to be a big negative to those that do. There is a more less appreciated aspect of seeing the same names for years that will now be turning everyone into single serving friends.

Would recommend a separate thread for each of the major points in this thread to keep things on topic before we hit page 50.Examples:

• Thread on forming/managing/disbanding alliances
• Thread on how caps on players/guild in alliances will work
• Thread on guild caps to better allow more managable spreads
• Thread on how are guild/alliances sizes going to be crossbalanced to allow good mix of all play styles, roamer, havoc, guild, zerg, alliance

At this point there are enough re-accruing questions that sub-threads should be definable on this topic.

[Baldrick.8967]

@Caliburn.1845 said:Actually pugmanders are going to return with a vengeance if winning matters again. Guilds can only typically rally for a few hours, but pugmanders can rally for much longer.

Within the secret places where alliances are being forged pugmanders are already being recognized as being extremely valuable, and each current successful pugmander is going to be courted by different alliances.

Especially because a pugmander doesn't take up the alliance manpower slots that a guild will take. The most bang for the buck so to speak will be a popular pugmander.

What pugs would there be in the alliance? Will non-aligned by randomly thrown in to any old battle/map each time they log in or randomly assigned to some crappy bottom tier match up with no recognised comms?

How would 'pugs' even get into wvw- as apparently the structure is all about alliances fighting each other.

Where do the non-aligned even go? Sorry your not in an alliance you don't get to play for 8 weeks? You got kicked for not being active enough, no wvw for you for 8 weeks? None of these issues have been addressed.

I can see a lot of large wvw focused guilds trying hard to recruit the most active players and kicking the less active or occasional players, so you will end up with some guilds containing near 500 active players within an alliance.

[Sojourner.4621]

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Sojourner.4621 said:

@Rampage.7145 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Cyczer.7834 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Cyczer.7834 said:You just have to join them and choose them as your wvw guild and you can keep playing with your friends.

Did Anet say you

have to

?

Guilds is only for sorting players on the world. In the extreme example of someone having 0 guilds joining WvW, I'm assuming he will just join a random world thats not full, for the duration of being logged on. Another random world the next time he logs etc. Alternativly setting that random world as the home world until reset.

At least that would be the logical method.

Thats exactly what it is, you have to join guilds if you dont wanna rely on your luck to being put in same server. Otherwise you'll be placed randomly.

Its not by random. Its based off you contacts and what guilds you are in. who you party with. So if you choose to not have any guild claimed as your WvW guild, it will STILL take into account what guilds you're in when it places you. Furthermore Arena Net has alluded to the fact, that it is still able for such an individual to Transfer during the 8 week Season so you are indeed never trapped.Uhm isnt it kind of hard to take into account what guild you are in if you have no guild and no friends?

I highly doubt the MMR can place you based on data that doesnt exist. Remember we arent all veterans with 5 guilds, new players are gonna have to join WvW too.

if you have no guilds and no friends. why would you care where you're placed.

They just wanna leech of the good guild/commanders of a server, get carried and then say ¨kitten i am maguuma kitten¨, without actually trying to be good and acomplish something on their own. This profile describes anyone complaining on this post basically.

Some of us have concerns about eliminating servers that

aren't

in any way connected to wvw itself. As far as WvW is concerned, if it is truly effective at the goal it seems to have set, that is "Have roughly equal population coverage in wvw no matter what the time of day" then I will consider it not only a rousing success, but also easily the best thing to ever happen to the wvw community as a whole. That said, there are certain aspects of the non-wvw community that this could impact in an extremely negative way (Yes I am mostly referring to the RP community, yes I know most of you don't care.) It's not a bad thing to bring this to their attention and hope that they can find some ways of addressing those concerns. After all, that's the entire point of them posting this so far in advance, right?

There is a fair point as far as new players go, and how this might affect their impressions about wvw sense of community/etc. I think the best suggestion regarding that so far has actually be 12 weeks instead of 8 for reshuffles... make a wvw season last an entire 3 months instead of just two. That little bit of extra time with the current match-up can make or break how you feel about your current world's guilds/alliances/commanders and help you decide whether you want to stay with them, or try and find a new group in a new match-up.The only point to servers is WvW. Without that, we're all on a mega cluster server that share the code and hardware. The term Server is wrongly used. Everyone is on the same server instead use the term world. Again. Servers don't mean anything to PvE or SPvP.

That is the case now, but it was not always so. It used to be that on the "unofficial" RP servers (Tarnished Coast in NA, and Piken Square in EU) people could be out wandering the world and have a high probability of finding other people who were just out and about RPing. Ever since the mega-server system was implemented, finding that is about as frequent as finding a precursor. It still happens from time to time, but it's pretty rare. Eliminating servers entirely, and thereby eliminating server-priority for mega-server instance selection, will make RP hard to find EVEN IN THE CITIES which was the last place we could be wandering around and still run in to other Roleplayers. It will no longer be rare in the open world, it will be gone completely. What I am asking them to consider is a non-wvw alliance system that would give mega-server selection priority to people in the same alliance. It's really my only concern on the matter (well that, and of course how effective the algorithms they use for determining the wvw World Selection are). It may not mean anything to you, but to the RP community it means a HELL OF A LOT.

[Baldrick.8967]

@Evolute.6239 said:

@Kamsin.8541 said:But what is the max player cap per guild (WvW) ? It's the main issue here.One alliance of 2 guilds = 1 server or worth, only one guild = 1 server

I mean, yes, in theory

In reality is there a single guild that could have

500 active players

who

ALL

toggle their WvW for the guild on? Highly unlikely.

That's exactly what people will aim for. And exactly what the 'must win' mindset people will do, as that is the most likely to win a match up. Anyone less active will be kicked to free up space for the more active, then once it reaches critical mass it will attract the same mind set types until it gets there.

If you want a perfect example of this happening in practice, it's exactly what happened in Perfect World, where one guild ended up attracting almost all the most highly geared highest level people with all the right buffs, foods, set ups, builds, etc who were willing to log on 2 hours before a fight and spent all week planning team comps, group leaders, etc, and then it became a self fulfilling circle as they won the most money every week leading to even more imbalance and eventually complete domination.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@DeKong.6203 said:Having rewards in the end of the season like PvP AT or Monthly Tourneys have for the party that wins, would be nice to give us a reason to win and go t1 till the end of the matcup

You can't tie rewards to this, it would just lead to mega stacking and he who can stack the most into their alliance autowins. NA and EU are still not the same server base there will still be coverage wars. Players will be hired to play outside of their normal play times to game the system and zerg timezone where people are less populated unless this system also causes map sizes to auto-balance as people try and request access to WvW which then causes queues which no one likes.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:This is going to be a pre-sanity check to the WvW system that is being proposed for Ashes of Creation. The question is what checks and balance will the alliance system bring. Is this a Warhammer Online alliance system or one where biggest guild rules? What prevents abuse and doesn't mean the lose of more player base when people lose that server identity that is there for some today. A lot of people today fight for their server and do still feel server pride. Just because some players don't doesn't mean its not going to be a big negative to those that do. There is a more less appreciated aspect of seeing the same names for years that will now be turning everyone into single serving friends.

Would recommend a separate thread for each of the major points in this thread to keep things on topic before we hit page 50.Examples:

• Thread on forming/managing/disbanding alliances
• Thread on how caps on players/guild in alliances will work
• Thread on guild caps to better allow more managable spreads
• Thread on how are guild/alliances sizes going to be crossbalanced to allow good mix of all play styles, roamer, havoc, guild, zerg, alliance

At this point there are enough re-accruing questions that sub-threads should be definable on this topic.

First thing Guilds already have caps of 500 Roster size, so we already know Guild cap.

Every other “point” you made is handled by the guilds/leaders making up the alliances, because it takes the agreement of the Guild Leaders to even form an alliance, they can fill their guilds and their Allliance as they see fit for their needs, the system won’t hand hold the Allaince making, alliance roster cap will be between 500- 1000 players, players will have to set a WvW Guild as their primary WvW to be counted towards that’s guilds WvW presence and by extension that guilds Alliance presence. This is all clearly laid out in the OP.

[Tolmos.8395]

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:

@"Tolmos.8395" said:I would like to reiterate the previous questions posed, and not yet answered, about how this will affect Roleplayers.This is something we hadn’t fully considered and we’ll start looking into possible solutions.

Thanks for responding! It's great to see it's on your radar.

One suggestion: some sort of override for the megaserver channel prioritization would probably be helpful for this. For instance, in settings -> General, having a section for Channel Optimization, with single selection check boxes for "Prioritize Channel Selection for X" (where X could be something like RP). Upon next zone phase, the player would be moved to a channel containing the most other players with that option selected. This would allow it to remain dynamic, as the channel chosen would simply be determined by what players already existed in the channel, and thus wouldn't require attempting to earmark channels for certain things (which, considering they are dynamic, would likely not even be possible). Doing something like this would at least increase the chances that players were grouped together with like minded individuals.

This sort of playstyle relies heavily on running into like minded people in the open, persistent world, so any solution would need to actively pursue that particular goal.

[Baldrick.8967]

@Klipso.8653 said:

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:

A message from McKenna Berdrow:

We plan to track stats like play hours in WvW, commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels.

I am curious to know if these are things currently tracked on the individual player level already, or if Anet is only planning to start tracking it.

'participation levels' really? I can join a zerg and be p6 before i blink after one fight. Or I can be doing my scouting role switching maps as well and a lot of running and take 30 minutes to even reach p3. How will the metric track that? Is running through an enemy zerg with another zerg count much higher than defending? So if I want to appear near the top of any 'stats' I need to blob all the time and to hell with the map?

does play hours take into account standing around waiting on pip decay? What about pip farmers, who stay in wvw all day just moving their character out to flip a camp every ten minutes...

Commander time? What is that? The amount of time a comm tag is up (even if it is a closed guild raid or a planned gvg??).

Squad size? So we can split the squads and this would game the system?

[TheGrimm.5624]

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

First thing Guilds already have caps of 500 Roster size, so we already know Guild cap.

Every other “point” you made is handled by the guilds/leaders making up the alliances, because it takes the agreement of the Guild Leaders to even form an alliance, they can fill their guilds and their Allliance as they see fit for their needs, the system won’t hand hold the Allaince making, alliance roster cap will be between 500- 1000 players, players will have to set a WvW Guild as their primary WvW to be counted towards that’s guilds WvW presence and by extension that guilds Alliance presence. This is all clearly laid out in the OP.

But does that still work in this model? Is 500 the right size, too small, too big? Taking the algorithms that are planned how many size guilds of various sizes are being planned so that the mix is right. Yes they shared some conceps which is appreciated but this still sounds blobfest. And when you have disagreements in alliances what tools are in place to handle. Alliance tools by itself might make or break this system.

[pombear.1058]

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

@pombear.1058 said:

@Loosmaster.8263 said:

@pombear.1058 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Richard.8207 said:I don’t want another guild or alliance....I want to be able to get familiar with the community. That community aspect is the important part of the game to me. If not for community, I’d be playing a different game.

Do you not see what you are saying? You say that community is important but you don't want to join a community. It makes no sense. Elitism of others has nothing to do with that.

I see what you are saying, but guilds/alliances have limited spaces, which leads to those who have invitation rights being picky in who they invite...Communities should not discriminate in such a way... The more limited the spaces, the more elitest people become, in order to highten their chances of winning/having fun.These 'communities' are not what a lot of people want to be a part of.

When was the last time you saw 500-1000 players in WvW?

Edit: ON ONE SIDE!!!

I think you are getting confused... The 500-1000 cap is for the alliance as a whole, much like the current guild cap is 500 regardless of players are online or not....

That's my point. Why would that range be too low? When the worlds will still be populated with non alliance guilds and random players to fill the remaining spots.

It's all still in it's infancy.

Agreed that the proposed system is in it's infancy.

My current server (in the EU) has over 2600 member's in our forums, and 15+ guilds on the recruitment page...This is the community that we have built over the 5 years, we will not be able to stay like this if the proposed solution goes through as-is.

From the people i have talked to, we all have immense server/community-pride, if we get split up, i doubt many of us will stay long enough... especially if there is no way for us to keep a full community season after season

[Ya Ya Yeah.7381]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@DeKong.6203 said:Having rewards in the end of the season like PvP AT or Monthly Tourneys have for the party that wins, would be nice to give us a reason to win and go t1 till the end of the matcup

You can't tie rewards to this, it would just lead to mega stacking and he who can stack the most into their alliance autowins. NA and EU are still not the same server base there will still be coverage wars. Players will be hired to play outside of their normal play times to game the system and zerg timezone where people are less populated unless this system also causes map sizes to auto-balance as people try and request access to WvW which then causes queues which no one likes.

This system is supposed to balance and create a population controlled enviornment. After this there should be no reason to say that you lost because of coverage or population. Rewards are essential or it just basically is playing wvw just to see who can get the most points or kills. We don't have any leader boards to tell us which guild is really good or which player is really good. We should at least get rewards out of this or something to keep things competitive.

[Tolmos.8395]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

First thing Guilds already have caps of 500 Roster size, so we already know Guild cap.

Every other “point” you made is handled by the guilds/leaders making up the alliances, because it takes the agreement of the Guild Leaders to even form an alliance, they can fill their guilds and their Allliance as they see fit for their needs, the system won’t hand hold the Allaince making, alliance roster cap will be between 500- 1000 players, players will have to set a WvW Guild as their primary WvW to be counted towards that’s guilds WvW presence and by extension that guilds Alliance presence. This is all clearly laid out in the OP.

But does that still work in this model? Is 500 the right size, too small, too big? Taking the algorithms that are planned how many size guilds of various sizes are being planned so that the mix is right. Yes they shared some conceps which is appreciated but this still sounds blobfest. And when you have disagreements in alliances what tools are in place to handle. Alliance tools by itself might make or break this system.

Considering guilds are replacing worlds, I would think that guild sizes might need a bit of a bump in max player size.

EDIT: While there are new dynamic worlds that will be created, the concept of a world right now is a logical clustering of players which is chosen specifically by the player. The future dynamic worlds will be just that; dynamic. This means that the current world system, where people can pick which world they want to be in, will be replaced in functionality by Guilds, since the system will be prioritizing keeps guilds together in worlds.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

First thing Guilds already have caps of 500 Roster size, so we already know Guild cap.

Every other “point” you made is handled by the guilds/leaders making up the alliances, because it takes the agreement of the Guild Leaders to even form an alliance, they can fill their guilds and their Allliance as they see fit for their needs, the system won’t hand hold the Allaince making, alliance roster cap will be between 500- 1000 players, players will have to set a WvW Guild as their primary WvW to be counted towards that’s guilds WvW presence and by extension that guilds Alliance presence. This is all clearly laid out in the OP.

But does that still work in this model? Is 500 the right size, too small, too big? Taking the algorithms that are planned how many size guilds of various sizes are being planned so that the mix is right. Yes they shared some conceps which is appreciated but this still sounds blobfest. And when you have disagreements in alliances what tools are in place to handle. Alliance tools by itself might make or break this system.

The variable guild sizes are fine as is, Guilds don’t have to join Alliances if they don’t want to and multiple Guilds can join Alliances which will have a cap on how many Guilds can be in an Alliance on top of the actual Player Roster.

Again if there is a Disagreement in an Alliance guess what the people involved can either fix the issue or Leave Guilds aren’t stuck in Alliances. Wow such a mind blowing concept! There doesn’t have to be a system to babysit/handhold

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Tolmos.8395 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

First thing Guilds already have caps of 500 Roster size, so we already know Guild cap.

Every other “point” you made is handled by the guilds/leaders making up the alliances, because it takes the agreement of the Guild Leaders to even form an alliance, they can fill their guilds and their Allliance as they see fit for their needs, the system won’t hand hold the Allaince making, alliance roster cap will be between 500- 1000 players, players will have to set a WvW Guild as their primary WvW to be counted towards that’s guilds WvW presence and by extension that guilds Alliance presence. This is all clearly laid out in the OP.

But does that still work in this model? Is 500 the right size, too small, too big? Taking the algorithms that are planned how many size guilds of various sizes are being planned so that the mix is right. Yes they shared some conceps which is appreciated but this still sounds blobfest. And when you have disagreements in alliances what tools are in place to handle. Alliance tools by itself might make or break this system.

Considering guilds are replacing worlds, I would think that guild sizes might need a bit of a bump in max player size.

Guilds aren’t replacing worlds... and Anet states that Alliances won’t be able to make up the majority of a World’s population so yeah.

[Swamurabi.7890]

WvW is supposed to be about fights between large number of players spread out over 4 maps continually for 7 days.

I really hope Anet doesn't scrap the world alliance idea because of issues raised by RP players like it scrapped the battlegroup idea because of "server pride".Also I would hope that Anet doesn't change WvW to accommodate those players that are used to playing WvW on low population worlds.

WvW isn't about small scale fights only. WvW isn't about roamers only. WvW isn't about playing ONLY with a certain group of players, whether they be role players, Charr, Ascalonian Mages or Quaggan, even though I do like Quaggan.

As far as your current community is concerned, get over it. If you want a community, get in a guild that is in an alliance. If you can't get into a guild/alliance then it's obvious that the "community" doesn't have the same warm and fuzzy feelings towards you.

While I'm at it, forget about asking for being able to have multiple WvW guilds. This was one way to game the old battlegroup idea and I'm glad Anet closed that option in world alliances.

Also you should realize that even though your World finished the season in first place, the next realignment could have you, your guild, or your alliance start in T4 the next season.

/end rant