World Restructuring

[crank.9648]

@Klipso.8653 said:

@crank.9648 said:

Another concern I have is can a guild leave an alliance moments before a matchup is about to begin, which could totally ruin it for the remaining players in the alliance, like guilds transferring out of a matchup at the beginning of the matchup now, it ruins the matchup for those remaining in the matchup. Imagine losing 50 members of an alliance on reset, it doesn't sound like much, but if you can fill 4 maps, that means 1 map will be outnumbered.

If I read their chart right, the last week of the 8 week period is locked. If the guild wanted to drop the alliance would know a week before reset

Ahh great, after all that reading it got lost in my thoughts

[Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365]

@McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:

@"Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365" said:How would this affected an account with characters in different guilds?Would you be able to join one matchup for one character/guild, and another amtch up if you logged in on another character in a different guild?

Guilds are account wide, so you cannot set a different WvW guild per character. The WvW guild is selected for the account.

I see so whether you're representing different guilds on different characters, you'll always end up in the match up of the wvw guild you're in?

EDIT:

never mind I found the answer in the FAQ

"Q.If a guild has a large population but only a portion of that guild actually plays WvW, would they have to make a new guild in order to keep the population accurate?No. Only players who set that guild as their WvW guild will count towards that guilds WvW population."

If I udnerstand it correct, u cna only set one of the guilds to your WvW guild? Makes sense

[LordOtto.2650]

@Abrithil.4572 said:

@LordOtto.2650 said:So who don;'t have guild, like me or the majority on Desolation, will end up on a loosing server?! Ok I got it! This change will lover the population, and eventually bye bye WvW! Who taught about this is an idiot! I won't play as a Pug against full guild servers, kitten you all!

There's a guild in Deso literally called Deso Community [DC], no requirements whatsoever. So what are you on about.

That community doesn't have guild done yet, we are not in that guild, if we don't make now a move, and start to have the guild full, people will wake up to late, and half of the community will spread! 5-6 months, you could say, Gandara has made 2 guilds, and recruiting people. I won't stay with Deso Community if they can't organize something!

[yanniell.1236]

Guess it needed to be done. Have been away from WvW for a while, but holy crap, I'll miss BG. Sooooo many history there. Still remember the 1x2 at Season 2 against JQ and TC. And when lots of BG's guild made an alliance and transferred off , with the sole purpose of "end BG". Glorious days. We would always rise stronger.

GG.

[vonhellsing.2819]

An idea to "encourage" people to play WvW would be: According to the score in WvW it improves the drop of boss, world boss in the PVE server.Who knows so PVE players will start to get interested in WvW.

Balance, balance, balance, all time thats, I think thats, the arenanet should do of each char taking just 1 point of damage from the other (all classes and build) you would have a good balance. We'll need zillion players to kill 1 and never die.  I go back to play after 3 years, and the subject continues NERF, NERF, NERF!

[Mindvibe.4630]

Create great matches [ ]Handle population fluctuations [x]Balance teams [ ]Diversify WvW experiences [x]

Their goal list as i see it.

I'm not sure they've thoroughly thought out the implications of an alliance system with this change, especially with the 500-1000 number they've thrown out there. The larger that number is, the more it counteracts what they're trying to achieve. This of course takes a very callous approach to how the playerbase feels about loyalty to their current home server. The longer anyone has played on their server, the more bitter of a pill this will seem.

While we're trying to solve this problem strictly mathematically, the only way this can work, is if it creates a hidden MMR for alliances based on their performance the previous week. The top alliances get ground into dust by asking of them increasingly impossible tasks week after week. In the world of reality though, where this isn't going to exist, having a simple algorithm match up an even number of hours put in just won't cut it. If someone were in the number-one-big-dog-king-of-the-hill-and-everyone-better-know-it alliance, the opening week of this rollout is going to be glorious for them. For everyone else, when they don't see a commander they recognize, and they don't see an option for them to join in with said alliance, and they aren't particularly savvy to be run over by a buff stacking, support spamming zergball for a few hours a day, they're going to come to one conclusion: I guess WvW isn't a game mode for individuals anymore.

I don't particularly see a reason why this change would be doing what ANet should have listed as their number one priority: bring players back to WvW. Over the years so many people have completely quit this game mode for one reason or another. These changes do nothing but isolate players from connecting to one another.

As for the marks I've indicated at the top for the four main goals, I've marked them in such a way for one main reason. A strictly mathematical approach is being taken to solve this issue, but only two on that list can be solved with a mathematical approach. Diversifying WvW is the bread and butter for this new method. It's going to be new people you're facing every week, and even the seasoned players might end up learning something. Population fluctuations? Not on my watch. Throw more people at it until it works. As for great matches and balanced teams though, these aren't things that are going to be achieved in any realistic sense by operating under the assumption that all players only contribution to a week in WvW is how much time they spend with their time card punched. A 1000 player alliance of dedicated, skilled players can easily handle a group of mish-moshed randoms during all timezones, for the entire week. Isn't that what WvW is all about? Not to most people. Outsiders don't want to play with them, the entire map is one color. People don't want to play against them without a second monitor to keep track of their buff bar. And now those people themselves don't even want to play, because they won and it wasn't hard. The only way for this to work from ANet's perspective is for them to take a hand in the balancing themselves. The computer isn't going to be able to tell which matchups are going to be blowouts every week. It will take an actual person or team to actively balance WvW. As it stands, this change will cause more harm than goood to the WvW population.

.02

[Belorn.2659]

With caps at 5 guilds and a total of 500-1000 members, my prediction is that the guild cap will hit in the vast majority of cases. The wvw guilds I know on my server is all much smaller than active 100+ members. This will then create alliance "guilds" which members of multiple guilds will join in order to make alliances be more dense and reach the member cap with just 5 guilds.

The guild cap will hurt small guilds. It will hurt players who currently is in multiple small guilds that each provide one aspect of wvw. It would be nice if the new system would actually help smaller guild that do one thing and do that very efficiently. 5 guilds with each 30 active wvw players is only going to be a 150 member alliance and that drawback is going to push players to abandon such guilds.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Belorn.2659" said:With caps at 5 guilds and a total of 500-1000 members, my prediction is that the guild cap will hit in the vast majority of cases. The wvw guilds I know on my server is all much smaller than active 100+ members. This will then create alliance "guilds" which members of multiple guilds will join in order to make alliances be more dense and reach the member cap with just 5 guilds.

The guild cap will hurt small guilds. It will hurt players who currently is in multiple small guilds that each provide one aspect of wvw. It would be nice if the new system would actually help smaller guild that do one thing and do that very efficiently. 5 guilds with each 30 active wvw players is only going to be a 150 member alliance and that drawback is going to push players to abandon such guilds.But isnt the point to balance the alliances within the worlds alongside non-alliance guilds and players?

Simple math: alliance X has 5 guilds with 150 players and alliance Y has 2 guilds with 500 players. They are going to fight each other. Unbalanced? No its not.

Because if alliance X is part of a world 1 together with one more alliance of 350 players and random guilds+pugs numbering 500 players while alliance Y is part of world 2 together with 500 guilds+pugs and no other alliances, you still have 1000 vs 1000 players in world 1 and 2. Yes yes I ignore the MMR which take into consideration play time etc, but lets assume it end up equal. That's how it's balanced in very simple terms.

There will be no "need" to reach alliance cap. The only result is your alliance take up a larger chunk of the world population.

[Skynet.7201]

I had mixed feeling at first about this, but it seems to me that overall, this will hopefully squash some dead time zones for people as alliances are formed for better coverage (and resulting in more activity).

The only thing I don't like is the eight weeks per matchup idea.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@"Tiawal.2351" said:Time spent in WvW shouldn't be the major factor in balancing, but performance. 10h Pip farming PPT can't be compared to 2h fighting and high KDR. Without the use of useful stats there won't be balance of any kind.Player numbers without player quality considered will just recreate what we have now. Detailed Leaderboards are essential not just for balancing, but as tool to motivate participation and inspire improvement. Worse thing you can do is "balance" based on hours "spent" in WvW.

this^^^although measuring such stats becomes tricky with a bit of hanky panky, if it could be done accurately then it would be well worth it.

also I think that a players time zone should be considered as well.

[hmsgoddess.3869]

I'd like to make a suggestion in regards to alliances and number cap. As a guild leader I am in charge of making alliances that benefits my guild, that said this means I need to know how many of my guild members are choosing my guild as their WvW guild, as you can imagine one larger guilds this is a guild leader nightmare. I need to know how many are choosing my guild as their WvW guild. When the time comes, I do hope that ANET places some sort of UI that guild leaders can see as to whom is selecting their guild as the WvW guild choice. A simple 50/100 have selected this guild for WvW is fine it would at least give guild leaders a base number to foster alliances with. Just my 2 cents.

[cobbah.3102]

@"Tiawal.2351" said:Time spent in WvW shouldn't be the major factor in balancing, but performance. 10h Pip farming PPT can't be compared to 2h fighting and high KDR. Without the use of useful stats there won't be balance of any kind.Player numbers without player quality considered will just recreate what we have now. Detailed Leaderboards are essential not just for balancing, but as tool to motivate participation and inspire improvement. Worse thing you can do is "balance" based on hours "spent" in WvW.

KDR shouldnt come into it , everyone seems to think blobbing down smaller parties is fighting ,pirate ship isnt fighting . KDR is insignificant in the mode of the game.

[Pagan Highlander.5948]

Just an possible solution for the RPs.

1. Create an Instance/Map/city just for Role playing and name Them for the unofficial Roleplaying Servers
2. Allow RPers to Form Role play guilds
3. Have Contact board at the entrance. Players can join/apply to join, or Create a RP guild
4. Players must belong to an RP guild to enter
5. They may join or leave a RP guild as they wish

[Dawdler.8521]

@cobbah.3102 said:

@"Tiawal.2351" said:Time spent in WvW shouldn't be the major factor in balancing, but performance. 10h Pip farming PPT can't be compared to 2h fighting and high KDR. Without the use of useful stats there won't be balance of any kind.Player numbers without player quality considered will just recreate what we have now. Detailed Leaderboards are essential not just for balancing, but as tool to motivate participation and inspire improvement. Worse thing you can do is "balance" based on hours "spent" in WvW.

KDR shouldnt come into it , everyone seems to think blobbing down smaller parties is fighting ,pirate ship isnt fighting . KDR is insignificant in the mode of the game.Or you could just weigh in both. Most of the time it will come down to the person with high kdr being worse off anyway. 10h of PPT vs 2h of fighting... well those 10h win the matchup, the 2h does not.

[Chaba.5410]

@hmsgoddess.3869 said:I need to know how many are choosing my guild as their WvW guild. When the time comes, I do hope that ANET places some sort of UI that guild leaders can see as to whom is selecting their guild as the WvW guild choice. A simple 50/100 have selected this guild for WvW is fine it would at least give guild leaders a base number to foster alliances with. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed! McKenna wrote earlier that devs expect an alliance would have guilds split off if the alliance gets full, but without the info of how many WvW members a guild has, it would make such an activity a guessing game.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@hmsgoddess.3869 said:I need to know how many are choosing my guild as their WvW guild. When the time comes, I do hope that ANET places some sort of UI that guild leaders can see as to whom is selecting their guild as the WvW guild choice. A simple 50/100 have selected this guild for WvW is fine it would at least give guild leaders a base number to foster alliances with. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed! McKenna wrote earlier that devs expect an alliance would have guilds split off if the alliance gets full, but without the info of how many WvW members a guild has, it would make such an activity a guessing game.

But then, that would be a requirement to be allowed into the alliance. Full disclosure. Or as the alliance leader don't take them in.

If it proves to be false, kick them.

[Chaba.5410]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@hmsgoddess.3869 said:I need to know how many are choosing my guild as their WvW guild. When the time comes, I do hope that ANET places some sort of UI that guild leaders can see as to whom is selecting their guild as the WvW guild choice. A simple 50/100 have selected this guild for WvW is fine it would at least give guild leaders a base number to foster alliances with. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed! McKenna wrote earlier that devs expect an alliance would have guilds split off if the alliance gets full, but without the info of how many WvW members a guild has, it would make such an activity a guessing game.

But then, that would be a requirement to be allowed into the alliance. Full disclosure. Or as the alliance leader don't take them in.

If it proves to be false, kick them.

You misunderstood the request. All that is needed is a simple number: 50/100. It doesn't have to say who.

What I hear you saying is you would rather a guessing game and prevent guilds from being able to manage their rosters however they see fit. Guilds already kick members who go inactive, but not all guilds do that.

[Heibi.4251]

Two concerns on the "Guild Cap" in alliances.

1. A Guild cap will punish smaller guilds that can be beneficial to the alliance overall. Scouting, Havoc and the like. If the cap is set at an arbitrarily low number without regard to actual player numbers then ANeT has basically told the small guilds that they really don't matter and that they should just go join a big guild.
2. In relation to #1. Bigger guilds will basically devour the smaller guilds because players from those smaller guilds who want to play in the big league will have to join them to play. Sure, they can rep any guild while in WvW, but there is always the heavy handed 100% guild rep policies we all know exist out there. Not to mention the overall guild cap in general. This is creating a big nasty monster that will drive players away.

Solution:Base the alliance purely on total number of players. No extra algorithms involved. You could have 30 guilds as long as you come in under the player total cap. But still, there is going to be a lot of heartache out there when an alliance caps out, just like now when a world is full and you can't transfer there.

[Moira Shalaar.5620]

At this point with this many pages I will be upfront that I have not read the whole thing so perhaps someone else has already expressed the same concern as my own.

I reside on a smaller population server that gets passed from one link to another every couple months. Some worlds have been great to team with, others have not, which should be no surprise to anybody who does WvW. But what remains consistent is MY server. There are some guilds that have regular events that I can join when I am on. I am not a member of any of those guilds, nor do I want to be. But I like how their commanders do things and commanders are not all equal. With this alliance idea, unless my declared WvW guild manages to be a part of an alliance that has commanders I like, not only will we continue the churn, but now we will be churned up and spit out without even the benefit of playing with long established groups. . . . unless I can add them as a guild. But being required to join one of the other guilds on my world NOW as the only hope of being able to run in squads with them later causes guild issues because so many guilds have rep requirements.

I hate the current linking system, but as bad as it is, this alliance system with even greater churn every 8 weeks is only going to thoroughly break up any possibility of having cohesive groups. I enjoy WvW, but if I get tied in a team for 8 weeks populated by players who specialize in antisocial behavior, that is going to be 8 weeks of no WvW for me.

There has to be a way to fix the existing population balance problems without shattering existing server cohesion.

[DippyDragon.3180]

Been fighting for TC since day one. Not in a guild, but have many friends and acquaintances on TC WvW, through our good times and hardships.Most guilds not interested in a player who doesn't use teamspeak or whatever, as I play in silence so I can keep an ear out for children. So not sure where this leaves me; will I still see all the people who are part of TC again, or is that it, and we're to be spread across new worlds with no history.

[Substance E.4852]

@DippyDragon.3180 said:Been fighting for TC since day one. Not in a guild, but have many friends and acquaintances on TC WvW, through our good times and hardships.Most guilds not interested in a player who doesn't use teamspeak or whatever, as I play in silence so I can keep an ear out for children. So not sure where this leaves me; will I still see all the people who are part of TC again, or is that it, and we're to be spread across new worlds with no history.

No where.

Anet doesn't really care.

This is just some Hail Mary to try and keep the server lag guilds around.

[XenesisII.1540]

@ankortwat.4926 said:hi guys would love to play WvW again, but I'm tired of all this farming in order to get the best armor and weapons, so if you made WvW like PvP or at least make it possible to get perfect WvW gear within 1-2 days, you would definitely get more players playing WvW.

But that would only get them to play for 1-2 days....

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@hmsgoddess.3869 said:I need to know how many are choosing my guild as their WvW guild. When the time comes, I do hope that ANET places some sort of UI that guild leaders can see as to whom is selecting their guild as the WvW guild choice. A simple 50/100 have selected this guild for WvW is fine it would at least give guild leaders a base number to foster alliances with. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed! McKenna wrote earlier that devs expect an alliance would have guilds split off if the alliance gets full, but without the info of how many WvW members a guild has, it would make such an activity a guessing game.

But then, that would be a requirement to be allowed into the alliance. Full disclosure. Or as the alliance leader don't take them in.

If it proves to be false, kick them.

You misunderstood the request. All that is needed is a simple number: 50/100. It doesn't have to say who.

What I hear you saying is you would rather a guessing game and prevent guilds from being able to manage their rosters however they see fit. Guilds already kick members who go inactive, but not all guilds do that.

i don't want the guilds to have to do that. If your suggestion is that the guild leader and guild members can see how many have selected their guild for WvW I am definately in favor of that.

I am not in favor of the alliance leader being able to see that.

There should be some risk in the process for an alliance leader. And if they can't trust the guilds under them to be forthcoming then maybe they need new guilds.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@DippyDragon.3180 said:Been fighting for TC since day one. Not in a guild, but have many friends and acquaintances on TC WvW, through our good times and hardships.Most guilds not interested in a player who doesn't use teamspeak or whatever, as I play in silence so I can keep an ear out for children. So not sure where this leaves me; will I still see all the people who are part of TC again, or is that it, and we're to be spread across new worlds with no history.

As much as this process hurts people like you, if it goes through AND you want to play with people that you play with now, ask one or two of the more casual guilds (that stresses less about TS) for an invite.

Likely those that have been with you on TC know you. I have seen at least two or three larger guild leaders post here from TC. My experience with them from the past was always quite positive.

[Rod.6581]

I see a lot of people here talking how this changes will destroy their guild as a community. Can anyone explain to me how any of the changes in game can do that?

Most of my guild mates have stopped playing GW2 long time ago. Still we chat on Discord while playing other games. We post on guild forum from time to time. When visiting other cities, even countries we get together for a beer or two (or more :) ).

If your guild mates are so important to you as a community, how is it possible that a change in single game mode of a single game can destroy it?