World Restructuring

[primatos.5413]

The Real Problem .. let me say it again .. is still missing balance .. kittenbuilds everywhere i look it is a game promoting offtime capping .. promoting blobbing ...promoting fight avoiding servers not punished by some sort of negative feedback .. alliances won´t change not even one of this problems so why do we even talk about it ? Anet needs to figure out the CORE problems and solve them .. nothing more, nothing less .. fraggin punkz .. sick of getting rolled over and over by french servers for example which only go for fights if they outnumber opponents by 2:1 at least .. otherwise the go 4 hard pvd/ppt bs .. gg great game

[Dawdler.8521]

@HazyDaisy.4107 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@"Swamurabi.7890" said:Is it possible for two players, both in the same guild, both in different "WvW" chosen guilds, to be on different sides of the same matchup AND claim structures?

Do you see a problem with this?

It happens now. And no. I don't see a problem with it.

Right now, it helps us keeps tabs on the spy /double teaming guilds, IF you're paying attention. For instance, last week we were fighting a server with a estimated 10 man havoc guild known to ninja T3 towers. We come in one day and notice that guild has a claim for our team on a T3 tower. ..Ooops! Low and behold, a few hours later the server that hosts that guids main players comes in and that T3 towers claim disappears. Red alert! That tower is a target! Sure enough, it was and several people noticed that error in judgement and we managed to protect that tower all day despite their server, rouge members of our server and the third server trying to distract us from the plan.

Yes, it will be a much bigger problem trying to keep tract of this when restructuring happens, and it will mst likely be so out of hand that most won't bother to try and keep track of it, which will be sad because then the spies truly win. In the meantime though it's not a problem.What, its not a problem now yet you described exactly how it's a problem?

How will this be any different problem whatsoever with the restructure? Why would the restructure cause it to be out of hand? 3-way fights doesnt change. From the perspective of a T3 tower in any given matchup being held and fought over there is zero difference - spies or no spies active. I really do not understand the reasoning there.

[DaVid Darksoul.4985]

@SailorSpira.9371 said:

@Teleoceras.1298 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Teleoceras.1298 said:

@TheQuickFox.3826 said:

Disclaimer

: I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but I don't feel like reading through 37 pages of this topic to find out.

What about guildless players or players who are still in an inactive guild?

My guild is mostly inactive and I mostly play with random commanders and some fellow players of my Ruins of Surmia (EU) server. I might just as well leave my guild. What does the change mean to me? Will WvW still be as accessible to random players (not in a guild or ally). Will there be as many open commanders who accept players regardless of alliance? Is there a way to continue to play with the players of my Ruins of Surmia server who i frequently come across?

 Also my guild is active but the guild leader has pretty much quit the game without having a replacement since last April. Is the guild leader required for making alliances with other guilds?

Reform the guild. Get the active members who still play to create a new guild with a new guild leader and make that change now.

Use that former guild for its buffs if you don't want to build up the new guilds buffs.

Do you realize just how hideously expensive it is to upgrade a new guild hall? My guild has been maxed out for over a year now and it took a LOT of people to get it maxed out, decorated, etc.

I would recommend getting the highest ranked active member of your guild to send a ticket to Anet asking to promote them to GL rank due to inactivity of the current rank holder.Or if you do go the second guild option you don't need to rep it or upgrade a guild hall, you just need it to be set to WvW for the purpose of alliances and continue to Rep your existing guild. That would only cost 1 gold.

I interpreted designating a Guild as your WvW Guild as meaning that once done you cannot represent another Guild in WvW. If that is correct then you cannot use another Guild to claim nor slot buffs.

[Loosmaster.8263]

@DaVid Darksoul.4985 said:

@SailorSpira.9371 said:

@Teleoceras.1298 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Teleoceras.1298 said:

@TheQuickFox.3826 said:

Disclaimer

: I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but I don't feel like reading through 37 pages of this topic to find out.

What about guildless players or players who are still in an inactive guild?

My guild is mostly inactive and I mostly play with random commanders and some fellow players of my Ruins of Surmia (EU) server. I might just as well leave my guild. What does the change mean to me? Will WvW still be as accessible to random players (not in a guild or ally). Will there be as many open commanders who accept players regardless of alliance? Is there a way to continue to play with the players of my Ruins of Surmia server who i frequently come across?

 Also my guild is active but the guild leader has pretty much quit the game without having a replacement since last April. Is the guild leader required for making alliances with other guilds?

Reform the guild. Get the active members who still play to create a new guild with a new guild leader and make that change now.

Use that former guild for its buffs if you don't want to build up the new guilds buffs.

Do you realize just how hideously expensive it is to upgrade a new guild hall? My guild has been maxed out for over a year now and it took a LOT of people to get it maxed out, decorated, etc.

I would recommend getting the highest ranked active member of your guild to send a ticket to Anet asking to promote them to GL rank due to inactivity of the current rank holder.Or if you do go the second guild option you don't need to rep it or upgrade a guild hall, you just need it to be set to WvW for the purpose of alliances and continue to Rep your existing guild. That would only cost 1 gold.

I interpreted designating a Guild as your WvW Guild as meaning that once done you cannot represent another Guild in WvW. If that is correct then you cannot use another Guild to claim nor slot buffs.

It's not. The selection is only for the making of the world every 8 weeks.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@DaVid Darksoul.4985 said:

@SailorSpira.9371 said:

@Teleoceras.1298 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Teleoceras.1298 said:

@TheQuickFox.3826 said:

Disclaimer

: I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but I don't feel like reading through 37 pages of this topic to find out.

What about guildless players or players who are still in an inactive guild?

My guild is mostly inactive and I mostly play with random commanders and some fellow players of my Ruins of Surmia (EU) server. I might just as well leave my guild. What does the change mean to me? Will WvW still be as accessible to random players (not in a guild or ally). Will there be as many open commanders who accept players regardless of alliance? Is there a way to continue to play with the players of my Ruins of Surmia server who i frequently come across?

 Also my guild is active but the guild leader has pretty much quit the game without having a replacement since last April. Is the guild leader required for making alliances with other guilds?

Reform the guild. Get the active members who still play to create a new guild with a new guild leader and make that change now.

Use that former guild for its buffs if you don't want to build up the new guilds buffs.

Do you realize just how hideously expensive it is to upgrade a new guild hall? My guild has been maxed out for over a year now and it took a LOT of people to get it maxed out, decorated, etc.

I would recommend getting the highest ranked active member of your guild to send a ticket to Anet asking to promote them to GL rank due to inactivity of the current rank holder.Or if you do go the second guild option you don't need to rep it or upgrade a guild hall, you just need it to be set to WvW for the purpose of alliances and continue to Rep your existing guild. That would only cost 1 gold.

I interpreted designating a Guild as your WvW Guild as meaning that once done you cannot represent another Guild in WvW. If that is correct then you cannot use another Guild to claim nor slot buffs.

It is explained in the FAQs.

[Diku.2546]

@Diku.2546 said:Anet, sorry...but you're going down the wrong path.

Instead...please do something about the growing numbers of hackers in WvW.

[Elizabeth Reed.9173]

I started GW2 because I wanted a game where casual players and small guilds were accepted and welcomed. GW2 was the only game at the time that offered such an environment. Now, it seems that we casual players (and small guilds) will not be welcomed anymore. The game (WvW) will be dominated by super mega guilds and alliances who have neither the time nor compassion to allow "the little guy" to participate. The elite guilds will band together and the small guilds who I really love playing with will be shut out. The casual players like myself who enjoyed running around with the small guilds will be told they are not good enough to play with the "elites" of the game. We who have supported this game from the beginning will be shown the door out. GW2 will become the Wal-Mart of the gaming world. It's time that my friends and I look elsewhere. We will not be welcomed here anymore.

[Chaba.5410]

@"Elizabeth Reed.9173" said:I started GW2 because I wanted a game where casual players and small guilds were accepted and welcomed. GW2 was the only game at the time that offered such an environment. Now, it seems that we casual players (and small guilds) will not be welcomed anymore. The game (WvW) will be dominated by super mega guilds and alliances who have neither the time nor compassion to allow "the little guy" to participate. The elite guilds will band together and the small guilds who I really love playing with will be shut out. The casual players like myself who enjoyed running around with the small guilds will be told they are not good enough to play with the "elites" of the game. We who have supported this game from the beginning will be shown the door out. GW2 will become the Wal-Mart of the gaming world. It's time that my friends and I look elsewhere. We will not be welcomed here anymore.

This toxicity already happens, but players are not shut out and it will be the same with the new 8 week teams where a single alliance can only make up 25% of the total of a team. Creating new teams every 8 weeks is essentially no different than world linking, just with smaller groups of population than what happens currently in order to divide teams up more evenly.

[Norbe.7630]

@Diku.2546 said:

@Diku.2546 said:Anet, sorry...but you're going down the wrong path.

Instead...please do something about the growing numbers of hackers in WvW.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/5m7950/newgamemodewvgworldvsglobes/

you said it yourself.....

"Current WvW - Top 3 Chronic Problems

Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-UpsAllow friends & family to play together from many different WorldsAllow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves"

[freedomtolove.5476]

Why is it that the whole of the GW2 playerbase is punished for the actions of a few alliances of guilds who have stacked servers since the game's launch? You know what the worst part of all this is Arenanet? Now you're just going to give them all the tools they need to do it forever with these new "megaserver alliances."

Let me give you some proof of this with some videos and reddit posts by these people.

Does anyone remember the Titan Alliance who stacked servers at the beginning of the game?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/vvzs5/introducing_the_titan_alliance/

Sanctum of Rall was stacked by Indo (Tempest Wolves).

Blackgate was stacked by Malevolent (OnSlaught).

Greetings I’m Malevolent Omen, a server leader of Blackgate and the guild leader of [OnS]Onslaught. Blackgate is seeking Oceanic, South East Asian, and European guilds to fulfill our community’s coverage during Season 2. We seek guilds and individual players who want to join the server that maintained the lead in WvW Season 1.

Since I came to Blackgate, I found that Blackgate has a great community with many people willing to work together to strengthen the server to better the community.

Resilient is the word to describe Blackgate, which is one of the reasons my guild chose to come to here a year ago. No matter what trials and tribulations we go through as a server, in the end we always work together and get over them. These same tribulations have made us strong. Whether it is being the world’s first Tequatl kill or our will to win Season 1, Blackgate has always put its best foot forward.

Coming to Blackgate isn’t an easy win and Season 2 will be a much more competitive environment. If you are expecting easy wins here, chances are you will be disappointed. The competition is fierce and our Rival Servers want our heads on a stake.

If you are interested in Blackgate, we would love to hear from you. We are looking for like-minded guilds and players that want to come compete in North American Tier 1 WvW. If you are worried about Blackgate being Full, please note that our server status changes depending on time and we have been monitoring it so we know when players are able to transfer. If you are worried about the cost to transfer to a Tier 1 server, please know that on Blackgate we help support guilds and players that are interested in our community.

Join us on BEASTGATE!

Website: http://www.blackgatewvw.com

South East Asia & Oceanic Contact• Death Dollie (Tenebris.9258)

Europe Contact• Skugg (glorius.1235)• Smokee Gee (Smokee.1754)

North America Contact• Malevolent Omen (MaLeVoLenT.8129)

Malevolent as leader of BlackGate stacked the server with the help of the community warchest.They have even made blatant statements about what their intentions were to do below:

[–]MaLeVoLenT_OnS 2 points 2 years ago

I heard about this Weeks before HoT even had a release date. Arena Net wasn't kidding they've been working on this for years. I even hinted at this multiple times and i told various commanders and leaders. The information was provided to me by Arena Net hired beta testers and streamers. The same folk who provided me with this intel are the same folk who warned me if a season was coming or a certain patch. The information is legit the only thing thats not is the fact that they've been working on this for a year + so what we have as a leak could be vastly outdated.

When TW, OnS, WHOA, TS, EK, fK, LUN formed "The Mad Court Alliance" we also knew about this. We also didn't like how the Tiers rotate and we wanted to break it. We wanted to play with who we wanted and fight who we wanted. We didn't want the stagnant pace of WvW and we believe that GW2 WvW community is a global community and friends and guilds are what builds communities not the server you are currently on. So yes "The Tier destroyer alliance" is real and the list of guilds within will probably keep the alliance going(hoping its just not 3 guilds).

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I have this whole thing saved in a word document Arenanet. If you delete my post I will just copy/paste it again. People deserve to know the truth of what goes on in WvWvW behind the scenes.

Edit: It's not spam Chaba...It's called freedom of speech. You can't silence me telling people the reality of what will happen.

[Chaba.5410]

@"getalifeturd.8139" said:Why is it that the whole of the GW2 playerbase is punished for the actions of a few alliances of guilds who have stacked servers since the game's launch? You know what the worst part of all this is Arenanet? Now you're just going to give them all the tools they need to do it forever with these new "megaserver alliances."

Let me give you some proof of this with some videos and reddit posts by these people.

Does anyone remember the Titan Alliance who stacked servers at the beginning of the game?

snip

To be honest, this is mostly meaningless since alliance stacking cannot produce the same result of 5 years of dominance by a single team like server stacking could. Teams will be reformed every 8 weeks (or however long seasons end up being), which resets the bandwagons by guilds and random players that WvW has become notorious for. Also, the population calculation change doesn't allow mass logouts to be organized anymore that circumvent the intent of Full status.

All you are doing by repasting this if it gets deleted is spamming.

[hunkamania.7561]

It's like the guys posting in this thread didn't even read the OP's post. lol

[Euryon.9248]

@"Elizabeth Reed.9173" said:I started GW2 because I wanted a game where casual players and small guilds were accepted and welcomed. GW2 was the only game at the time that offered such an environment. Now, it seems that we casual players (and small guilds) will not be welcomed anymore. The game (WvW) will be dominated by super mega guilds and alliances who have neither the time nor compassion to allow "the little guy" to participate. The elite guilds will band together and the small guilds who I really love playing with will be shut out. The casual players like myself who enjoyed running around with the small guilds will be told they are not good enough to play with the "elites" of the game. We who have supported this game from the beginning will be shown the door out. GW2 will become the Wal-Mart of the gaming world. It's time that my friends and I look elsewhere. We will not be welcomed here anymore.

How are you coming to this conclusion? Who is "showing you the door out"? You and your friends in small guilds can just as easily form alliances and continue playing just as you are now. If the 'elite alliance' that ends up on your world this season ends up being a bunch of toxic douchebags, well, you only have to ignore them for 8 weeks at most.

No one can stop you from playing with your friends in small guilds just as you are doing now. In fact, it will be easier to get more of your friends on the same team since you can join the same alliance rather than potentially have people on separate servers until paying to transfer. So what if some elite alliance doesn't want you? Why would you want to be in the same alliance as people who don't want to be with you? This is a reset where you can choose your friends and playmates more thoroughly (and cheaply) than you can do currently.

[Chaba.5410]

@"getalifeturd.8139" said:Edit: It's not spam Chaba...It's called freedom of speech. You can't silence me telling people the reality of what will happen.

I'm not silencing you. If you want to claim "freedom of speech", you should have no issues with my freedom of response. I'm telling people why your post is meaningless and why it becomes spam by repasting it.

Alliance stacking cannot produce the same result like server stacking could. Teams will be reformed every 8 weeks, which resets the bandwagons that WvW has become notorious for. That is the reality of what will happen. I think the length of seasons should be lowered to 6 weeks, not 8 weeks.

[Loosmaster.8263]

Lol, sorry but the Constitution doesn't apply here...

[Euryon.9248]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"getalifeturd.8139" said:

Edit: It's not spam Chaba...It's called freedom of speech. You can't silence me telling people the reality of what will happen.

I'm not silencing you. If you want to claim "freedom of speech", you should have no issues with my freedom of response. I'm telling people why your post is meaningless and why it becomes spam by repasting it.

Alliance stacking cannot produce the same result like server stacking could. Teams will be reformed every 8 weeks, which resets the bandwagons that WvW has become notorious for. That is the reality of what will happen. I think the length of seasons should be lowered to 6 weeks, not 8 weeks.

The irony is that he's inadvertently posting evidence of why the current system sucks and why it needs a change to something that cannot be stacked to the extent servers are stacked now.

[shiri.4257]

@hunkamania.7561 said:It's like the guys posting in this thread didn't even read the OP's post. lol

We're americans. We just read the headline and form our own opinions on what the actual content is.

[TofuTactics.7952]

Looking forward to seeing what this change will bring. One can theorise all day, yet it can't be said how exactly it will benefit or be detrimental in various aspects of the mode, until implemented. Personally, as a roamer/open tag follower, there's hope that this will open up more opportunities to scout out potential groups to enjoy hanging out with. Being tied to a specific server limits those options. With this system, suddenly such limits are washed away, and one can choose and try out several alliances/communities to eventually commit to.

These news actually brought me hope and ecouragement to actually, once more, dedicate time to guilds and alliances/communities, instead of feeling stuck with enclosed server dynamics (whether them at times be good/bad). Leaves also greater room for alliances/comunities for themselves to change, with a larger pool of guilds/roamers available to them.

In theory, I'd welcome this change, and in theory, I'll hope this will widen the possibilites for players to find each other and come together.

[pareod.2635]

Hey, sorry if this has been asked already. If a guild with 500 members marks itself as a WvW guild, but only 200 of its members mark that guild as their WvW guild, how many players in that guild will count towards an alliance's player cap? 200 or 500?

[Dawdler.8521]

@"pareod.2635" said:Hey, sorry if this has been asked already. If a guild with 500 members marks itself as a WvW guild, but only 200 of its members mark that guild as their WvW guild, how many players in that guild will count towards an alliance's player cap? 200 or 500?Someone mentioned earlier than only "active" players count, ie those that have it set. But I'm not so sure. That would lead to an obvious issue - if 100 man in a 500 man guild tag up wvw and join a 400 man WvW alliance to reach 500 man cap, what happens if the other 400 people now tag it as their wvw guild? Either you would have a 900/500 man capped alliance next matchup (and you could make that much, much worse) or anet would have to disallow them choosing the guild as wvw guild if the alliance it is in has reached cap, which would be weird. But that would lead to allocation issues. First come first serve, or does alliances set the player count per guild and after that people in a guild can no longer tag it wvw and have to select another?We are clearly missing info about the limitations of alliances.

[Paralent.8564]

.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Paralent.8564

[Diku.2546]

@Norbe.7630 said:

@Diku.2546 said:

@Diku.2546 said:Anet, sorry...but you're going down the wrong path.

Instead...please do something about the growing numbers of hackers in WvW.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/5m7950/newgamemodewvgworldvsglobes/

you said it yourself.....

"Current WvW - Top 3 Chronic Problems

Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-UpsAllow friends & family to play together from many different WorldsAllow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves"

Thank you for being among the very few that could really understand the significance of this post in regards to WvW.

Anet chooses to ignore & censure this proposed solution.

The solution in that post was a cumulative result of my vision on what WvW should be.

Fixing WvW is really that simple, but Anet would rather implement a complex solution that in the long term will destroy their golden opportunity to create the next eSport Superbowl & make future patches & design changes difficult if not impossible to do.

The Superbowl is wildly successful...because there's a Solid & Stable "Team" identity for players & fans to identify with.

Teams aren't mixed randomly.

Players have a chance to emotionally connect with their Team...through good & bad times...so events leading up to the annual Superbowl event can develop a life of their own.

This game mode needs to be Player Driven...yet ANet Controlled. WvG - World vs Globes game mode does this easily.

There needs to be a "deeper" meaning & a reason to fight...which this proposed ANet design does very poorly to nurture...imho.

Wish they'd let me be on the ANet team to help shape the future of this game mode.

[Eramonster.2718]

@Diku.2546It won't work. Different players have different mindset for playing WvW.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Paralent.8564" said:Just want to throw in my two cents _against _this change. As someone who doesn't routinely play with a specific guild but does enjoy routinely playing with, and against, certain servers and the cultures that have developed on those servers, AND as someone who spends a considerable amount of money in support of GW2 for the purpose of transferring my several accounts, and does not mind doing so -- this is going to be the end of WvW as I know it. While I don't doubt that I can adapt to the new system (and will likely spend far less money on gems in the process), I would choose World Linking and its known flaws over the proposed changes any day of the week.

Problem with the cultures and "certain server", is that what should be the focus for the week?

Like, my server is fighting Drakkar Lake this matchup. Number 1 EU. They are Germans so they only sit on siege all day. And when they dont, they are lousy fighters that run 30v1. Because its Drakkar Lake. And they are shit.

Is that really what defines WvW? Is that really all we care about?

With the restructure this just shift to a smaller focus - defining an alliance or guilds by their actions, rather than an entire server. Because we dont really need an entire server for our "culture" division mind. We are humans after all, its enough with another human.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"pareod.2635" said:Hey, sorry if this has been asked already. If a guild with 500 members marks itself as a WvW guild, but only 200 of its members mark that guild as their WvW guild, how many players in that guild will count towards an alliance's player cap? 200 or 500?Someone mentioned earlier than only "active" players count, ie those that have it set. But I'm not so sure. That would lead to an obvious issue - if 100 man in a 500 man guild tag up wvw and join a 400 man WvW alliance to reach 500 man cap, what happens if the other 400 people now tag it as their wvw guild? Either you would have a 900/500 man capped alliance next matchup (and you could make that much, much worse) or anet would have to disallow them choosing the guild as wvw guild if the alliance it is in has reached cap, which would be weird. But that would lead to allocation issues. First come first serve, or does alliances set the player count per guild and after that people in a guild can no longer tag it wvw and have to select another?We are clearly missing info about the limitations of alliances.

I believe I have seen it said, and could be wrong, that the guild would either have to leave the alliance, or not allow those people to play as part of the guild. Same thing really applies to recruitment.

I cannot envision them not doing it that way. If they allow those people in, without removing people, it defeats the whole purpose.