World Restructuring

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@"Caliburn.1845" said:If you play WvW because of server loyalty, but refuse to hit the "opt in" button to join your server Alliance when the time comes. Then all your protestations of loyalty mean less to you than one mouse click.

And if it means that little to you, why should anyone else(including Anet) value that loyalty at all?

Some people don't like socializing, which apparently according to everyone on here means that you don't count as a player and you should have nothing that you want.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Warrior.5347 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Warrior.5347 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:I will def be quitting wvw once this is implemented and I play quite a bit. Too bad but I just don't want to play without server cohesion and guilds/alliances don't cut it, especially if I don't get into any.

Can you elaborate as to why it doesn't cut it? I see wild statements made on something that hasn't even happened yet without any reason behind it. Perhaps that's the doomsday mentality that happens with any change. You want server cohesion because you are some lonely/antisocial pug/roamer. Parden my assumption since you mentioned "especially if you don't get into any", which I don't see why not unless you are just super annoying and headlined no guild wants you, thus you depend on a server.

BG has a high concentration of spvp, players (good players in my opinion since spvp requires the most skill). For me personally, i feel like the wvw community is not one i really like to socialize with, and I feel this is true on every server I have seen. So once we eliminate the familiarity I have with the few people I'm ok with (removing server cohesion) and the fact that now I'm going to be forced to play with people of other servers (which will not be skilled spvp players on the whole), it will make wvw insufferable for me, because then I will be dealing with people I don't want to socialize with and whom are not all that great at pvp in my opinion. This will completely turn me off to wvw. Now i get it that people will simply say its because I want to win - Honestly I really just like playing with people who don't make very many mistakes when they play, as that affects my enjoyment of the game mode since its a team activity.

You can call it elitism or whatever else but its just not enjoyable, and I like it that our unorganized pugs are so devastating due to simply having player skill. BG wipes plenty of times so I dont really mind losing, I wouldn't even mind if we get trounced but, playing with people i don't know whom will be of the same attitude of people i already currently play with and dislike, plus now they aren't all that great, its just going to turn me off to the game mode completely. I have seen BG wipe much larger squads, sometimes even multiple zerg squads that are 2v1ing and its not because "BG is stacked' that, thats occuring. Its because the people on BG are more skilled and they play a lot of Spvp. I get that you want to break it up, and maybe that will work, maybe it won't, but for me its going to be a huge downgrade in gameplay, and the real reason they want to break up BG isn't because it has premier coverage 24/7 (maybe this used to be the case, but it isn't anymore), its because it has a high concentration of good players that know what they are doing and other servers don't like it.

One of the reasons I know this is true is because 2 of BG's top raiding guilds recently joined another server that we now fight against, and they continuously lose against BG Zergs, even with those top BG raiding guild commanders commanding the other servers zergs, even when its an even match in terms of zerg sizes, or if their zerg is slightly larger then BG's, the other servers are still wiping fairly consistently, all because the skill of BG pugs is simply higher on the whole. This is all the proof I need that its a skill issue and not a coverage issue.

Frankly if 24/7 coverage was the issue and other servers are upset about BG's ability to get PPT's and thus the weekly scoring and server tier placement, none of that has to do with zvz which is all that people really care about in wvw. You don't even get anything for winning the weekly matchup against other severs. As a testament to how little they care about who actually wins the weekly matchup, this change to servers that they are proposing, will make the mechanic of which server is #1 all but irrelevant anyways, so it shows how little people care about this mechanic in general already, despite saying that the sole reason for this change is to break up BG's 24/7 coverage so that BG dosen't get all those PPT's and get rank 1 on the server leaderboard. None of this is the issue at hand, that people are upset about when it comes to BG, the real issue is the concentration of skilled players that nobody dare talk about, not that its ranked as #1 on the wvw scoreboard.

I dunno what the solution is, part of me feels like they should just redo wvw completely, because i get that people don't like fighting BG. The flip side however is that making servers generic so that it becomes a non-cohesive empty (as in hollow) game mode like doing pve meta events currently are, + getting rid of all acquaintances that might not be in my guild that I am used to seeing and working together with, and now ontop of the fact that I will be playing with other guilds that I have fought against, some of which i absolutely disdain. + my impression of the fact that other servers are just not as skilled and ill have to play with players who make careless mistakes over and over, which gets old; from a selfish me point of view (as I can only speak for myself, but I have seen others echo my sentiments) it will make my gameplay much less fun then it currently is, and I just don't see the point of continuing playing once they change it.

In this whole thing, you proved my assumptions right and still doesn't provide me with any reason why Alliances won't cut it. You just want to pug with other bandwagon pugs. In any case guilds and alliances will be matched up with algorithms to find players of similar skills sets. So ideally strongest players, guilds, and alliances get lumped in first then trickle down. So if you are pro you will be among to the pros, ideally speaking. If the pugs suck, well then join an alliance and be a lurker zerker. So discrediting this change because you fear nub pugs and no pugmanders is a bit selfish imo.

No I'll be quitting thanks.

You also didn't address anything I wrote, this is what I get for taking the time to explain myself, simple rude responses, I dunno why I bother.

I enjoy the pugs I play with now, I don't want to play with pugs from other servers I don't know, I don't want to play with other guilds I have come to dislike, I don't want to join a wvw guilds and have to socialize and make nice just to have a cohesive experience.

You have to understand though, the imminent change is a player created problem, specifically a problem spearheaded and abused by BG. I think it's safe to say the world structuring is due to how BG completely over-stacked themselves. It's not like they over-stacked themselves with anyone good, they are still one of the easiest servers to kill both in sPvP, small group fighting, and large scale fights. The problem is stacking themselves in nearly every time slot to the point other servers are almost always looking at overwhelming numbers most times of the day. The new system (hopefully) addresses this issue, so if per chance BG decides they want to try and form some mega-alliance, they'll now be facing equal numbers in all time slots which highly likely means they're doomed.

The point you do have though is, you may end up getting matched with people you don't know and in your own words won't be performing up to your standards. Which makes it worse is if the players you're playing with have a toxic attitude which will end up leading to toxic map chat.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@DeadlySynz.3471 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Warrior.5347 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Warrior.5347 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:I will def be quitting wvw once this is implemented and I play quite a bit. Too bad but I just don't want to play without server cohesion and guilds/alliances don't cut it, especially if I don't get into any.

Can you elaborate as to why it doesn't cut it? I see wild statements made on something that hasn't even happened yet without any reason behind it. Perhaps that's the doomsday mentality that happens with any change. You want server cohesion because you are some lonely/antisocial pug/roamer. Parden my assumption since you mentioned "especially if you don't get into any", which I don't see why not unless you are just super annoying and headlined no guild wants you, thus you depend on a server.

BG has a high concentration of spvp, players (good players in my opinion since spvp requires the most skill). For me personally, i feel like the wvw community is not one i really like to socialize with, and I feel this is true on every server I have seen. So once we eliminate the familiarity I have with the few people I'm ok with (removing server cohesion) and the fact that now I'm going to be forced to play with people of other servers (which will not be skilled spvp players on the whole), it will make wvw insufferable for me, because then I will be dealing with people I don't want to socialize with and whom are not all that great at pvp in my opinion. This will completely turn me off to wvw. Now i get it that people will simply say its because I want to win - Honestly I really just like playing with people who don't make very many mistakes when they play, as that affects my enjoyment of the game mode since its a team activity.

You can call it elitism or whatever else but its just not enjoyable, and I like it that our unorganized pugs are so devastating due to simply having player skill. BG wipes plenty of times so I dont really mind losing, I wouldn't even mind if we get trounced but, playing with people i don't know whom will be of the same attitude of people i already currently play with and dislike, plus now they aren't all that great, its just going to turn me off to the game mode completely. I have seen BG wipe much larger squads, sometimes even multiple zerg squads that are 2v1ing and its not because "BG is stacked' that, thats occuring. Its because the people on BG are more skilled and they play a lot of Spvp. I get that you want to break it up, and maybe that will work, maybe it won't, but for me its going to be a huge downgrade in gameplay, and the real reason they want to break up BG isn't because it has premier coverage 24/7 (maybe this used to be the case, but it isn't anymore), its because it has a high concentration of good players that know what they are doing and other servers don't like it.

One of the reasons I know this is true is because 2 of BG's top raiding guilds recently joined another server that we now fight against, and they continuously lose against BG Zergs, even with those top BG raiding guild commanders commanding the other servers zergs, even when its an even match in terms of zerg sizes, or if their zerg is slightly larger then BG's, the other servers are still wiping fairly consistently, all because the skill of BG pugs is simply higher on the whole. This is all the proof I need that its a skill issue and not a coverage issue.

Frankly if 24/7 coverage was the issue and other servers are upset about BG's ability to get PPT's and thus the weekly scoring and server tier placement, none of that has to do with zvz which is all that people really care about in wvw. You don't even get anything for winning the weekly matchup against other severs. As a testament to how little they care about who actually wins the weekly matchup, this change to servers that they are proposing, will make the mechanic of which server is #1 all but irrelevant anyways, so it shows how little people care about this mechanic in general already, despite saying that the sole reason for this change is to break up BG's 24/7 coverage so that BG dosen't get all those PPT's and get rank 1 on the server leaderboard. None of this is the issue at hand, that people are upset about when it comes to BG, the real issue is the concentration of skilled players that nobody dare talk about, not that its ranked as #1 on the wvw scoreboard.

I dunno what the solution is, part of me feels like they should just redo wvw completely, because i get that people don't like fighting BG. The flip side however is that making servers generic so that it becomes a non-cohesive empty (as in hollow) game mode like doing pve meta events currently are, + getting rid of all acquaintances that might not be in my guild that I am used to seeing and working together with, and now ontop of the fact that I will be playing with other guilds that I have fought against, some of which i absolutely disdain. + my impression of the fact that other servers are just not as skilled and ill have to play with players who make careless mistakes over and over, which gets old; from a selfish me point of view (as I can only speak for myself, but I have seen others echo my sentiments) it will make my gameplay much less fun then it currently is, and I just don't see the point of continuing playing once they change it.

In this whole thing, you proved my assumptions right and still doesn't provide me with any reason why Alliances won't cut it. You just want to pug with other bandwagon pugs. In any case guilds and alliances will be matched up with algorithms to find players of similar skills sets. So ideally strongest players, guilds, and alliances get lumped in first then trickle down. So if you are pro you will be among to the pros, ideally speaking. If the pugs suck, well then join an alliance and be a lurker zerker. So discrediting this change because you fear nub pugs and no pugmanders is a bit selfish imo.

No I'll be quitting thanks.

You also didn't address anything I wrote, this is what I get for taking the time to explain myself, simple rude responses, I dunno why I bother.

I enjoy the pugs I play with now, I don't want to play with pugs from other servers I don't know, I don't want to play with other guilds I have come to dislike, I don't want to join a wvw guilds and have to socialize and make nice just to have a cohesive experience.

You have to understand though, the imminent change is a player created problem, specifically a problem spearheaded and abused by BG. I think it's safe to say the world structuring is due to how BG completely over-stacked themselves. It's not like they over-stacked themselves with anyone good, they are still one of the easiest servers to kill both in sPvP, small group fighting, and large scale fights. The problem is stacking themselves in nearly every time slot to the point other servers are almost always looking at overwhelming numbers most times of the day. The new system (hopefully) addresses this issue, so if per chance BG decides they want to try and form some mega-alliance, they'll now be facing equal numbers in all time slots which highly likely means they're doomed.

The point you do have though is, you may end up getting matched with people you don't know and in your own words won't be performing up to your standards. Which makes it worse is if the players you're playing with have a toxic attitude which will end up leading to toxic map chat.

I disagree completely I think bg skills is far superior to other servers. I think this skill causes wipes to other servers zergs, which in turn demoralizes them and they don't log in, which in turn leads to skewed metrix which show that bg has way more coverage then other servers.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@"Caliburn.1845" said:If you play WvW because of server loyalty, but refuse to hit the "opt in" button to join your server Alliance when the time comes. Then all your protestations of loyalty mean less to you than one mouse click.

And if it means that little to you, why should anyone else(including Anet) value that loyalty at all?

Some people don't like socializing, which apparently according to everyone on here means that you don't count as a player and you should have nothing that you want.

If what you that person wants would come at the expense of others then no.

I think the part many don't understand is why someone who is non social would play an MMO which, by its nature is social?

And, if that person doesn't socialize, why should it matter?

People don't think that a person who doesn't like to socialize doesn't matter. They think that, in a game that is social by its very nature, the decisions for how it is to progress should be based on those that do like to socialize.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@"Caliburn.1845" said:If you play WvW because of server loyalty, but refuse to hit the "opt in" button to join your server Alliance when the time comes. Then all your protestations of loyalty mean less to you than one mouse click.

And if it means that little to you, why should anyone else(including Anet) value that loyalty at all?

Some people don't like socializing, which apparently according to everyone on here means that you don't count as a player and you should have nothing that you want.

If what you that person wants would come at the expense of others then no.

I think the part many don't understand is why someone who is non social would play an MMO which, by its nature is social?

And, if that person doesn't socialize, why should it matter?

People don't think that a person who doesn't like to socialize doesn't matter. They think that, in a game that is social by its very nature, the decisions for how it is to progress should be based on those that do like to socialize.

Then that means that people who don't like socializing,that their opinions, don't matter, because they aren't looking for the opinions of antisocial people in progressing how the game is developed, you just contradicted yourself.

You can't say they care and don't care at the same time lol.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@"Caliburn.1845" said:If you play WvW because of server loyalty, but refuse to hit the "opt in" button to join your server Alliance when the time comes. Then all your protestations of loyalty mean less to you than one mouse click.

And if it means that little to you, why should anyone else(including Anet) value that loyalty at all?

Some people don't like socializing, which apparently according to everyone on here means that you don't count as a player and you should have nothing that you want.

If what you that person wants would come at the expense of others then no.

I think the part many don't understand is why someone who is non social would play an MMO which, by its nature is social?

And, if that person doesn't socialize, why should it matter?

People don't think that a person who doesn't like to socialize doesn't matter. They think that, in a game that is social by its very nature, the decisions for how it is to progress should be based on those that do like to socialize.

Then that means that people who don't like socializing,that their opinions, don't matter, because they aren't looking for the opinions of antisocial people in progressing how the game is developed, you just contradicted yourself.

You can't say they care and don't care at the same time lol.

It has nothing to do with opinions. You know it too.

It has everything to do with the vast majority of the game, which is what supports it.

Of course WvW will lose people. There has been NO change in 6 years that EVERYONE has liked. That will continue.

Evidently it was felt that a drastic change is needed.

That being said, nothing has been noted by Anet that says it is definately changing, so I would suggest that the more of these players that don't enjoy socislizing come into the forum and voice their opinion like you have.

Of course, that seems to be counterintuitive to think a person who doesn't enjoy socializing would come into a social-by-nature forum about a social-by-nature game. But who knows?

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@"Caliburn.1845" said:If you play WvW because of server loyalty, but refuse to hit the "opt in" button to join your server Alliance when the time comes. Then all your protestations of loyalty mean less to you than one mouse click.

And if it means that little to you, why should anyone else(including Anet) value that loyalty at all?

Some people don't like socializing, which apparently according to everyone on here means that you don't count as a player and you should have nothing that you want.

If what you that person wants would come at the expense of others then no.

I think the part many don't understand is why someone who is non social would play an MMO which, by its nature is social?

And, if that person doesn't socialize, why should it matter?

People don't think that a person who doesn't like to socialize doesn't matter. They think that, in a game that is social by its very nature, the decisions for how it is to progress should be based on those that do like to socialize.

Then that means that people who don't like socializing,that their opinions, don't matter, because they aren't looking for the opinions of antisocial people in progressing how the game is developed, you just contradicted yourself.

You can't say they care and don't care at the same time lol.

It has nothing to do with opinions. You know it too.

It has everything to do with the vast majority of the game, which is what supports it.

Of course WvW will lose people. There has been NO change in 6 years that EVERYONE has liked. That will continue.

Evidently it was felt that a drastic change is needed.

That being said, nothing has been noted by Anet that says it is definately changing, so I would suggest that the more of these players that don't enjoy socislizing come into the forum and voice their opinion like you have.

Of course, that seems to be counterintuitive to think a person who doesn't enjoy socializing would come into a social-by-nature forum about a social-by-nature game. But who knows?

yah this change feels like suicide though, i just don't understand the logic of getting rid of such a massive motivational driving factor in order to balance the game. I mean they are turning it into one giant EoTM map, and people think this is a good idea? Nobody likes EOTM, this is the most ridiculous thing ever. The biggest reason nobody likes eotm is because it feels totally pointless, and this feeling will now spread to all of wvw once servers are wiped out. I can't believe people think that the only form of comradere is with their specific guilds and a hand full of other guilds. If that's the case then how come people always display what server they are on including their guilds on forum signatures. - because server identity is a huge motivational driving factor behind why we play wvw.

[Gandalf.1537]

I like to idea of the way anet is headed. This should have been done a long time ago. One of the reasons I liked GW1 because of factions and alliance, it was a lot of fun. Nice to see Anet is going to due this. The only concern I do have is getting those pug(s) / groups to join TS and to be a part of the community, and I would hope that people wouldn't get discouraged from playing GW2 and not paying at all and loosing that community number base. While I do agree some don't like social stuff but again that kind of goes with this gametype. Hence MMO WvW.

It's hard to command when over half the squad isn't in TS / Discord. But have to make due.

[Warrior.5347]

You are correct sir.

[starlinvf.1358]

One.major point of concern that needs to be addressed, and should be working in tandem with these changes.......

The internal guild management system, guildhall upgrades/guild research system, and guild wvw inventory need an overhaul, to allow a new guild to focus on wvw upgrades exclusively. This will enable groups to restructure themselves around the new one wvw guild retriction more easily, without the, frankly insane, 10s of thousands of gold needed to unlock staple wvw upgrades like auras and tactics..... A fact thats been grossly ignored since the inception of guild halls.

Because as of right now, mixed pve/wvw guilds rosters will cause problems with the alliance player limits if they're being treated as a single whole in server pop calculations. The wvw, pvp, and pve upgrade branches need to be seperated, and each guild having a dedicated wvw roster for use in the new population control metrics. This directly addresses several major problems in all game modes that stem from the clunky guild management system we have now, and uniformly lays a better system to allow game mode changes that don't mess with or are hindered by the guild number limits.

There also neeeds to be a way forge sup siege via guild assembly line, while in wvw, without leaving the map. Not to mention a way for guilds to leave a cache of blueprints in something that can be shared across the alliance. This one of the bigger concerns for servers where the guild coverage is spotty, and only 2 or 3 guilds are the primary siege suppliers for the matchup. Especially when a zerg commander forgets, gets dc'd, or has no one to hand off to, and takes a lot of siege with them. A better system for pugs to donate materials to guilds to process siege is also something sorely needed for less organized matchups to work with.

It doesn't need to be an alliance bank. In fact, it would be subtantially better as a squad/guild UI for commanders and lieutenants to be able to call up siege, and have it draw from the group's posted inventory via permissions. Each player can then choose to post siege in thier personal inventory to squad use, guilds to post select amounts of siege to the alliance for commander use, and alliance members to post a shopping list for guilds to coordinate production efforts. Each can retract the offer if needed, and owner ship of the items are never in disput as they are never moved, only consumed. Permissions can also control which guilds in an alliance is allowed to use your guild's posted supplies to manage abuse.The mail system can cover the rest if guilds need to move stuff between each other.

[morrolan.9608]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@"Caliburn.1845" said:If you play WvW because of server loyalty, but refuse to hit the "opt in" button to join your server Alliance when the time comes. Then all your protestations of loyalty mean less to you than one mouse click.

And if it means that little to you, why should anyone else(including Anet) value that loyalty at all?

Some people don't like socializing, which apparently according to everyone on here means that you don't count as a player and you should have nothing that you want.

If what you that person wants would come at the expense of others then no.

I think the part many don't understand is why someone who is non social would play an MMO which, by its nature is social?

And, if that person doesn't socialize, why should it matter?

People don't think that a person who doesn't like to socialize doesn't matter. They think that, in a game that is social by its very nature, the decisions for how it is to progress should be based on those that do like to socialize.

Then that means that people who don't like socializing,that their opinions, don't matter, because they aren't looking for the opinions of antisocial people in progressing how the game is developed, you just contradicted yourself.

You can't say they care and don't care at the same time lol.

It has nothing to do with opinions. You know it too.

It has everything to do with the vast majority of the game, which is what supports it.

Of course WvW will lose people. There has been NO change in 6 years that EVERYONE has liked. That will continue.

Evidently it was felt that a drastic change is needed.

That being said, nothing has been noted by Anet that says it is definately changing, so I would suggest that the more of these players that don't enjoy socislizing come into the forum and voice their opinion like you have.

Of course, that seems to be counterintuitive to think a person who doesn't enjoy socializing would come into a social-by-nature forum about a social-by-nature game. But who knows?

yah this change feels like suicide though, i just don't understand the logic of getting rid of such a massive motivational driving factor in order to balance the game.

Cause the mode is dying, they wouldn't make such a big change if it wasn't.

[starlinvf.1358]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@"LetoII.3782" said:What's in a name?

The server is a community of people.Alliances will be the same, with more imput from the community itself as to who composes that community.

There will still be a BG... The whole ocx community won't fill half an alliance, there will be room for a big sea group too.

I think Lupin is NA, knows NA doesn't matter much, there is always plenty to go around. So the new BG isn't likely to have a spot for his like. :(

I am na and I have a guild to be part of an alliance, but as I said I still don't like the changes, you guys can nitpick and investigate as to why I don't like this all you like, it's as simple as the points I made above,

People who are for this change don't care about pugs or anything they might want at all. This will destroy server identity completely which is like telling someone from wow, there is no horde or alliance anymore, it's gamebreaking.

But by their nature, pugs don't collectively form an identity as "pugs". Thats why everyone esle sees them as an amorphis blob of bodies with no sense of purpose. They attach themselves to other identities, or coalesce into a select group that forms its own identity.... thus are no longer pugs, even when mixed in with pugs. That group doesn't even need to be in a guild for this for this to work.

This happens all the time in less guild heavy servers, as synergy seperates itself from the chaos, and adhoc groups form.

The only people who won't benefit from this are people who refuse to group, or can't funtion in a group setting. A pug player who is half way competent has no problem operating in a zerg.... aka the penultimate of swarm cooperation. But a swarm needs intelligence- either a driver, or pockets of semi-autonimous teams.Bad players will still be bad after this....just as it was before. But unlike now, this change has the potential to address a lack of fights that snow ball into one server getting steamrolled, because they can't maintain ground. Being on 3 different servers over the years, I've seen 2 rise and fall based solely on their guilds offering wvw coverage.

You can also consider this replacing server tiers in its entirety, and being replaced with guild/alliance rankings. If anything, pugs actively benefit from more organized groups to hold ground and can adhoc with as desired.

Alliances will.form the backbone of a matchup, and those are, have always been, and always will be what a servers identity is based on. A bunch of crappy guilds makes a.crappy server. A bunch of guilds that cheese the map makes it.a cheesing server. A lack of organized groups makes it a chaos server..... unless you want to call that a pug server. But if a.bunch of unguilded pugs get thier act together, they deserve the pug server title, lends to it a positive reputation.

I think big aversion to this is that you don't see guilds as valuable unless they carry you. A faction being this monolithic thing you navigate at your own personal accord. A greater good to attach yourself to, that itself is too big to recognize your failings, but lavishes in your accomplishments.

As a mostly freeagent, I choose to adhoc where I wish. This works because I don't blame the nebulous "faction" for its performance, though I may still refer to it as a whole to shorthand a prevalent trait it displays. I recognize the elements that cause the whole to react.... a chain of causality drawn down as granular as possible. Guilds often behave as a result of its politics ... and that can be driven by one or many in its ranks. A server is no different. Just as a server has guilds that interact, a guild has cliches that interact. From largest alliance to individual person, that all plays a role in how this works.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@starlinvf.1358 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@"LetoII.3782" said:What's in a name?

The server is a community of people.Alliances will be the same, with more imput from the community itself as to who composes that community.

There will still be a BG... The whole ocx community won't fill half an alliance, there will be room for a big sea group too.

I think Lupin is NA, knows NA doesn't matter much, there is always plenty to go around. So the new BG isn't likely to have a spot for his like. :(

I am na and I have a guild to be part of an alliance, but as I said I still don't like the changes, you guys can nitpick and investigate as to why I don't like this all you like, it's as simple as the points I made above,

People who are for this change don't care about pugs or anything they might want at all. This will destroy server identity completely which is like telling someone from wow, there is no horde or alliance anymore, it's gamebreaking.

But by their nature, pugs don't collectively form an identity as "pugs". Thats why everyone esle sees them as an amorphis blob of bodies with no sense of purpose. They attach themselves to other identities, or coalesce into a select group that forms its own identity.... thus are no longer pugs, even when mixed in with pugs. That group doesn't even need to be in a guild for this for this to work.

This happens all the time in less guild heavy servers, as synergy seperates itself from the chaos, and adhoc groups form.

The only people who won't benefit from this are people who refuse to group, or can't funtion in a group setting. A pug player who is half way competent has no problem operating in a zerg.... aka the penultimate of swarm cooperation. But a swarm needs intelligence- either a driver, or pockets of semi-autonimous teams.Bad players will still be bad after this....just as it was before. But unlike now, this change has the potential to address a lack of fights that snow ball into one server getting steamrolled, because they can't maintain ground. Being on 3 different servers over the years, I've seen 2 rise and fall based solely on their guilds offering wvw coverage.

You can also consider this replacing server tiers in its entirety, and being replaced with guild/alliance rankings. If anything, pugs actively benefit from more organized groups to hold ground and can adhoc with as desired.

Alliances will.form the backbone of a matchup, and those are, have always been, and always will be what a servers identity is based on. A bunch of crappy guilds makes a.crappy server. A bunch of guilds that cheese the map makes it.a cheesing server. A lack of organized groups makes it a chaos server..... unless you want to call that a pug server. But if a.bunch of unguilded pugs get thier act together, they deserve the pug server title, lends to it a positive reputation.

I think big aversion to this is that you don't see guilds as valuable unless they carry you. A faction being this monolithic thing you navigate at your own personal accord. A greater good to attach yourself to, that itself is too big to recognize your failings, but lavishes in your accomplishments.

As a mostly freeagent, I choose to adhoc where I wish. This works because I don't blame the nebulous "faction" for its performance, though I may still refer to it as a whole to shorthand a prevalent trait it displays. I recognize the elements that cause the whole to react.... a chain of causality drawn down as granular as possible. Guilds often behave as a result of its politics ... and that can be driven by one or many in its ranks. A server is no different. Just as a server has guilds that interact, a guild has cliches that interact. From largest alliance to individual person, that all plays a role in how this works.

I disagree, its good pugs that carry guilds, not the other way around. 2 Top guilds from BG moved to other servers. They now lose against BG, because BG pugs are better. I should know, I'm one of them, and I get tons of kills all night long and rarely die, and play in full zerk (yes I am that skilled). BG has a high concentration of spvp players as most spvp guilds are on BG as well. I should know I'm a 2x spvp legend, playing wvw as a pug.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:yah this change feels like suicide though

A broken record of feels should not dictate what should or should not be done for the overall good of the entire game mode.

We know that the inflexible tier and server system need to be improved becaused it leads to stagnation and static population issues. The proposed system improves that. The links took it half the way, the alliances take it all the way. End of story.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:yah this change feels like suicide though

A broken record of feels should not dictate what should or should not be done for the overall good of the entire game mode.

We know that the inflexible tier and server system need to be improved becaused it leads to stagnation and static population issues. The proposed system improves that. End of story.

yah one giant EOTM map, sounds really like a lot of fun, I mean, look how popular that game mode is.

Also, we shouldn't let someone who doesn't take into account the psychology of why we play to dictate what should or should not be done for the overall good of the entire game mode.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:yah this change feels like suicide though

A broken record of feels should not dictate what should or should not be done for the overall good of the entire game mode.

We know that the inflexible tier and server system need to be improved becaused it leads to stagnation and static population issues. The proposed system improves that. End of story.

yah one giant EOTM map, sounds really like a lot of fun, I mean, look how popular that game mode is.

Also, we shouldn't let someone who doesn't take into account the psychology of why we play to dictate what should or should not be done for the overall good of the entire game mode.

Its not a giant EoTM map. How do you even interpret it as that? Did you read the original dev post?

If you want to compare with EoTM at least get it right - sure you could say its like EoTM, except it fixes everything wrong with EoTM because it makes it real WvW on the regular EB+border maps, it got player controlled organization by alliances and WvW guilds and its no longer random joining by color every week because it takes the 8 week matching from the current link system.

So yeah, its just like EoTM, if EoTM was like WvW.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:yah this change feels like suicide though

A broken record of feels should not dictate what should or should not be done for the overall good of the entire game mode.

We know that the inflexible tier and server system need to be improved becaused it leads to stagnation and static population issues. The proposed system improves that. End of story.

yah one giant EOTM map, sounds really like a lot of fun, I mean, look how popular that game mode is.

Also, we shouldn't let someone who doesn't take into account the psychology of why we play to dictate what should or should not be done for the overall good of the entire game mode.

Its not a giant EoTM map. How do you even interpret it as that? Did you read the original dev post?

If you want to compare with EoTM at least get it right - sure you could say its like EoTM, except it fixes everything wrong with EoTM because it makes it real WvW on the regular EB+border maps, it got player controlled organization by alliances and WvW guilds and its no longer random joining by color every week because it takes the 8 week matching from the current link system.

So yeah, its just like EoTM, if EoTM was like WvW.

To anyone not in a guild, it's now eotm. If you are in a guild it's some sort of quasi gvg activity. It is definitely not what I would call wvw anymore.

[Chaba.5410]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:BG has a high concentration of spvp players as most spvp guilds are on BG as well. I should know I'm a 2x spvp legend, playing wvw as a pug.

BG also has a high concentration of PvE players and a high concentration of WvW players. That's what happens when a server is the largest server: it has higher everything.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:BG has a high concentration of spvp players as most spvp guilds are on BG as well. I should know I'm a 2x spvp legend, playing wvw as a pug.

BG also has a high concentration of PvE players and a high concentration of WvW players. That's what happens when a server is the largest server: it has higher everything.

yes skilled pvp players, as in the best the game has to offer, this is the only reason BG does well in WvW. This in turn demoralizes other servers which results in low turn out of players for other servers, which results in graphs that show BG as being much more active on all fronts. BG is encouraged other servers are demoralized.

[manicpixie.5601]

i'm very very casual but have been getting really into wvw recently because i like seeing the same commanders and names and such around the map. i really don't like the idea of destroying server pride and that familiarity, which is my favorite part of wvw and to be honest, the whole game :( i know we can make guilds and alliances but it seems like everyone has their wvw guilds already and won't want to change. isn't there a way to do it without completely destroying servers? the idea of an artificial team that just fights together for 8 weeks and then ceases to care about each other makes me really sad.

[Warrior.5347]

@manicpixie.5601 said:i'm very very casual but have been getting really into wvw recently because i like seeing the same commanders and names and such around the map. i really don't like the idea of destroying server pride and that familiarity, which is my favorite part of wvw and to be honest, the whole game :( i know we can make guilds and alliances but it seems like everyone has their wvw guilds already and won't want to change. isn't there a way to do it without completely destroying servers? the idea of an artificial team that just fights together for 8 weeks and then ceases to care about each other makes me really sad.

If you cared you'd join their guilds then you'll always be with them if you just like seeing a familiar face, well that's on you not actual people who WvW with a purpose. I don't see how planning around pugs is even remotely viable. Many games have died appealing to casuals because they are just that, casuals. I guess people just log in drop 20 dollars for a new outfit then stand around then log off, sounds like easy money, but not if you want to keep a game fresh and long term.

[morrolan.9608]

@manicpixie.5601 said:i'm very very casual but have been getting really into wvw recently because i like seeing the same commanders and names and such around the map. i really don't like the idea of destroying server pride

Thats not server pride which barely exists any more its just comfort in seeing familiar players, and you'll get that with the new system because if you join an alliance you'll see alliance members all the time.

[morrolan.9608]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@starlinvf.1358 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@"LetoII.3782" said:What's in a name?

The server is a community of people.Alliances will be the same, with more imput from the community itself as to who composes that community.

There will still be a BG... The whole ocx community won't fill half an alliance, there will be room for a big sea group too.

I think Lupin is NA, knows NA doesn't matter much, there is always plenty to go around. So the new BG isn't likely to have a spot for his like. :(

I am na and I have a guild to be part of an alliance, but as I said I still don't like the changes, you guys can nitpick and investigate as to why I don't like this all you like, it's as simple as the points I made above,

People who are for this change don't care about pugs or anything they might want at all. This will destroy server identity completely which is like telling someone from wow, there is no horde or alliance anymore, it's gamebreaking.

But by their nature, pugs don't collectively form an identity as "pugs". Thats why everyone esle sees them as an amorphis blob of bodies with no sense of purpose. They attach themselves to other identities, or coalesce into a select group that forms its own identity.... thus are no longer pugs, even when mixed in with pugs. That group doesn't even need to be in a guild for this for this to work.

This happens all the time in less guild heavy servers, as synergy seperates itself from the chaos, and adhoc groups form.

The only people who won't benefit from this are people who refuse to group, or can't funtion in a group setting. A pug player who is half way competent has no problem operating in a zerg.... aka the penultimate of swarm cooperation. But a swarm needs intelligence- either a driver, or pockets of semi-autonimous teams.Bad players will still be bad after this....just as it was before. But unlike now, this change has the potential to address a lack of fights that snow ball into one server getting steamrolled, because they can't maintain ground. Being on 3 different servers over the years, I've seen 2 rise and fall based solely on their guilds offering wvw coverage.

You can also consider this replacing server tiers in its entirety, and being replaced with guild/alliance rankings. If anything, pugs actively benefit from more organized groups to hold ground and can adhoc with as desired.

Alliances will.form the backbone of a matchup, and those are, have always been, and always will be what a servers identity is based on. A bunch of crappy guilds makes a.crappy server. A bunch of guilds that cheese the map makes it.a cheesing server. A lack of organized groups makes it a chaos server..... unless you want to call that a pug server. But if a.bunch of unguilded pugs get thier act together, they deserve the pug server title, lends to it a positive reputation.

I think big aversion to this is that you don't see guilds as valuable unless they carry you. A faction being this monolithic thing you navigate at your own personal accord. A greater good to attach yourself to, that itself is too big to recognize your failings, but lavishes in your accomplishments.

As a mostly freeagent, I choose to adhoc where I wish. This works because I don't blame the nebulous "faction" for its performance, though I may still refer to it as a whole to shorthand a prevalent trait it displays. I recognize the elements that cause the whole to react.... a chain of causality drawn down as granular as possible. Guilds often behave as a result of its politics ... and that can be driven by one or many in its ranks. A server is no different. Just as a server has guilds that interact, a guild has cliches that interact. From largest alliance to individual person, that all plays a role in how this works.

I disagree, its good pugs that carry guilds, not the other way around. 2 Top guilds from BG moved to other servers. They now lose against BG, because BG pugs are better. I should know, I'm one of them, and I get tons of kills all night long and rarely die, and play in full zerk (yes I am that skilled). BG has a high concentration of spvp players as most spvp guilds are on BG as well. I should know I'm a 2x spvp legend, playing wvw as a pug.

No its because despite the loss of those guilds BG still has more players, thats all.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Warrior.5347 said:

@manicpixie.5601 said:i'm very very casual but have been getting really into wvw recently because i like seeing the same commanders and names and such around the map. i really don't like the idea of destroying server pride and that familiarity, which is my favorite part of wvw and to be honest, the whole game :( i know we can make guilds and alliances but it seems like everyone has their wvw guilds already and won't want to change. isn't there a way to do it without completely destroying servers? the idea of an artificial team that just fights together for 8 weeks and then ceases to care about each other makes me really sad.

If you cared you'd join their guilds then you'll always be with them if you just like seeing a familiar face, well that's on you not actual people who WvW with a purpose. I don't see how planning around pugs is even remotely viable. Many games have died appealing to casuals because they are just that, casuals. I guess people just log in drop 20 dollars for a new outfit then stand around then log off, sounds like easy money, but not if you want to keep a game fresh and long term.

Wvw with a purpose lol? What could that mean? Like I said, apparently if you're not in a guild, then your opinions or what you want don't matter. So yes sounds great to turn wvw not into wvw anymore (because there are no worlds/servers) and if you have no guild it's eotm and even if you do have a guild it's just some loose alliance battles and gvg type gameplay. Sounds like no fun to me, you should try telling people on wow that there will be no horde or alliance anymore and see how well they take that, because that's what you're essentially advocating for here.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@manicpixie.5601 said:i'm very very casual but have been getting really into wvw recently because i like seeing the same commanders and names and such around the map. i really don't like the idea of destroying server pride

Thats not server pride which barely exists any more its just comfort in seeing familiar players, and you'll get that with the new system because if you join an alliance you'll see alliance members all the time.

How nice that you get to decide what server pride is for people. I don't want to join an alliance,so where's my compromise, where is what I want, where is my continuity in community, where is my motivation to keep playing after they implement this. Aside from not wanting to be in an alliance, what if I can't get into one and I actually want to be in one? what if nobody wants me in one for whatever reason? Does that just make me or my opinion irrelevant? Because it shouldn't.