World Restructuring

[Dralor.3701]

@Eater of Peeps.9062 said:

@"Dralor.3701" said:This will be the best thing that has happened to wvw in ages, only people defending the current status quo are the bandwagon players.

Not sure what a "bandwagon player" is or what that/they look like in wvw. I will watch out for them tho - they sound like people who will have nowhere to go under the new system. What will we do with them then?

Btw, I am not defending the current status quo. I am amenable to much change in wvw, just not the proposed exclusionary-based system.

Topic has been beaten to death but T1 has been broken for a long time now with one stacked server. I imagine a number of those guilds will form an alliance and that is fine. Restructuring allows for a leveled playing field once again.

I don’t think anyone will be left behind, there are tons of pugs and unguilded players. You can’t believe they wouldn’t put something in place for that large of a population.

[Caliburn.1845]

Poster in this thread have actually read the OP I hope? The one with nice graphics showing that individual players will have the same ability to play WvW as any guild or alliance.

Almost every guild in this game is recruiting. Every alliance is going to be recruiting. Every player is going to have a buffet of hundreds of options to align themselves with in WvW. If some players are so picky that none of those options work, and they're too lazy to make their own guild/alliance then they can remain as a solo player, sampling different guilds/zergs/alliances every eight weeks.

You get to pick and choose, you can literally do whatever you want, with more choices than have ever been offered under the server based system.

[Chaba.5410]

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:I have read all 47 pages of this thread and still don't see a single suggestion for resolution of the issue of pugs.

What are we to do with pugs under the new proposed system?

I believe it was Leto who wrote that unaffiliated players will become true pugs ("pick up group" players) because they won't have an attachment to a single, continuous team. Just as in fractals or raids, some players like to casually pug using the LFG. Others like to play that content with a static group so they organize that way. The restructuring simply applies that correct definition of "pug" to unaffiliated players in WvW. What issue about it is in your mind?

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Caliburn.1845 said:Poster in this thread have actually read the OP I hope? The one with nice graphics showing that individual players will have the same ability to play WvW as any guild or alliance.

Almost every guild in this game is recruiting. Every alliance is going to be recruiting. Every player is going to have a buffet of hundreds of options to align themselves with in WvW. If some players are so picky that none of those options work, and they're too lazy to make their own guild/alliance then they can remain as a solo player, sampling different guilds/zergs/alliances every eight weeks.

You get to pick and choose, you can literally do whatever you want, with more choices than have ever been offered under the server based system.

Sure, but we all know this is going to be one large power vacuum, with the top wvw guilds aligning to form superguilds in order to try and manipulate the matchups as best they can each time.. so instead of having one server dominant in matchups like T1.. we will have 1 dominant guild each time made up of mostly the same players same guilds just under some random name each matchup.. thus wvwvw is becoming gvgvg.And if your not in one of those superguilds your just going to be a scrub trying to follow footsteps.. highly enjoyable, not.

[Caliburn.1845]

Blackgate has not lost a match in what, well over a year now? No alliance is going to be capable of that.

The only way any alliance of guilds could match that level of success is if alliances had an enormous player cap(say 2000 or more). More importantly you would have to change the mindset of most of the leadership of the competent WvW guilds out there. The "fighting" guilds are not going to all flock to the same alliance it would be counterproductive. And yes, we're already having meetings about that stuff.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@XenesisII.1540 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:Because we are used to playing with guilds and commanders in a cohesive environment that elicits camaraderie. IF we make it random, that cohesion is lost. I don't want to lose that, I also don't want to lose my identity as being on BG. I also don't want to play with guilds and other players from servers I have come to despise. I also don't want to play in a guild and have to adhere to rules. So is there any compromise or concessions or place for someone like me? or am i just done w/the game mode after 6 years of playing?

Some would just look at that as leeching kills from guilds, since people don't want to join the guilds, probably don't want to join ts, but still want to run with that group anyways.

Now for the other part, you know the joining of guilds into an alliance is basically for world creation?So here's how this can play out. Current server communities will probably create a community guild (I would expect this to happen for BG at the very least) so that those random pug players that you see every day, that you talk to every day, can join together when worlds are created. You can make alliances with other BG guilds(which is up to them) to make sure all those players stick together.When the worlds are created your entire alliance will be placed in the same world, then here's what you can do then, drop repping the community guild the entire time thereafter because choosing a wvw guild to rep is only needed at the point of world creation, nothing more.

There is a place for everyone, the question is how much effort they want to put into finding that place. Blackgate population has broken wvw, it's great some of you had a great time taking advantage of that and winning over servers, call it skilled play, call it successful community building, call it whatever. Overall it wasn't good for wvw when one server is so out of place compared to the rest. Players want balanced fights, they want balanced populations, they want balanced coverage so that one week you don't feel like fighting 60 man blobs every night to the next week of facing a server that's dead in that same timezone.

Your community can stick together, the option is still there, the question is do you all really want to stay together? It's really not going to take much to do so.

You don't know how large alliances will be, your assuming that everyone will be invited, also Anet is leaving us a the mercy of some nebulous guild leader in order to maintain some semblance of world cohesion. Either way alliances will be set adrift as well as pugs with no actual place to call our home and no shared identity.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Caliburn.1845 said:Poster in this thread have actually read the OP I hope? The one with nice graphics showing that individual players will have the same ability to play WvW as any guild or alliance.

Almost every guild in this game is recruiting. Every alliance is going to be recruiting. Every player is going to have a buffet of hundreds of options to align themselves with in WvW. If some players are so picky that none of those options work, and they're too lazy to make their own guild/alliance then they can remain as a solo player, sampling different guilds/zergs/alliances every eight weeks.

You get to pick and choose, you can literally do whatever you want, with more choices than have ever been offered under the server based system.

Sure, but we all know this is going to be one large power vacuum, with the top wvw guilds aligning to form superguilds in order to try and manipulate the matchups as best they can each time.. so instead of having one server dominant in matchups like T1.. we will have 1 dominant guild each time made up of mostly the same players same guilds just under some random name each matchup.. thus wvwvw is becoming gvgvg.And if your not in one of those superguilds your just going to be a scrub trying to follow footsteps.. highly enjoyable, not.

Yes and this is why I will quit wvw once this change is implemented, unless something else is done.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@"Caliburn.1845" said:Blackgate has not lost a match in what, well over a year now? No alliance is going to be capable of that.

The only way any alliance of guilds could match that level of success is if alliances had an enormous player cap(say 2000 or more). More importantly you would have to change the mindset of most of the leadership of the competent WvW guilds out there. The "fighting" guilds are not going to all flock to the same alliance it would be counterproductive. And yes, we're already having meetings about that stuff.

Great that you guys get to decide for all of us.

[Caliburn.1845]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@"Caliburn.1845" said:Blackgate has not lost a match in what, well over a year now? No alliance is going to be capable of that.

The only way any alliance of guilds could match that level of success is if alliances had an enormous player cap(say 2000 or more). More importantly you would have to change the mindset of most of the leadership of the competent WvW guilds out there. The "fighting" guilds are not going to all flock to the same alliance it would be counterproductive. And yes, we're already having meetings about that stuff.

Great that you guys get to decide for all of us.

We just get to decide for us, you get to decide for you.

[jacksmith.6028]

@"Bloodstealer.5978" said:Sure, but we all know this is going to be one large power vacuum, with the top wvw guilds aligning to form superguilds in order to try and manipulate the matchups as best they can each time.. so instead of having one server dominant in matchups like T1.. we will have 1 dominant guild each time made up of mostly the same players same guilds just under some random name each matchup.. thus wvwvw is becoming gvgvg.And if your not in one of those superguilds your just going to be a scrub trying to follow footsteps.. highly enjoyable, not.

Guilds will make up alliances and a "world" will be made up of guilds, alliances and pugs. Forming a "superguild" won't really work because Anet has stated that they will reset everything 8 weeks. So at most a "superguild" or "super alliance" can dominate for only 8 weeks. Then, Anet is going to match the "super whatever" against an equal number of guilds and/or alliances.

In other words, the current situation like we have with BG will only last for 8 weeks. Imagine BG is a "super alliance" - then Anet will match them up against an equal opponent and BG will have to fight (rather than just over-blob) for their win. Anet has also said that they will take a look and adjust the caps so, for example, if the "BG" alliance is too big or powerful, all Anet has to do is lower the world population cap and the super alliance (BG) will be broken up.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@jacksmith.6028 said:

@"Bloodstealer.5978" said:Sure, but we all know this is going to be one large power vacuum, with the top wvw guilds aligning to form superguilds in order to try and manipulate the matchups as best they can each time.. so instead of having one server dominant in matchups like T1.. we will have 1 dominant guild each time made up of mostly the same players same guilds just under some random name each matchup.. thus wvwvw is becoming gvgvg.And if your not in one of those superguilds your just going to be a scrub trying to follow footsteps.. highly enjoyable, not.

Guilds will make up alliances and a "world" will be made up of guilds, alliances and pugs. Forming a "superguild" won't really work because Anet has stated that they will reset everything 8 weeks. So at most a "superguild" or "super alliance" can dominate for only 8 weeks. Then, Anet is going to match the "super whatever" against an equal number of guilds and/or alliances.

In other words, the current situation like we have with BG will only last for 8 weeks. Imagine BG is a "super alliance" - then Anet will match them up against an equal opponent and BG will have to fight (rather than just over-blob) for their win. Anet has also said that they will take a look and adjust the caps so, for example, if the "BG" alliance is too big or powerful, all Anet has to do is lower the world population cap and the super alliance (BG) will be broken up.

Which is true if the alliances strive for balanced coverage.

However, in NA, with the OCX and SEA pops being very limited, all it takes is enough motivation for them to stack in their own alliance. Which would mostly ensure that whichever world they went to would dominate most of the 8 weeks.

Now, chances are the majority won't do this.

But if rewards are good enough for winning.....

[morrolan.9608]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@jacksmith.6028 said:

@"Bloodstealer.5978" said:Sure, but we all know this is going to be one large power vacuum, with the top wvw guilds aligning to form superguilds in order to try and manipulate the matchups as best they can each time.. so instead of having one server dominant in matchups like T1.. we will have 1 dominant guild each time made up of mostly the same players same guilds just under some random name each matchup.. thus wvwvw is becoming gvgvg.And if your not in one of those superguilds your just going to be a scrub trying to follow footsteps.. highly enjoyable, not.

Guilds will make up alliances and a "world" will be made up of guilds, alliances and pugs. Forming a "superguild" won't really work because Anet has stated that they will reset everything 8 weeks. So at most a "superguild" or "super alliance" can dominate for only 8 weeks. Then, Anet is going to match the "super whatever" against an equal number of guilds and/or alliances.

In other words, the current situation like we have with BG will only last for 8 weeks. Imagine BG is a "super alliance" - then Anet will match them up against an equal opponent and BG will have to fight (rather than just over-blob) for their win. Anet has also said that they will take a look and adjust the caps so, for example, if the "BG" alliance is too big or powerful, all Anet has to do is lower the world population cap and the super alliance (BG) will be broken up.

Which is true if the alliances strive for balanced coverage.

However, in NA, with the OCX and SEA pops being very limited, all it takes is enough motivation for them to stack in their own alliance. Which would mostly ensure that whichever world they went to would dominate most of the 8 weeks.

Now, chances are the majority won't do this.

As an ocx player I can say that my guild is going to be very careful who we enter an alliance with to ensure we will have other guilds to fight in ocx time. We are not interested in grouping up with all other remaining ocx guilds to just k train with no enemies.

[Chaba.5410]

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:This sounds like guilds/alliances determining all battles, all fairness, who gets to play, how to balance to be fair, etc.

Read the restructuring information carefully. Alliances are limited. World sizes will be larger than alliance sizes. Guilds and alliances won't be able to "determine" any more than they can now. The only one who determines if you play is yourself.

[Chaba.5410]

@Eater of Peeps.9062 said:Like I said, I read all 47 pages of this thread and read all restructuring information very very carefully. I didn't say I couldn't play. I said pugs could be kicked to the curb, meaning their play experience will be vastly different from those in guilds and will be vastly different from what they have known as wvw and more like EOTM. The proposed system could also result in alienation and encouragement of exclusionary tactics, for which some players suggested the guilds would be sensitive to this fact and would self police to ensure fairness, to which I posted my comment to which you replied.

How is that any different from what goes on right now? You haven't explained it.

• Pug experience is already different from guild experience. Guilds will sometimes invite pugs into squad, others don't, some are hostile to pugs and others aren't. Why do you say any of that would be different with restructuring?
• If a player is already excluded from a guild right now, how is that any different from being excluded from a guild with the restructuring?
• More like EOTM in what way? When EOTM was more active, there would be guilds in EOTM as well as pug tags. Likewise there already are pug tags in WvW. I ran with a PUG squad on Saturday this past weekend and I didn't know half the people in that squad. What would be different from that under restructuring?

[Diku.2546]

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:No accommodation has been made for the multitudes of players (or even just a minority few) similarly situated. No one has proposed a single solution as to what to do in this situation, except to let the players go bye bye forever. Kicked to the curb so to speak.

---

I've made a total of 14 posts so far - Includes this post.

I have a solution that uses over-stacked servers in a long-term solution that basically let pug players to continue to participate like how they do now.

Top Ranked & Over-stacked servers are made the target for All Lower Ranked servers to attack.

Let ALL player's k-train to their heart's content on a Top Ranked server's BL that has the population to support the constant grind of All Lower Ranked Server players attacking them.

Just look at a few of my previous posts.

Most Crowded Insane Bangladesh and Indian Trains - Extreme Triphttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTsWndiDCzU

[Sarrs.4831]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:Only now we have servers and it's cohesive, it won't be cohesive anymore in the future, even for guilds, it will become a hollow empty experience.

Are you sure? If you can get into a solid 500-player alliance of regularly active players it seems like you'll have quite a stable experience. It may not be as stable as you'll currently have if you're on Blackgate but 500 players is still far more names than your brain is physically capable of remembering.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:Only now we have servers and it's cohesive, it won't be cohesive anymore in the future, even for guilds, it will become a hollow empty experience.

Are you sure? If you can get into a solid 500-player alliance of regularly active players it seems like you'll have quite a stable experience. It may not be as stable as you'll currently have if you're on Blackgate but 500 players is still far more names than your brain is physically capable of remembering.

And if you can't get into a solid 500-player alliance? This seems soo risky, leaving the fate of players experience and sense of belonging in wvw, an open game mode, at the whim and sole discretion of guild leaders, who we all have to make nice with now or else. I just don't understand how anet could make such a decision and not factor this glaring variable in.

My guess is they figured someone had to get the shaft, and guilds are vocal and organized, pugs have a harder time being vocal even though they are the majority of the wvw population, and they are not organized, were all broken up and our opinions isolated, so its much easier to just steam role over what we want and cater to guilds and leave it at that.

[XenesisII.1540]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:You don't know how large alliances will be, your assuming that everyone will be invited, also Anet is leaving us a the mercy of some nebulous guild leader in order to maintain some semblance of world cohesion. Either way alliances will be set adrift as well as pugs with no actual place to call our home and no shared identity.

They already said they are looking at 500-1000, which they will have to look at closely to see what is appropriate to cap it at so that there isn't another BG or two stacked servers that come from this. We all know you want a super stack server with pugs and guilds, but that isn't healthy for wvw, either go with the changes or not up to you, but there's a way to keep the community together for the most part, BG might not be able to keep everyone because they're twice as big as everyone else, but that's kinda the point of the change.

Lastly many players already have a place to call home, and in fact put it above their servers, it's the guilds.

[morrolan.9608]

@Diku.2546 said:

@Eater of Peeps.9062 said:No accommodation has been made for the multitudes of players (or even just a minority few) similarly situated. No one has proposed a single solution as to what to do in this situation, except to let the players go bye bye forever. Kicked to the curb so to speak.

---

I've made a total of 14 posts so far - Includes this post.

I have a solution that uses over-stacked servers in a long-term solution that basically let pug players to continue to participate like how they do now.

Top Ranked & Over-stacked servers are made the target for All Lower Ranked servers to attack.

This alliance system isn't my preferred design however with it they are trying to achieve something similar to what I want. From what I remember of your proposal they are also trying to achieve something similar to what you want so it seems to me that you're critical of it because they haven't adopted your proposal. I say have an open mind and see what happens.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@XenesisII.1540 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:You don't know how large alliances will be, your assuming that everyone will be invited, also Anet is leaving us a the mercy of some nebulous guild leader in order to maintain some semblance of world cohesion. Either way alliances will be set adrift as well as pugs with no actual place to call our home and no shared identity.

They already said they are looking at 500-1000, which they will have to look at closely to see what is appropriate to cap it at so that there isn't another BG or two stacked servers that come from this. We all know you want a super stack server with pugs and guilds, but that isn't healthy for wvw, either go with the changes or not up to you, but there's a way to keep the community together for the most part, BG might not be able to keep everyone because they're twice as big as everyone else, but that's kinda the point of the change.

Lastly many players already have a place to call home, and in fact put it above their servers, it's the guilds.

As i have said those same dominant servers will still try fo manipulate this as best they can each matchup. Those superguilds will stay thec same regardless of matchup it just means they will be controlling a whole matchup by virtue of the fact the guild will be fighting against itself... like a gvgvg arena. The rest will just be chasing footsteps around.I have enjoyed wvwvw since beta but this restructure takes away the whole point of it as far as I am concerned.. it's going to become a giant EotM for superguilds to play out their own gvg malarkey nothing more than that so I will pass.

[Diku.2546]

@"morrolan.9608" said:This alliance system isn't my preferred design however with it they are trying to achieve something similar to what I want. From what I remember of your proposal they are also trying to achieve something similar to what you want so it seems to me that you're critical of it because they haven't adopted your proposal. I say have an open mind and see what happens.

I'm not critical about you. :)

I'm being critical on this proposed Alliance solution because it just reeks of the World Linking experiment that caused the collapse & destruction of many...if not ALL "Guest Server" guild communities that used to be an integral part of a larger ecosystem of WvW. I predicted this previously as folks shouted their favor to support the idea & give it a try.

This time...as we try to balance population...we're going to cause the collapse & destruction of the "Host Server" guild communities this time around.

I'll venture to predict that we're going to damage the fragile WvW ecosystem again & the lessons from the World Linking fiasco will strangely continue to go un-learned.

We can never balance population because players will still want to stack...just like water wants to flow down-hill....so we really need a solution that uses the natural gravity of this fundamental human behavior & use it to our advantage...in a constructive way that encourages a healthy competitive game mode.

---

At the heart of this Alliance solution...we will give ANet the ability to better manipulate Match-Ups at a "Granular" level because World Linking kinda did it, but it wasn't good enough?

So we're going to use a design that failed to achieve results and made the game more desperate because WvW is unable to attract & engage newer players to join in the depressing battles if you're not on the "Winning team"...so now we plan to blow up ALL worlds on a time schedule to give everybody a chance to be on the "Winning team" if they're lucky to get a seat?

Is it a good idea to use a "Musical Chairs" design to create World match-ups while trying to prevent match-up abuse by the players that fundamentally want to over-stack odds in their favor?

What can be more drastic than that? If this fails then what?

We're just going to end up in the same place we are now...with "Guest Server" guild communities have already been destroyed by World Linking, but we're now planning to systematically destroy all our "Host Server" guild communities with this Alliance Linking.

We can not expect Elite Guilds in an ecosystem that gets blown up every season to be a strong leader while their ground keeps sliding around.

---

With this Alliance Musical Chairs design...stacking odds in their favor will be a priority. The season reset merely re-shuffles the deck.

Super Alliances will only want the best Guilds with the most Elite players, but there's going to be a maximum size an Alliance is allowed to grow to?

Don't think for a second that Guilds won't try and figure out a way to manipulate & abuse this to their advantage.

I'm sure Guilds will somehow get extremely creative & figure out a way to abuse the system. They've done so in the past & will do so in the future.

It's going to be like herding cats.

---

Also, Guilds will be after one thing...Power.

If Absolute Power can be achieved...you'll witness drama (Corruption) like no other...which will then infect the larger Alliance.

Guilds are an un-healthy base on which to build the WvW game mode upon in the long term for this reason.

Actually Absolute Power is not necessary...any guild is susceptible to drama...large or small.

---

If we go down this road...we can never have any chance to have a Healthy Competitive game mode where sponsors to a SuperBowl-like franchise will pay to support this eSport that is geared to catering to emotionally vested players & fans.

There's just too much match-up manipulation going on behind the scenes that prevents us from having a Healthy Competitive game mode.

You tell me how excited of a fan you'll be if your team is Red, Green, or Blue.

Now ask any Green Bay Packers fan why they continue to support their team...even when they're not the SuperBowl champions?

There's a huge difference between having a Color be your "Team" vs having a Color be part of your "Team name".

Team identity is precious to the sport, or possibly having an eSport.

Yours truly,Diku

Heart of Green Bay: The Packers Unique Relationship with Their Fans | NFL

[Sarrs.4831]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:And if you can't get into a solid 500-player alliance? This seems soo risky, leaving the fate of players experience and sense of belonging in wvw, an open game mode, at the whim and sole discretion of guild leaders, who we all have to make nice with now or else. I just don't understand how anet could make such a decision and not factor this glaring variable in.

Why do you want to play with these people?

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:And if you can't get into a solid 500-player alliance? This seems soo risky, leaving the fate of players experience and sense of belonging in wvw, an open game mode, at the whim and sole discretion of guild leaders, who we all have to make nice with now or else. I just don't understand how anet could make such a decision and not factor this glaring variable in.

Why do you want to play with these people?

I don't like socializing in a guild setting, I don't like people telling me what to do or how to play. I enjoy the familiarity that a server brings and playing with these players on the server but not socializing with them or having them tell me what to do or how to play. When you join a guild, they expect you to interact which I don't want to do, they also expect a ton of other rules, show up this time per week, make sure you rep our guild, respect our officers and guild members, don't say things we dont like ect. ect. ect. I don't want to adhere to this just to play a game mode and enjoy the comradere I have with players in the manner I have it, uninterrupted for the past 6 years in a game mode that should be open to everyone and not moderated or disrupted by the whims of a guild leader/officers or other individuals. I shouldn't have to adhere to these rules made up by a guild leader just to play with the few acquaintances I have made without being cast to the winds. I enjoy playing with other players, but not getting too close and certainly not socializing in a manner in which I am required to play nice and reign in my views on everything or else.

An open game mode, and our capacity to enjoy a cohesive familiar environment that we have enjoyed for the last 6 years will now be dependent on our social skills and our desire to socialize, and I don't agree with this change.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@jacksmith.6028 said:

@"Bloodstealer.5978" said:Sure, but we all know this is going to be one large power vacuum, with the top wvw guilds aligning to form superguilds in order to try and manipulate the matchups as best they can each time.. so instead of having one server dominant in matchups like T1.. we will have 1 dominant guild each time made up of mostly the same players same guilds just under some random name each matchup.. thus wvwvw is becoming gvgvg.And if your not in one of those superguilds your just going to be a scrub trying to follow footsteps.. highly enjoyable, not.

Guilds will make up alliances and a "world" will be made up of guilds, alliances and pugs. Forming a "superguild" won't really work because Anet has stated that they will reset everything 8 weeks. So at most a "superguild" or "super alliance" can dominate for only 8 weeks. Then, Anet is going to match the "super whatever" against an equal number of guilds and/or alliances.

In other words, the current situation like we have with BG will only last for 8 weeks. Imagine BG is a "super alliance" - then Anet will match them up against an equal opponent and BG will have to fight (rather than just over-blob) for their win. Anet has also said that they will take a look and adjust the caps so, for example, if the "BG" alliance is too big or powerful, all Anet has to do is lower the world population cap and the super alliance (BG) will be broken up.

Which is true if the alliances strive for balanced coverage.

However, in NA, with the OCX and SEA pops being very limited, all it takes is enough motivation for them to stack in their own alliance. Which would mostly ensure that whichever world they went to would dominate most of the 8 weeks.

Now, chances are the majority won't do this.

As an ocx player I can say that my guild is going to be very careful who we enter an alliance with to ensure we will have other guilds to fight in ocx time. We are not interested in grouping up with all other remaining ocx guilds to just k train with no enemies.

And I know your guild will not be alone in that.

I guess I just hope that, winning will not become so 'valuable' that other guilds/players won't become so motivated that it creates a situation analogous to what we have now.

I think they have found a way to cover a lot of bases without a wholesale change of what WvW is. I am looking forward to the change.

[Strider Pj.2193]

Yes. @Eater of Peeps.9062 Most of us HAVE considered that the changes COULD be harmful to the mode. And that thus could follow a path similar to how you see sPvP having gone.

Many also see that the current mode is struggling. When servers (not guilds, not 'alliances' but WHOLE SERVERS) are deliberate losing to prevent moving up tiers, this ends up hurting most of the player bases experiences.

You note you have read all of the pages.

You also note that you have seen better solutions, yet in the last two pages you haven't noted highlights of what those are.

Many people have calmly and in a constructive manner responded with what they feel are answers to your questions yet your response to them seems to be almost, well, adversarial.

The status quo is not working for more than 3/4 of the player base.

pugs under the new system wont be able to pick where they end up. Alliances won't be able to pick what other alliances they play with. Guilds that form an alliance will only be able to pick a small number of people they wish to play with to stay together.

Yes. Someone who does not wish to be in a guild will have to get used to a large number of new people after 8 weeks. That is a fact.