World Restructuring

[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.

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

In spvp, pro/league bound teams on TS bent on getting to the top of the leaderboards at any cost trounced solo "hot join" pugs and other loosely organized players. They trounced them and sped to the top. They sat at the top and had battles only with the other players who were in similar teams and did similar tactics. All of the solo pugs were obliterated and their rankings plummeted. The pugs were then pitted against each other and those lower than them with a system stacked against them so they could never rise up the leaderboard. These people spent months playing with and teaching bad players how to pvp. Then they eventually got depressed and quit. Then the players at the top began to complain that they were fighting boring predictable battles against the exact same players/teams cuz all of the diversity was obliterated by the system and the gang up on the pugs and lesser guilds.

While I acknowledge that BG is now dominating wvw, and the end result is that the other servers are complaining that they are demoralized and can't compete/win and thus, and in that manner the current wvw configuration is mimicking to some extent this same failed spvp system, the proposed plan will push it further in the direction of the similar spvp end product.

The superalliances will gather in their respective rotating match ups each week. It will occur every week and every 8 week cycle. THe pugs will get booted/excluded and only the perceived best/groupies/wanted will be allowed into the super alliances to fight. The unwanted pug uglies will be forced to roam or run ragged in some lesser open world/alliance until they get demoralized not only by the play but also by the exclusion/rigidity and the placement into worlds with lesser guilds. Good solo players will bear the brunt of the shift to this system and will be forced to teach/train lesser wvw guilds/alliances so they can improve. Eventually, they will drop off/go away. Then the superalliances will battle each other in the same monotonous way endlessly. Granted, the demoralization is the same as now, only more attrition will occur than is present now.

Also, just like in spvp, good solo players will be teamed with poor players. So for a good solo pug, they will be forever placed into a world with bad guilds to beef up the bad guilds. This is exactly what happened to many people in spvp - pugs were trounced by unfair teams alliances and then their rankings/scores tanked and they were placed into a perpetual loop where they could not get out of the abyss until they joined or were accepted by a super team/alliance. Those that couldn't find placement or get team help were doomed and kicked to the curb and eventually left not only spvp but the game.

Please lets not repeat this scenario, in essence, again.

I have seen some better suggestions for improving/incentivizing/balancing the current system that don't include punishing unaffiliated guilds/pugs by effectively banishing them to the hinterlands and encouraging exclusionary practices.

[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.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@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.

Again you are imposing your restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved years ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@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.

Lets not forget those superguild leaders are likely only going to allow you entrance into the elite zergwar if your prepared to only play the meta class/build that they believe metabattle says is gold from one matchup to the next otherwise be prepared to play alone chasing in their footsteps.... Naay "insert class elite", you shall not pass! .. become a spellbreaker or a scourge and you can play with us.. blah blah blah.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@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.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Except the new superguilds wont be community guilds.. they will want to do what they do best now and that is dominate.. the power vacuum this will create will only heighten the need for less open community format to rigid rule of dominance and all the drama and tensions that will likely come with it... it does not matter if every 8 weeks the decks get shuffled, those guilds will always look to manipulate the rules once those power guilds are established otherwise what is the point of creating the guild if not to dominate as a guild each matchup.You think having 500 randoms every month is what they are looking to lead.. it will just mean that guilds/alliances will simply use the system to create superguild matchups, likely between themselves once they have all their alliances placed, leaders established and communication channels opened.. the rest will just have to feed off the leftovers.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@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.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Except the new superguilds wont be community guilds.. they will want to do what they do best now and that is dominate.. the power vacuum this will create will only heighten the need for less open community format to rigid rule of dominance and all the drama and tensions that will likely come with it... it does not matter if every 8 weeks the decks get shuffled, those guilds will always look to manipulate the rules once those power guilds are established otherwise what is the point of creating the guild if not to dominate as a guild each matchup.You think having 500 randoms every month is what they are looking to lead.. it will just mean that guilds/alliances will simply use the system to create superguild matchups, likely between themselves once they have all their alliances placed, leaders established and communication channels opened.. the rest will just have to feed off the leftovers.

Maybe. And those superguilds will make up 20% of a world. That will definately allow them to control what that world does.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@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.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Except the new superguilds wont be community guilds.. they will want to do what they do best now and that is dominate.. the power vacuum this will create will only heighten the need for less open community format to rigid rule of dominance and all the drama and tensions that will likely come with it... it does not matter if every 8 weeks the decks get shuffled, those guilds will always look to manipulate the rules once those power guilds are established otherwise what is the point of creating the guild if not to dominate as a guild each matchup.You think having 500 randoms every month is what they are looking to lead.. it will just mean that guilds/alliances will simply use the system to create superguild matchups, likely between themselves once they have all their alliances placed, leaders established and communication channels opened.. the rest will just have to feed off the leftovers.

Maybe. And those superguilds will make up 20% of a world. That will definately allow them to control what that world does.

It wont be 20% they will control much more all be it indirectly no matter how the world is reshuffled each matchup.. unless of course those superguilds will want to rebuild everything each matchup.. unlikely, they will look to manipulate the system and turning matchups into organised inhouse gvg runs is just one way.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@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.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Except the new superguilds wont be community guilds.. they will want to do what they do best now and that is dominate.. the power vacuum this will create will only heighten the need for less open community format to rigid rule of dominance and all the drama and tensions that will likely come with it... it does not matter if every 8 weeks the decks get shuffled, those guilds will always look to manipulate the rules once those power guilds are established otherwise what is the point of creating the guild if not to dominate as a guild each matchup.You think having 500 randoms every month is what they are looking to lead.. it will just mean that guilds/alliances will simply use the system to create superguild matchups, likely between themselves once they have all their alliances placed, leaders established and communication channels opened.. the rest will just have to feed off the leftovers.

Maybe. And those superguilds will make up 20% of a world. That will definately allow them to control what that world does.

It wont be 20% they will control much more all be it indirectly no matter how the world is reshuffled each matchup.. unless of course those superguilds will want to rebuild everything each matchup.. unlikely, they will look to manipulate the system and turning matchups into organised inhouse gvg runs is just one way.

Each alliance is designed to be no more than 20% of the world Cap.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@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.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Except the new superguilds wont be community guilds.. they will want to do what they do best now and that is dominate.. the power vacuum this will create will only heighten the need for less open community format to rigid rule of dominance and all the drama and tensions that will likely come with it... it does not matter if every 8 weeks the decks get shuffled, those guilds will always look to manipulate the rules once those power guilds are established otherwise what is the point of creating the guild if not to dominate as a guild each matchup.You think having 500 randoms every month is what they are looking to lead.. it will just mean that guilds/alliances will simply use the system to create superguild matchups, likely between themselves once they have all their alliances placed, leaders established and communication channels opened.. the rest will just have to feed off the leftovers.

When was the last time you saw a commander lead 500 people on EB or a border? Existing 500 man guilds arent exactly fighting for space, are they?

500 is alot of people and trust me, no guild leader will keep track of what everyone is doing 24/7. Will there be dedicated core? For sure. Just like there is now in such guilds. But thats more like 50 core with room for 450 randoms.

It doesnt matter if "superguilds" want to dominate their world, they wont be able to. Its a game, not a bloody corporation with dedicated managers and paid employees.

As I have mentioned many times before, the people that are playing WvW now are the same people that will play WvW after the change. Someone online 2 hours at 18-20 3 days a week isnt magically transforming into someone that has 24/7 coverage every day of the week in order to win. The change doesnt create players out of thin air to fill your "superguilds". What we have now is what you have after.

[morrolan.9608]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said: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.

The alliances are mooted to be only 20% of the population of a world, they won't be able to manipulate it. I wouldn;t mind betting an alliance will be closer to 500 members than 1000 so it may be smaller.

@Eater of Peeps.9062 said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

That attrition has already occurred in WvW and its in a worse state than PvP, it was happening before HOT, HOT accelerated it for a while but it continued to decline until legendary armor where it got a brief uptick but the grind turned people off and it declined again. This proposal is essentially a last resort.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said: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.

The alliances are mooted to be only 20% of the population of a world, they won't be able to manipulate it. I wouldn;t mind betting an alliance will be closer to 500 members than 1000 so it may be smaller.

@Eater of Peeps.9062 said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

That attrition has already occurred in WvW and its in a worse state than PvP, it was happening before HOT, HOT accelerated it for a while but it continued to decline until legendary armor where it got a brief uptick but the grind turned people off and it declined again. This proposal is essentially a last resort.

Last resort maybe .. but an ideal opportunity to create power vacuums in the gamemode and the one thing power vacuums do is to create fluidity, which in turn makes money out of a bad egg... xfers on a more regular basis is the kerching in this perfect storm....

We forget all this is not about our benefit.. pure genius :)

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@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.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Except the new superguilds wont be community guilds.. they will want to do what they do best now and that is dominate.. the power vacuum this will create will only heighten the need for less open community format to rigid rule of dominance and all the drama and tensions that will likely come with it... it does not matter if every 8 weeks the decks get shuffled, those guilds will always look to manipulate the rules once those power guilds are established otherwise what is the point of creating the guild if not to dominate as a guild each matchup.You think having 500 randoms every month is what they are looking to lead.. it will just mean that guilds/alliances will simply use the system to create superguild matchups, likely between themselves once they have all their alliances placed, leaders established and communication channels opened.. the rest will just have to feed off the leftovers.

When was the last time you saw a commander lead 500 people on EB or a border? Existing 500 man guilds arent exactly fighting for space, are they?

500 is

alot

of people and trust me, no guild leader will keep track of what everyone is doing 24/7. Will there be dedicated core? For sure. Just like there is now in such guilds. But thats more like 50 core with room for 450 randoms.

It doesnt matter if "superguilds"

want

to dominate their world, they wont be able to. Its a game, not a bloody corporation with dedicated managers and paid employees.

As I have mentioned many times before, the people that are playing WvW

now

are the same people that will play WvW

after

the change. Someone online 2 hours at 18-20 3 days a week isnt magically transforming into someone that has 24/7 coverage every day of the week in order to win. The change doesnt create players out of thin air to fill your "superguilds". What we have now is what you have after.

Its not about leading 500 its about how that 500 can be manipulated to your advantage.. wvwvwv now becomes a gvgvg scenario once that 500 is split across matchups, its not rocket science to understand that the power guilds on each server will want to retain their dominance .. otherwise it will be just as you say a leader leading 500 randoms.. no thanks.

Of course at the moment this is all individual thoughts and possibly emotive thinking but time will tell if this changes anything.. for me, I believe this change will hurt wvw even more than before, I think it will make it much worse for small guilds and solo players that don't wish to be part of that kind of structure and with severs now loosing what little identity they had completely those small guilds risk being pulled into that power vacuum and become subservient to elite guilds or worse broken up, along with the server community as a whole.

[Chaba.5410]

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

In spvp, pro/league bound teams on TS bent on getting to the top of the leaderboards at any cost trounced solo "hot join" pugs and other loosely organized players. They trounced them and sped to the top.

Why do you drawn an analogy between small sPvP teams where an entire team could enter a match together (not anymore) and essentially "force" out any hotjoins on that team with a World which will be composed of hotjoins plus allied players?

[Chaba.5410]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:Lets not forget those superguild leaders are likely only going to allow you entrance into the elite zergwar if your prepared to only play the meta class/build that they believe metabattle says is gold from one matchup to the next otherwise be prepared to play alone chasing in their footsteps.

Why do you suggest that this is something related to the WvW restructuring - which is glorified server links? Doesn't this already happen now?

[Chaba.5410]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:wvwvwv now becomes a gvgvg scenario once that 500 is split across matchups,

I'm not understanding how you get from Restructuring to GvG. Didn't GvG arise from server-based WvW and had its golden years already? What did Titan Alliance, et al, do in the first few months of the game?

[Diku.2546]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

In spvp, pro/league bound teams on TS bent on getting to the top of the leaderboards at any cost trounced solo "hot join" pugs and other loosely organized players. They trounced them and sped to the top.

Why do you drawn an analogy between small sPvP teams where an entire team could enter a match together (not anymore) and essentially "force" out any hotjoins on that team with a World which will be composed of hotjoins plus allied players?

---

Hope this helps to shed some light on this topic. I'd like to quote a famous swordsman.

“Know the smallest things and the biggest things, the shallowest things and the deepest things. As if it were a straight road mapped out on the ground, the first book is called the Ground book.”

---

Also, another good reference is "Crossing the Ford".

"In strategy also it is important to "cross at a ford". Discern the enemy's capabilityand, knowing your own strong points, "cross the ford" at the advantageous place, as agood captain crosses a sea route. If you succeed in crossing at the best place, you maytake your ease. To cross at a ford means to attack the enemy's weak point, and to putyourself in an advantageous position. This is how to win in large-scale strategy. The spiritof crossing at a ford is necessary in both large — and small-scale strategy.

You must research this well. "

---

Book of Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashihttps://www.nateliason.com/lessons/book-five-rings-miyamoto-musashihttps://archive.org/stream/MiyamotoMusashi-BookOfFiveRingsgoRinNoSho/Book_of_Five_Rings_djvu.txt

---

Miyamoto Musashi Top 10 Quotes

[Chaba.5410]

@Diku.2546 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

In spvp, pro/league bound teams on TS bent on getting to the top of the leaderboards at any cost trounced solo "hot join" pugs and other loosely organized players. They trounced them and sped to the top.

Why do you drawn an analogy between small sPvP teams where an entire team could enter a match together (not anymore) and essentially "force" out any hotjoins on that team with a World which will be composed of hotjoins plus allied players?

---

Hope this helps to shed some light on this topic. I'd like to quote a famous swordsman.

“Know the smallest things and the biggest things, the shallowest things and the deepest things. As if it were a straight road mapped out on the ground, the first book is called the Ground book.”

---

Also, another good reference is "Crossing the Ford".

"In strategy also it is important to "cross at a ford". Discern the enemy's capabilityand, knowing your own strong points, "cross the ford" at the advantageous place, as agood captain crosses a sea route. If you succeed in crossing at the best place, you maytake your ease. To cross at a ford means to attack the enemy's weak point, and to putyourself in an advantageous position. This is how to win in large-scale strategy. The spiritof crossing at a ford is necessary in both large — and small-scale strategy.

You must research this well. "

---

Book of Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashi

https://www.nateliason.com/lessons/book-five-rings-miyamoto-musashi/

What?

The Restructuring information says all Worlds will be composed of hotjoin pugs, guilds, and alliances. Are you agreeing with Eater of Peeps that a few Worlds will be like a full 5-man sPvP team without hotjoins and other Worlds will be only composed of hotjoin pugs? If you have something to say, you should say it directly instead of trying to be cryptic about it.