MaLeVoLenT.8129 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > That seems to be an argument that the _assumption_ of balance creates balance. You are assuming that there will always be "another battlegroup of coordinated players". How do you know? And how do you know that the result would be any more balanced than JQ and tanking guilds? I dont. Only match making depicts that. How do I know there will be a link for every server? I simply do not. Battlegroups are just better controlled server links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > That seems to be an argument that the _assumption_ of balance creates balance. You are assuming that there will always be "another battlegroup of coordinated players". How do you know? And how do you know that the result would be any more balanced than JQ and tanking guilds? > > I dont. Only match making depicts that. How do I know there will be a link for every server? I simply do not. Battlegroups are just better controlled server links. They are mostly guild controlled and to a much lesser degree player controlled. Wait... didn't that get us here in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaLeVoLenT.8129 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > > That seems to be an argument that the _assumption_ of balance creates balance. You are assuming that there will always be "another battlegroup of coordinated players". How do you know? And how do you know that the result would be any more balanced than JQ and tanking guilds? > > > > I dont. Only match making depicts that. How do I know there will be a link for every server? I simply do not. Battlegroups are just better controlled server links. > > They are mostly guild controlled and to a much lesser degree player controlled. > > Wait... didn't that get us here in the first place? I'm not sure what you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightBeAqua.7913 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Arioch.6507" said: > Would my 5 man guild be allowed in the ~~Turtle Club~~ er... Battlegroup or would we be "Pugs" until we recruit 10/40/90 more people? I don't see why small guild would be excluded? If Battlegroups were implemented there should be a population cap, not a guild cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaLeVoLenT.8129 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > > > > > And in the current system, as long as JQ is locked those 11 guilds will eventually drop to 10, then 9, 8, 7, 6 or less before they are opened up again. Is that the WvW community you are trying to protect? > > > > if JQ remains locked, then the guilds who need breathing room would xfer. Since none of the 11 guilds are enemies and wed all like to play together, chances are the ones who left would then cause a uncontrollable bandwagon to another server. Which is why JQ is tanking. To avoid this. Of course this is just an example. Doesn't mean its going to happen. But it has happened just like this before. > > Before or after the other great idea you promoted? I didnt promote anything. Im trying to have a healthy discussion. What are you trying to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > > > > > > > And in the current system, as long as JQ is locked those 11 guilds will eventually drop to 10, then 9, 8, 7, 6 or less before they are opened up again. Is that the WvW community you are trying to protect? > > > > > > if JQ remains locked, then the guilds who need breathing room would xfer. Since none of the 11 guilds are enemies and wed all like to play together, chances are the ones who left would then cause a uncontrollable bandwagon to another server. Which is why JQ is tanking. To avoid this. Of course this is just an example. Doesn't mean its going to happen. But it has happened just like this before. > > > > Before or after the other great idea you promoted? > > I didnt promote anything. Im trying to have a healthy discussion. What are you trying to do? Mal, you have well documented what you have 'accomplished' over the last few years. Enough players know this. Granted, a number of the new ones do not. The reality is, you are presenting a side without historical context. I am merely noting that. I find battlegroups guild centered which many people support. The downside to me, is that militia, or in your words Pugs, are an afterthought. Effectively they are filler. That isn't acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > > > That seems to be an argument that the _assumption_ of balance creates balance. You are assuming that there will always be "another battlegroup of coordinated players". How do you know? And how do you know that the result would be any more balanced than JQ and tanking guilds? > > > > > > I dont. Only match making depicts that. How do I know there will be a link for every server? I simply do not. Battlegroups are just better controlled server links. > > > > They are mostly guild controlled and to a much lesser degree player controlled. > > > > Wait... didn't that get us here in the first place? > > I'm not sure what you're saying. Really? I can clearly remember a guild leader sitting in the middle of a TC garrison espousing how wonderful it was going to be to have his guild from another server come in to 'help' TC. But I digress. I would just say that the locusts have figured out another way to save the field. Err...WvW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaLeVoLenT.8129 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > > > > That seems to be an argument that the _assumption_ of balance creates balance. You are assuming that there will always be "another battlegroup of coordinated players". How do you know? And how do you know that the result would be any more balanced than JQ and tanking guilds? > > > > > > > > I dont. Only match making depicts that. How do I know there will be a link for every server? I simply do not. Battlegroups are just better controlled server links. > > > > > > They are mostly guild controlled and to a much lesser degree player controlled. > > > > > > Wait... didn't that get us here in the first place? > > > > I'm not sure what you're saying. > > Really? I can clearly remember a guild leader sitting in the middle of a TC garrison espousing how wonderful it was going to be to have his guild from another server come in to 'help' TC. > > But I digress. > > I would just say that the locusts have figured out another way to save the field. Err...WvW. seems like you're trying to personally attack me when i'm just trying to help solve the over all issue. By bringing up my history how does that correlative to this thread? I'm personally up to hear your suggestions but so far, you haven't given any. You seem to be putting down others suggestions without providing much of a work around. I do not believe Battlegroups is a perfect system. But I truly believe its better than what we currently have. Furthermore its all hypothetical and based off a conversation that took place with Arena Net on the alpha forums. The information you see here are bits and pieces. How would you better incorporate Militia(Pugs) within a battlegroup system? Do you understand that within a battelgroup system, worlds are not destroyed and regardless of any system organized guilds will move as they see fit? How would you control the flow of bandwagons and mass transfers without a well defined cap? If my guild doesn't want to play with militia, how are you to stop me within the current system? If my guild wants to take several other guilds and form an alliance and mass move to another server, how would you stop me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endelon.1042 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 Battlegroups would make it easier for them to re-arrange and re-distribute the WvW population by separating the WvW playerbase into much smaller chunks that can then be linked together much more evenly than the current servers allow. This is basically what they were working on around the time of Heart of Thorns launch but this plan was scrapped around December 2015 (I suspect because of changes due to Colin leaving ArenaNet or Tyler moving off the WvW team). A rougher idea of Battlegroups was even brought up on the old forums by, I think, McKenna about a year ago (last summer?). Basically the Anet post was asking what the playerbase thought about the idea of adding a ton of new servers with free transfers in order to spread the WvW population out in order to help smooth and evenly distribute the relink populations. But this idea was poorly explained and was also not explained in the context of Battlegroups (server linking is essentially what Battlegroups is/was, but Battlegroups would have much smaller player pools and more of them) and so naturally most of the replies were "lol r u retarded anet more servers sux i've been on tc since beta xd" and stuff like that. I suspect something similar to this is what's going to be discussed after the holidays. This isn't some inside info or anything, I just don't think there's going to be some miraculous, completely new idea that they came up with...it'll likely be a version of what people had already spent time working on in the past (which is fine). There is also some irony in the really vocal posts in this thread coming from BG players. Do gold pips really matter that much to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > > > > > That seems to be an argument that the _assumption_ of balance creates balance. You are assuming that there will always be "another battlegroup of coordinated players". How do you know? And how do you know that the result would be any more balanced than JQ and tanking guilds? > > > > > > > > > > I dont. Only match making depicts that. How do I know there will be a link for every server? I simply do not. Battlegroups are just better controlled server links. > > > > > > > > They are mostly guild controlled and to a much lesser degree player controlled. > > > > > > > > Wait... didn't that get us here in the first place? > > > > > > I'm not sure what you're saying. > > > > Really? I can clearly remember a guild leader sitting in the middle of a TC garrison espousing how wonderful it was going to be to have his guild from another server come in to 'help' TC. > > > > But I digress. > > > > I would just say that the locusts have figured out another way to save the field. Err...WvW. > > seems like you're trying to personally attack me when i'm just trying to help solve the over all issue. By bringing up my history how does that correlative to this thread? I'm personally up to hear your suggestions but so far, you haven't given any. You seem to be putting down others suggestions without providing much of a work around. I do not believe Battlegroups is a perfect system. But I truly believe its better than what we currently have. Furthermore its all hypothetical and based off a conversation that took place with Arena Net on the alpha forums. The information you see here are bits and pieces. > No personal attacks. It's a critique of the idea of battlegroups. It is also a statement that past experience with ideas you have been in support of have not led to an outcome that many people feel was positive. > How would you better incorporate Militia(Pugs) within a battlegroup system? I wouldn't. I do not think a guild centric system is healthy. I think the current system, with allowing a better focus on GvGs and those being supported by Anet would create a healthier long term option. > Do you understand that within a battelgroup system, worlds are not destroyed and regardless of any system organized guilds will move as they see fit? Yes. Still doesn't change that it would be guild centric. See above. > How would you control the flow of bandwagons and mass transfers without a well defined cap? I think there is no good way to control bandwagons. Battlegroups wouldn't stop this either. > If my guild doesn't want to play with militia, how are you to stop me within the current system? I can't. And no one should stop you. You aren't stopped now. Battlegroups don't 'stop' this either. > If my guild wants to take several other guilds and form an alliance and mass move to another server, how would you stop me? You have proven that on two occasions, we can't. However, it appears that Anet has put controls in place to minimize it. Gaming the system is possible. Battlegroups doesn't change that. > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDchiaScrub.3241 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Trajan.4953" said: > Change is bad, Change is terrifying! Change causes folks to lose their minds and spam forums 24/7 to try and stop it. Change makes us weak in the knees and binge watch Grey's Anatomy. > > However we are at the point in this game where Change has to happen. > > We cannot EVER roll back the game to 2012, Red Guard and Sacryx are not going to magically appear, and lets be honest, none of you would make the grade for that guild. > > Currently we have a dwindling population, coverage issues, linking problems, server stacking etc etc etc. The list goes on and on. We are in a state of real flux right now. Smashing your face against the keyboard against any form of change is counter intuitive. > > Can we discuss the possibility of Battlegroups without everyone losing their mind. Lets be reasonable folks. It's not a matter of how but When. Is this page a bad time to point out the OP didn't even surmise what Battlegroups is/was? At least the bickering for the few pages somewhat explained it every now and then. Ahhh...WvW forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaLeVoLenT.8129 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > > > > > > That seems to be an argument that the _assumption_ of balance creates balance. You are assuming that there will always be "another battlegroup of coordinated players". How do you know? And how do you know that the result would be any more balanced than JQ and tanking guilds? > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont. Only match making depicts that. How do I know there will be a link for every server? I simply do not. Battlegroups are just better controlled server links. > > > > > > > > > > They are mostly guild controlled and to a much lesser degree player controlled. > > > > > > > > > > Wait... didn't that get us here in the first place? > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what you're saying. > > > > > > Really? I can clearly remember a guild leader sitting in the middle of a TC garrison espousing how wonderful it was going to be to have his guild from another server come in to 'help' TC. > > > > > > But I digress. > > > > > > I would just say that the locusts have figured out another way to save the field. Err...WvW. > > > > seems like you're trying to personally attack me when i'm just trying to help solve the over all issue. By bringing up my history how does that correlative to this thread? I'm personally up to hear your suggestions but so far, you haven't given any. You seem to be putting down others suggestions without providing much of a work around. I do not believe Battlegroups is a perfect system. But I truly believe its better than what we currently have. Furthermore its all hypothetical and based off a conversation that took place with Arena Net on the alpha forums. The information you see here are bits and pieces. > > > > No personal attacks. It's a critique of the idea of battlegroups. It is also a statement that past experience with ideas you have been in support of have not led to an outcome that many people feel was positive. > > > How would you better incorporate Militia(Pugs) within a battlegroup system? > > I wouldn't. I do not think a guild centric system is healthy. I think the current system, with allowing a better focus on GvGs and those being supported by Anet would create a healthier long term option. > > > Do you understand that within a battelgroup system, worlds are not destroyed and regardless of any system organized guilds will move as they see fit? > > Yes. Still doesn't change that it would be guild centric. See above. > > > > How would you control the flow of bandwagons and mass transfers without a well defined cap? > > I think there is no good way to control bandwagons. Battlegroups wouldn't stop this either. > > > If my guild doesn't want to play with militia, how are you to stop me within the current system? > > I can't. And no one should stop you. You aren't stopped now. Battlegroups don't 'stop' this either. > > > If my guild wants to take several other guilds and form an alliance and mass move to another server, how would you stop me? > > You have proven that on two occasions, we can't. However, it appears that Anet has put controls in place to minimize it. Gaming the system is possible. Battlegroups doesn't change that. > > > > Battlegroups would stop me or anyone like me from doing what I did not once. Not twice. But three times. Maybe a fourth? TBA. So you don't have any core suggestions then huh? P.S. Thanks for coining my next alliance name. "The Swarm" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 Did you forget the title? It was to discuss Battlegroups. I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endelon.1042 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said: > Is this page a bad time to point out the OP didn't even surmise what Battlegroups is/was? At least the bickering for the few pages somewhat explained it every now and then. Ahhh...WvW forums. I was annoyed with that too. I assumed "Battlegroups" was just some term that had 5,000 different meanings depending on who was posting it. Then I found out that it was what ArenaNet was (apparently) calling the new system they had been exploring around HoT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etiolate.9185 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 "Militia" would choose Battlegroups the same as guilds would. I imagine if the idea was implemented, it would have current server communities defaulted to certain battlegroups to retain community identity. The idea is not elitist. It's about reshuffling population for the health of the game mode. Only the extremely large servers would have a chance of being broken up. edit: Those aren't scare quotes on Militia. I used quotation marks because Militia is often guild members roaming when their guild isn't running together. There's a lot of crossover., so Militia becomes a loose term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrolan.9608 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > > > > > > > > > And in the current system, as long as JQ is locked those 11 guilds will eventually drop to 10, then 9, 8, 7, 6 or less before they are opened up again. Is that the WvW community you are trying to protect? > > > > > > > > if JQ remains locked, then the guilds who need breathing room would xfer. Since none of the 11 guilds are enemies and wed all like to play together, chances are the ones who left would then cause a uncontrollable bandwagon to another server. Which is why JQ is tanking. To avoid this. Of course this is just an example. Doesn't mean its going to happen. But it has happened just like this before. > > > > > > Before or after the other great idea you promoted? > > > > I didnt promote anything. Im trying to have a healthy discussion. What are you trying to do? > > Mal, you have well documented what you have 'accomplished' over the last few years. Enough players know this. > > Granted, a number of the new ones do not. > > The reality is, you are presenting a side without historical context. I am merely noting that. Mal's history is irrelevant, looking at these ideas in isolation and in comparison with other large scale factionally based pvp games its clear WvW needs a change along these lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SugarCayne.3098 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > > > > > > > That seems to be an argument that the _assumption_ of balance creates balance. You are assuming that there will always be "another battlegroup of coordinated players". How do you know? And how do you know that the result would be any more balanced than JQ and tanking guilds? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont. Only match making depicts that. How do I know there will be a link for every server? I simply do not. Battlegroups are just better controlled server links. > > > > > > > > > > > > They are mostly guild controlled and to a much lesser degree player controlled. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wait... didn't that get us here in the first place? > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what you're saying. > > > > > > > > Really? I can clearly remember a guild leader sitting in the middle of a TC garrison espousing how wonderful it was going to be to have his guild from another server come in to 'help' TC. > > > > > > > > But I digress. > > > > > > > > I would just say that the locusts have figured out another way to save the field. Err...WvW. > > > > > > seems like you're trying to personally attack me when i'm just trying to help solve the over all issue. By bringing up my history how does that correlative to this thread? I'm personally up to hear your suggestions but so far, you haven't given any. You seem to be putting down others suggestions without providing much of a work around. I do not believe Battlegroups is a perfect system. But I truly believe its better than what we currently have. Furthermore its all hypothetical and based off a conversation that took place with Arena Net on the alpha forums. The information you see here are bits and pieces. > > > > > > > No personal attacks. It's a critique of the idea of battlegroups. It is also a statement that past experience with ideas you have been in support of have not led to an outcome that many people feel was positive. > > > > > How would you better incorporate Militia(Pugs) within a battlegroup system? > > > > I wouldn't. I do not think a guild centric system is healthy. I think the current system, with allowing a better focus on GvGs and those being supported by Anet would create a healthier long term option. > > > > > Do you understand that within a battelgroup system, worlds are not destroyed and regardless of any system organized guilds will move as they see fit? > > > > Yes. Still doesn't change that it would be guild centric. See above. > > > > > > > How would you control the flow of bandwagons and mass transfers without a well defined cap? > > > > I think there is no good way to control bandwagons. Battlegroups wouldn't stop this either. > > > > > If my guild doesn't want to play with militia, how are you to stop me within the current system? > > > > I can't. And no one should stop you. You aren't stopped now. Battlegroups don't 'stop' this either. > > > > > If my guild wants to take several other guilds and form an alliance and mass move to another server, how would you stop me? > > > > You have proven that on two occasions, we can't. However, it appears that Anet has put controls in place to minimize it. Gaming the system is possible. Battlegroups doesn't change that. > > > > > > > > > Battlegroups would stop me or anyone like me from doing what I did not once. Not twice. But three times. Maybe a fourth? TBA. So you don't have any core suggestions then huh? P.S. Thanks for coining my next alliance name. "The Swarm" Malarkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 > @"morrolan.9608" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > > > > > > > > > > > And in the current system, as long as JQ is locked those 11 guilds will eventually drop to 10, then 9, 8, 7, 6 or less before they are opened up again. Is that the WvW community you are trying to protect? > > > > > > > > > > if JQ remains locked, then the guilds who need breathing room would xfer. Since none of the 11 guilds are enemies and wed all like to play together, chances are the ones who left would then cause a uncontrollable bandwagon to another server. Which is why JQ is tanking. To avoid this. Of course this is just an example. Doesn't mean its going to happen. But it has happened just like this before. > > > > > > > > Before or after the other great idea you promoted? > > > > > > I didnt promote anything. Im trying to have a healthy discussion. What are you trying to do? > > > > Mal, you have well documented what you have 'accomplished' over the last few years. Enough players know this. > > > > Granted, a number of the new ones do not. > > > > The reality is, you are presenting a side without historical context. I am merely noting that. > > Mal's history is irrelevant, looking at these ideas in isolation and in comparison with other large scale factionally based pvp games its clear WvW needs a change along these lines. No. It doesn't need a change along these lines. And I outlined in my responses why. Guild centric changes to *WvW* are not healthy. I have and will continue to support an effective, multi tier, inter AND intra server option for GvG. WvW itself isn't the place for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 > @"morrolan.9608" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > > > > > > > > > > > And in the current system, as long as JQ is locked those 11 guilds will eventually drop to 10, then 9, 8, 7, 6 or less before they are opened up again. Is that the WvW community you are trying to protect? > > > > > > > > > > if JQ remains locked, then the guilds who need breathing room would xfer. Since none of the 11 guilds are enemies and wed all like to play together, chances are the ones who left would then cause a uncontrollable bandwagon to another server. Which is why JQ is tanking. To avoid this. Of course this is just an example. Doesn't mean its going to happen. But it has happened just like this before. > > > > > > > > Before or after the other great idea you promoted? > > > > > > I didnt promote anything. Im trying to have a healthy discussion. What are you trying to do? > > > > Mal, you have well documented what you have 'accomplished' over the last few years. Enough players know this. > > > > Granted, a number of the new ones do not. > > > > The reality is, you are presenting a side without historical context. I am merely noting that. > > Mal's history is irrelevant, looking at these ideas in isolation and in comparison with other large scale factionally based pvp games its clear WvW needs a change along these lines. As far as his history being irrelevant, he has stated showing Anet how broken the mode is, is the only way to make them change. The alliance he was a part of in the past did the same thing. And the alliance is why all of his poor guild mates are stuck on other servers. Let him move again. I have no problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrolan.9608 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"morrolan.9608" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And in the current system, as long as JQ is locked those 11 guilds will eventually drop to 10, then 9, 8, 7, 6 or less before they are opened up again. Is that the WvW community you are trying to protect? > > > > > > > > > > > > if JQ remains locked, then the guilds who need breathing room would xfer. Since none of the 11 guilds are enemies and wed all like to play together, chances are the ones who left would then cause a uncontrollable bandwagon to another server. Which is why JQ is tanking. To avoid this. Of course this is just an example. Doesn't mean its going to happen. But it has happened just like this before. > > > > > > > > > > Before or after the other great idea you promoted? > > > > > > > > I didnt promote anything. Im trying to have a healthy discussion. What are you trying to do? > > > > > > Mal, you have well documented what you have 'accomplished' over the last few years. Enough players know this. > > > > > > Granted, a number of the new ones do not. > > > > > > The reality is, you are presenting a side without historical context. I am merely noting that. > > > > Mal's history is irrelevant, looking at these ideas in isolation and in comparison with other large scale factionally based pvp games its clear WvW needs a change along these lines. > > No. It doesn't need a change along these lines. And I outlined in my responses why. Guild centric changes to *WvW* are not healthy. > > I have and will continue to support an effective, multi tier, inter AND intra server option for GvG. > > WvW itself isn't the place for it. Sure it is, guilds drive much of WvW and pugs are still catered for in the system. So the change would be healthy for WvW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 > @"morrolan.9608" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"morrolan.9608" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said: > > > > > > > > > Pugs rely on coordinated forces. It only took an agreement between 11 guilds to tank the server. If those 11 guilds left JQ, JQ would be uttery fractured. Lets not forget more than 50% of the pugs belong to guilds playing when their own guild isn't active. Again if Battlegroups were in play and those 11 JQ guilds formed a battlegroup and got match made with another server other than JQ, then the server JQ would get another battlegroups of coordinated players for the pugs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And in the current system, as long as JQ is locked those 11 guilds will eventually drop to 10, then 9, 8, 7, 6 or less before they are opened up again. Is that the WvW community you are trying to protect? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if JQ remains locked, then the guilds who need breathing room would xfer. Since none of the 11 guilds are enemies and wed all like to play together, chances are the ones who left would then cause a uncontrollable bandwagon to another server. Which is why JQ is tanking. To avoid this. Of course this is just an example. Doesn't mean its going to happen. But it has happened just like this before. > > > > > > > > > > > > Before or after the other great idea you promoted? > > > > > > > > > > I didnt promote anything. Im trying to have a healthy discussion. What are you trying to do? > > > > > > > > Mal, you have well documented what you have 'accomplished' over the last few years. Enough players know this. > > > > > > > > Granted, a number of the new ones do not. > > > > > > > > The reality is, you are presenting a side without historical context. I am merely noting that. > > > > > > Mal's history is irrelevant, looking at these ideas in isolation and in comparison with other large scale factionally based pvp games its clear WvW needs a change along these lines. > > > > No. It doesn't need a change along these lines. And I outlined in my responses why. Guild centric changes to *WvW* are not healthy. > > > > I have and will continue to support an effective, multi tier, inter AND intra server option for GvG. > > > > WvW itself isn't the place for it. > > Sure it is, guilds drive much of WvW and pugs are still catered for in the system. So the change would be healthy for WvW. Pugs are the filler therefore by your definition, irrelevant. Sorry, but no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxanne.6140 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 oh you mean like the raid system implemented in wvw? nice.. rofl I will pay money just ot come back and see what happens then :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 What are “battlegroups”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliburn.1845 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 According to the leaks on reddit from last year, and other places. A Battlegroup would be somewhere around 1000 players at maximum, grouped together in a number of guilds. They would opt into WvW together and always be on the same side. The number of Battlegroups would be purely player driven. You want to form your own Battlegroup with your buddies, go right ahead. Every few weeks or months(or whatever time frame Anet decided on) the Battlegroups would be allocated to worlds(temp new servers) by Anet. Anet was apparently working on a system that would measure playtime, ppt, k/d, etc and assign a balanced set of Battlegroups to each world. So your world might have a SEA time based Battlegroup, an EU time Battlegroup, an NA time PPT focused Battlegroup, and an NA time fights focused Battlegroup. A certain number of player slots on each world would be exempt from Battlegroups(I'd estimate maybe 30-40% of a world's population) and be assigned to unaffiliated players(IE pugs) to basically fill up a world. The total population cap of one of these new world's was not leaked as far I know, but it would presumably include multiple Battlegroups and a large number of unaffiliated players. You would play for a couple months with your new world, than the worlds would get remade, Battlegroups and players redistributed, and the whole thing would begin again. Essentially it would be akin to server relink time, only instead of Anet trying to link servers, they would be constructing entirely new servers out of smaller, more easily divided(and if it worked as intended, balanced) groups of players. Now, what benefits would this structural change bring to WvW? I can think of several off the top of my head, some of you might be able to think of others. Or perhaps disadvantages. 1) Every world would start the world cycle with a much closer and more balanced population. Every world might be assigned say roughly 3000 players, and no world at the start of the cycle would have an advantage like say 5000 players. 2) Inactive players coming back to play would not be lumped on the same server, and thus tilt population balance. They would be scattered to keep populations even. 3) If you find particular players or guilds annoying or trolly, you would probably not have to deal with them after the world reshuffle, merely by not letting them in your Battlegroup(I like players being able to control that stuff). 4) The number of worlds created at the beginning of each cycle would be based on the active population. Obviously the number of worlds needs to be a factor of three, but using whatever criteria you want to use to define an active WvW player you could have 9 worlds, or 12 worlds, or 21 worlds, or whatever. It would again be player driven. 5) Because worlds and Battlegroups would be shuffled and reshuffled every few months, you would never know for sure who you might be playing against, or who is going to win a match-up. This would allow season tournaments to maybe come back in a redesigned form. Sure your world might lose the first tournament, but then you get reshuffled and you find yourself on a world that has a chance at winning. Because there is no predetermined or predicted winner players would be more motivated and want to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxanne.6140 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 Doesn't solve the current issues. Ppl are already complaining about links and from the way you described it, this seems to be playing with multiple links. Think of each battleground as a link and you see what I mean. It also doesn't explain the population metric that ppl are questioning as well. Also there is nothing stopping these groups from being active one week and going inactive the next. Just my 2 cents as a nobody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now