Let's discuss Battlegroups

[Caliburn.1845]

I think anyone who takes a dogmatic position in support or opposition of the vague undefined term "battlegroup" at this point is being silly. The devil is in the details and execution. Battlegroups could save WvW, or it could permanently wreck it, depending on the specific implementation of the idea. It could cater to guilds, it could cater to pugs. It all depends on how it is structured and designed.

 

But a discussion on how to make battlegroups beneficial to everyone in WvW, and perhaps to help Anet avoid some design flaws such as marginalizing certain groups of players is certainly a positive thing.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@"etiolate.9185" thanks for the clarifications. Based on what you've described, I can't imagine it being popular among the militia. And it seems like it would simply change one set of issues we have today for a new set. Maybe it wouldn't be worse, maybe it would be a bit better. Just seems like a huge undertaking for something that doesn't address the fundamental problem with WvW: that there's no fair way to setup matchups today that is also going to be fair next week.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

Battlegroups dont destroy worlds. Battlegroups are match made onto worlds. therefore a player or individual can choose not to be apart of a battlegroup and remain on their server. Battlegroups is designed to balance out the massive bandwagons and organized player base from dictating tiers. If anything battlegroups would help the militia and give militia tags to always follow when everyone is being competitive.

 

nearly a year ago or more, WvW communities came together to form an initiative between leaders to talk about and produce proper feedback and suggestions to ArenaNet. The initiative made several documents and had many ideas. Regardless of topic, it always came back to battlegroups which was the system ArenaNet had in mind before Arena Net decided to make an HoT expansion nullifying any other long term plans for WvW with hot fixes. The way server-links work is precisely the same as battlegroups the only difference is that instead of match worlds together based off the ever changing threshold(which leads to disasters) each community has well defined restraints to form their group upon before matched with worlds. So instead of getting a Host linked with a guest. the Host would then get linked to several battlegroups of varying sizes to complete the world threshold.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_20X5V6TIEjcQjjA0muDvYkAgNzdFqD60jBK1fhiKMk/edit?usp=sharing

 

What Caliburn said some post above me holds true. Its how its implemented.

[Trajan.4953]

Glad to see this thread got some traction.

 

While the final definition of Battle groups is innocuous the concept seems worth a discussion.

 

Caliburn, Mal, etiolate and others are presenting real ideas that are worth talking about. Nobody is saying anything definite, we are just simply addressing the elephant in the room, so to speak.

 

While I understand some people's thoughts this is a representation of elitist guilds trying to create their own playground, I disagree. It is often these groups trying their hardest to save the game mode that they love for everybody. What makes WVW so special is all the different kinds of play styles that mesh or interact with each other.

 

It really is just a conversation. Let's try and be constructive

[Swamurabi.7890]

I think that server communities has to go for WvW to succeed. It never was a factor in sPvP and since the release of the megaserver it has become irrelevant in PvE.

 

Do linked servers even have an identity anymore? Or a community?

[X T D.6458]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> Battlegroups dont destroy worlds. Battlegroups are match made onto worlds. therefore a player or individual can choose not to be apart of a battlegroup and remain on their server. Battlegroups is designed to balance out the massive bandwagons and organized player base from dictating tiers. If anything battlegroups would help the militia and give militia tags to always follow when everyone is being competitive.

>

 

Translation= You are not in our guild, we want to run private, we don't want you filthy pugs running with us.

 

Who are you trying to fool man.

 

[X T D.6458]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> @"etiolate.9185" thanks for the clarifications. Based on what you've described, I can't imagine it being popular among the militia. And it seems like it would simply change one set of issues we have today for a new set. Maybe it wouldn't be worse, maybe it would be a bit better. Just seems like a huge undertaking for something that doesn't address the fundamental problem with WvW: that there's no fair way to setup matchups today that is also going to be fair next week.

 

It does not address or fix anything. All it does is encourage elitism among a bunch of ego driven players who think an entire game mode and everything in it belongs to them. This is nothing but an excuse to allow these guilds to separate themselves from the rest of the player base.

 

 

[SugarCayne.3098]

Again, every person advocating belongs to or is the leader of a guild and has been trying social engineering on this for almost two years now.

 

Then Anet steps in and says "nope, it's not going to happen, too many factors to do this" ... and it dies down for another four months.

 

To raise from the dead in another four months.

 

Instead of stubbornly pushing Battlenet Groups, which is exclusive to guilds, and has pugs "add in as needed in a queue for map" -- and realize that this idea is exclusive and not inclusive -- why not be as open minded as you're suggesting others are and find a different method.

 

If you could clearly outline how non-guilded players can play wvw with some fairness to them -- where they're not seen as putty fill to a guild that's missing some players -- then go ahead. But none of you ever have.

 

Don't say "well join a guild" .. that doesn't work for everyone.

 

The system as it stands now doesn't force you to do that.

 

If guilds are interested in fighting each other exclusively with their own controls, etc .. have Anet expand the Hall arena.

 

Leave WvW alone.

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> If anything battlegroups would help the militia and give militia tags to always follow when everyone is being competitive.

 

Oh lol.

 

Kind of like how guilds allow this now eh? ;)

 

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> I think that server communities has to go for WvW to succeed. It never was a factor in sPvP and since the release of the megaserver it has become irrelevant in PvE.

>

> Do linked servers even have an identity anymore? Or a community?

 

So... when guild leaders are willing to let their guild be split over multiple 'tiers' of battle groups, or face each other within battle groups I may consider this. Until then, no. Absolutely not.

 

Community is what an MMO is about. There are multiple servers that still have communities. I mean kitten, even JQ has a community that is willing to band together and NOT play to keep their community intact.

 

In essence, battlegroups would be saying if you do not belong to an active guild there is a very good chance you won't be able to play with friends.

[Seffen.2875]

> @"Reaper Alim.4176" said:

> > @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > > @"Leaa.2943" said:

> > > So how is battle group idea stopping bandwagoning from happening? I mean this is what every other game is using and what happens is exactly bandwagon one of the servers/groups/faction/whateveryouwanttocallit farm the other until they give up and leave.

> >

> > Wrong, it doesn't happen in ESO at least not to a large extent.

> >

> >

>

> This I completely agree with. But then again ZOS actively supports Alliance War mode, and add and remove servers accordingly.

 

You mean you can actually Close and add Servers without destroying the game? o.O

 

Pls do not let the devs know that. Would mean they were wrong for like the last 6 years...

[Seffen.2875]

> @"Brigand.9502" said:

> The solution is to SPREAD OUT. Honestly, if people loved this game mode as much as they claimed and wanted to see it survive (possibly thrive?) they would spread the eff out.

>

> Either you want to "play with your guild alliance" (i.e. have unfair overpowered matchups and care only about yourself) or you want to make WvW a great game mode. One of these is part of the problem and one is the solution. So we all have to ask ourselves, are we the problem or the solution? Consider moving to a lower tier server and fighting the guilds that you were formerly friendly with. YOU CAN STILL BE FRIENDS EVEN IF YOU'RE MATCHED AGAINST SOMEONE. This is called a FRIENDLY rivalry. If everyone would just spread out we could all be equally populated (time zone coverage issues aside) and ALL of the matchups would be very competitive.

>

> This may be overly optimistic but if we could just get this sorted out amongst ourselves, anet wouldn't have to dedicate resources to resolving this specific issue and could instead focus on other things in the WvW game mode. Once the population became more or less balanced, they might also be able to integrate a balancing system. We just need to get it balanced-ish first.

>

> edit:

> I'm also not against closing lower tier (5-8) servers and giving the members a 1-time free transfer to a non-full server.

> The system also should check before EVERY SINGLE TRANSFER to see if a server has reached its cap. Opening on a Monday, for example, and allowing a ton of people to transfer before the system reevaluates the population shouldn't be a thing. Request a transfer. They system checks to see if there is an opening, and allows or denies on a case by case basis. That way bandwagoning is entirely eliminated.

 

Just saying that we Need to spread out is not enough. It is like: Hey spend Money. Then everything will be fine. But maybe not. Who knows. But in every case please spend Money.

[jacksmith.6028]

one flaw with the battlegroups concept as presented is that nothing would prevent me from getting an alt, keep it at low level and just farm the heck out of the "noob" tier. I think it would be hilarious fun to take a fight guild on a PPT battlegroup and raise hell ;). Let the salt and bags flow!

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"jacksmith.6028" said:

> one flaw with the battlegroups concept as presented is that nothing would prevent me from getting an alt, keep it at low level and just farm the heck out of the "noob" tier. I think it would be hilarious fun to take a fight guild on a PPT battlegroup and raise hell ;). Let the salt and bags flow!

 

You have to be level 60 to enter WvW. Nothing stops you from making an alt account. Doesnt mean a guild would allow you to rep that in a battlegroup. Chances are youd be a pug on a server.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > I think that server communities has to go for WvW to succeed. It never was a factor in sPvP and since the release of the megaserver it has become irrelevant in PvE.

> >

> > Do linked servers even have an identity anymore? Or a community?

>

> So... when guild leaders are willing to let their guild be split over multiple 'tiers' of battle groups, or face each other within battle groups I may consider this. Until then, no. Absolutely not.

>

> Community is what an MMO is about. There are multiple servers that still have communities. I mean kitten, even JQ has a community that is willing to band together and NOT play to keep their community intact.

>

> In essence, battlegroups would be saying if you do not belong to an active guild there is a very good chance you won't be able to play with friends.

 

This is not true. Considering friends can make a guild. Whether thats a bank guild or whatever. That guild can make a battlegroup. Furthermore, if friends didnt want any part of a guild or battlegroup then they could still play on the same world and nothing would ever change for them. Battlegroups get placed onto worlds through match making. Worlds are still there.

[MightBeAqua.7913]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"etiolate.9185" thanks for the clarifications. Based on what you've described, I can't imagine it being popular among the militia. And it seems like it would simply change one set of issues we have today for a new set. Maybe it wouldn't be worse, maybe it would be a bit better. Just seems like a huge undertaking for something that doesn't address the fundamental problem with WvW: that there's no fair way to setup matchups today that is also going to be fair next week.

>

> It does not address or fix anything. All it does is encourage elitism among a bunch of ego driven players who think an entire game mode and everything in it belongs to them. This is nothing but an excuse to allow these guilds to separate themselves from the rest of the player base.

>

>

 

Not really, it allows you to make a community however you want. If you wanted to create a battlegroup with the existing BG community, you very well could. If someone wanted to make a super elitist community, they could. You wouldn't be forced to join. In fact I think Battlegroups would give more power to people to create the communities they want.

 

I don't see how battlegroups are a bad idea. Seems like a great idea to me! Seems like you're just afraid of change because your on the top dog server right now and don't want the status quo to change.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > I think that server communities has to go for WvW to succeed. It never was a factor in sPvP and since the release of the megaserver it has become irrelevant in PvE.

> > >

> > > Do linked servers even have an identity anymore? Or a community?

> >

> > So... when guild leaders are willing to let their guild be split over multiple 'tiers' of battle groups, or face each other within battle groups I may consider this. Until then, no. Absolutely not.

> >

> > Community is what an MMO is about. There are multiple servers that still have communities. I mean kitten, even JQ has a community that is willing to band together and NOT play to keep their community intact.

> >

> > In essence, battlegroups would be saying if you do not belong to an active guild there is a very good chance you won't be able to play with friends.

>

> This is not true. Considering friends can make a guild. Whether thats a bank guild or whatever. That guild can make a battlegroup. Furthermore, if friends didnt want any part of a guild or battlegroup then they could still play on the same world and nothing would ever change for them. Battlegroups get placed onto worlds through match making. Worlds are still there.

 

Mal, you recently stated that all of JQ would fall apart if some of the guilds destacked. Why? Because those militia folkow those guilds. Unless they joined your guilds, they would be kittened.

 

The community you claim to be trying to keep by not playing, would be fractured.

[MightBeAqua.7913]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > > I think that server communities has to go for WvW to succeed. It never was a factor in sPvP and since the release of the megaserver it has become irrelevant in PvE.

> > > >

> > > > Do linked servers even have an identity anymore? Or a community?

> > >

> > > So... when guild leaders are willing to let their guild be split over multiple 'tiers' of battle groups, or face each other within battle groups I may consider this. Until then, no. Absolutely not.

> > >

> > > Community is what an MMO is about. There are multiple servers that still have communities. I mean kitten, even JQ has a community that is willing to band together and NOT play to keep their community intact.

> > >

> > > In essence, battlegroups would be saying if you do not belong to an active guild there is a very good chance you won't be able to play with friends.

> >

> > This is not true. Considering friends can make a guild. Whether thats a bank guild or whatever. That guild can make a battlegroup. Furthermore, if friends didnt want any part of a guild or battlegroup then they could still play on the same world and nothing would ever change for them. Battlegroups get placed onto worlds through match making. Worlds are still there.

>

> Mal, you recently stated that all of JQ would fall apart if some of the guilds destacked. Why? Because those militia folkow those guilds. Unless they joined your guilds, they would be kittened.

>

> The community you claim to be trying to keep by not playing, would be fractured.

 

Or you know, the JQ guilds could create a "JQ battlegroup" and invite JQ pugs. ;)

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > > I think that server communities has to go for WvW to succeed. It never was a factor in sPvP and since the release of the megaserver it has become irrelevant in PvE.

> > > >

> > > > Do linked servers even have an identity anymore? Or a community?

> > >

> > > So... when guild leaders are willing to let their guild be split over multiple 'tiers' of battle groups, or face each other within battle groups I may consider this. Until then, no. Absolutely not.

> > >

> > > Community is what an MMO is about. There are multiple servers that still have communities. I mean kitten, even JQ has a community that is willing to band together and NOT play to keep their community intact.

> > >

> > > In essence, battlegroups would be saying if you do not belong to an active guild there is a very good chance you won't be able to play with friends.

> >

> > This is not true. Considering friends can make a guild. Whether thats a bank guild or whatever. That guild can make a battlegroup. Furthermore, if friends didnt want any part of a guild or battlegroup then they could still play on the same world and nothing would ever change for them. Battlegroups get placed onto worlds through match making. Worlds are still there.

>

> Mal, you recently stated that all of JQ would fall apart if some of the guilds destacked. Why? Because those militia folkow those guilds. Unless they joined your guilds, they would be kittened.

>

> The community you claim to be trying to keep by not playing, would be fractured.

 

A battlegroup consist of 1000 players if the pugs wanted to follow the guilds, then we could create a make shift community guild for anyone who wanted to join Call the guild [JQQ]. JQ as a server has about 1k ish active players. Guilds will move regardless, the only difference is if those guilds then moved in a coordinating fashion, they would be instantly replaced with more coordinated guilds within a match making system. So they wouldn't be left to dust if a mass exodus were to happen. Instead the pugs would simply say,"who cares good bye" Instead of what you said I said. So the community wouldnt be fractured if battlegroups were in place, but it would if it wasnt.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

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.

[Swamurabi.7890]

> @"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?

[Arioch.6507]

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?

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"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?

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"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.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"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?