Community vs guild

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @SugarCayne., only NA servers or it is my impression?????

> >

> > Yes. Also I don't see how that equates to community if one person is asking someone to just transfer to their server. The only server on that list that consistently has server-wide camaraderie would probably be Maguuma.

> >

> > "Now GTFO." - Maguuma Motto

>

> I bet most players would desagree, that's not what Mag chat's and Ts are about.

> That is not how Mag is labeled.

 

What? Toxic chat isn't community? Doesn't that mean it's just a Toxic Community then? Hmm, hmmm, hmmm! Indeed.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > > @SugarCayne., only NA servers or it is my impression?????

> > >

> > > Yes. Also I don't see how that equates to community if one person is asking someone to just transfer to their server. The only server on that list that consistently has server-wide camaraderie would probably be Maguuma.

> > >

> > > "Now GTFO." - Maguuma Motto

> >

> > I bet most players would desagree, that's not what Mag chat's and Ts are about.

> > That is not how Mag is labeled.

>

> What? Toxic chat isn't community? Doesn't that mean it's just a Toxic Community then? Hmm, hmmm, hmmm! Indeed.

 

LOL... well at least theres diversity in the server comunities, if players prefer that kind of ambient ;)

 

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> @SugarCayne., only NA servers or it is my impression?????

 

I think we have a stronger sense of it in EU anyhow, but contributing to that is the language servers.

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @SugarCayne., only NA servers or it is my impression?????

> >

> > Yes. Also I don't see how that equates to community if one person is asking someone to just transfer to their server. The only server on that list that consistently has server-wide camaraderie would probably be Maguuma.

> >

> > "Now GTFO." - Maguuma Motto

>

> I bet most players would desagree, that's not what Mag chat's and Ts are about.

> That is not how Mag is labeled.

 

Actually that's quite accurate to how Mag is labelled, but it is one of the tightest communities in NA I believe. It's a culture unto itself :)

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Reverence.6915" said:

 

> Again, pointless if the server you're on is dead. Servers die not because of a lack of population - that is merely a symptom of larger causes. Servers die because of a lack of leadership provided by the guilds (or lack thereof) that run the events to keep a server alive. Pugmanders won't keep a server alive by themselves. It'll always be the big guilds providing the bulk of the support for a server.

 

From experience I would disagree with part of this. Was on SoR before, thru and after the fall before moving on to join friends elsewhere. If a server relies on large guilds and doesn't support smaller guilds and havocs then they will be more likely to suffer if the large guild moves on or breaks up since they did not allow the rest of the community to grow. Where as if the server is already filled with mid/small guilds that are active they can be quite effective with more varied commanders if that tag doesn't have guildmates of their own. They are also more insulated when guilds or people move on. SBI is good example, they response extremely well to various tags and function with a larger number of guilds out running together, I wouldn't consider any of them large guilds. Its quite common to see people able to adjust back and fourth from running solo, to havocs and into larger warbands and zergs without much pause.

 

But I *think* the OP was trying to get a feel more for should ANet be focusing on GvG or things that would be of interest to a more varied audience. Aka is GvG more like raids where the target audience was smaller than expected among people that at least visit the forums. Nothing worse then the "hey they developed something, wait who is that for...?" syndrome. But I will leave Sugar to say if this isn't the case for the poll or not.

 

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> But I *think* the OP was trying to get a feel more for should ANet be focusing on GvG or things that would be of interest to a more varied audience. Aka is GvG more like raids where the target audience was smaller than expected among people that at least visit the forums. Nothing worse then the "hey they developed something, wait who is that for...?" syndrome. But I will leave Sugar to say if this isn't the case for the poll or not.

>

 

The initial premise was based on discussions here where there was a push for guild-centric changes, with very little regard to what happens to the rest of the population not in the guild. I just wanted a quick visual cue of what I believe to be true: that organized guilds make up a very small portion of the WvW population and that any changes that impact overhauling the mode should be made with that consideration. Ideally WvW servers are comprised of many different sized guilds and a lot of dedicated unguilded players who do the stuff the guilds won't ever do. It's a "we're all on the same team" type thing.

 

That said, I'm not anti-guild. I think they have their benefits and should never be removed. I enjoy watching GvGs, and I don't see why both types of play can't coexist in WvW. I also think that strong leadership from some guilds can help bolster up a server -- but do they become the server (as some try), well no, not really. I think your point about many small guilds vs one large guild and the results that happens when a big guild leaves is very on point.

 

What remains is the community. And the community is what drives the longevity of the game. And if you don't feel you're part of a community, that you have no identity, your engagement with the game fades and you stop playing or you go off to find other things to do.

[Tiawal.2351]

These questions are pointless. It's a team vs. team game, and the team is made from guilds and lone players. The problem is that the "team" means nothing since transfer around, megaservers, alt accounts and free alts, so the only "team" that MAY mean something is the guild for some, and nothing for the rest. It's a "team" game that isn't a team game anymore.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Tiawal.2351" said:

> These questions are pointless. It's a team vs. team game, and the team is made from guilds and lone players. The problem is that the "team" means nothing since transfer around, megaservers, alt accounts and free alts, so the only "team" that MAY mean something is the guild for some, and nothing for the rest. It's a "team" game that isn't a team game anymore.

 

So why change it? The 'teams' you are referring to can move anywhere. Making it focused on those guilds only hurts what is the base of WvW which is the people playing without their guild, or with no guild affiliation.

[Buy Some Apples.6390]

The community is petty. Set commanders from different guilds who only work with each other and no-one else; and actively encourage their own guilds to mock, troll and sabotage any new commanders who appear on their server. Yet these same servers complain about not having enough good comms.