World Restructuring

[Tiscan.8345]

I read a couple of pages in this thread but couldn't find any info if the number of guilds will be increased a player can be in???!?

 

I know a lot of people who are members of 5 guilds already (for example: 1 bank, 1 raid, 1 "social" guild, 1-2 event-guild (like the guilds that are doing daily triple-trouble-kills, etc.)) and who now would have to ditch one of those guilds to become a member of a wvw-guild to be able to still play with their friends.

[nia.4725]

> @"Rod.6581" said:

> @zerorogue.9410

> @nia.4725

>

> So you are saying this changes will kill WvW as it is? Good! It needs to die.

> WvW has been in a terrible place for years now and desperately needs a change.

 

I didn't say "WvW as it is", I said "WvW for some people (and guilds)". Please read properly.

 

I understand that WvW needs a change, but I don't think it is a good idea to make a change that kicks out players and guilds, while giving more power to large and dedicated guilds. What I think is that everyone should be able to play WvW, and this won't make that happen. This will leave people alone, and will kill smaller or non-dedicated guilds.

 

[Spartacus.1549]

Well, was good knowing you anet and gw2. You obviously prove once more you know nothing of wvw, and how we all played around it. This system will end up chaotic and also WILL be abused to pieces and in ways you haven't even thought of yet and can't even imagine. But i wont even go into the game breaking abuse of this idiotic system, i'll just go for the easy to see problems. Communications, communities, friends, those are the easy 1st issues that gonna appear as soon as this system happens. We don't need another eotm. Communities and server is ALL that kept this already dying mode still going, the fact that YOU and ONLY YOU, in Anet ruined the system more with idiotic ideas of links doesn't mean this new system is what wvw needs. And before you say BUT you can be with your friends with alliances and guilds. AND??? What if i wanna leave, cause i don't like this community anymore? i Become a nomad of wvw? Having a stupid algorithm choose where my fun will be???? Pls! Drugs are bad anet.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Traveller.7496" said:

> I'm really concerned about the loss of server & community pride. My regular guild is scattered all over so I will probably have to look into getting in a separate guild.

 

There is very little server pride left, it mostly died with the poor linking system.

[Bellatrixa.3546]

As a co-leader of one PvX guild and a WvW squad member of another, I can't say I'm looking forward to having to choose which I have as my WvW guild. While I get the whole alliance aspect, I don't feel that the guild I co-lead would find a place in one due to how we're still in the early stages of developing a WvW group. Even if there was a guild made specifically for WvWing that I could join and invite those from the guild I co-lead, we then run into the problem of insufficient guild slots. Overall I'm supportive of the proposed changes, but making people pick and choose between which friends they play with leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Fazz Um.1537" said:

> I don't understand why you make the alliance cap 500-1000.

> I do not think there are WvW guilds with players that main THAT guild (not counting community guilds) that have the guild cap of 500.

> Alliances should be of those close guilds that know they fight well together.

> With a cap a lot lower than 500 - say 250 - they will get the chance to meet new guilds to fights along side with thanks to this new system.

>

> 1 BL has a cap of 80 players or something?

> So, 3 BLs and EB account for ~320 players to be able to be active in WvW simultaneously.

> An Alliance shouldn't be able to cover all BLs and EB at 1 moment in time.

>

> I understand that you want to spread the activity of players over the available 24h, but still... the math doesn't add up for me.

If the cap is lower than the guild cap, *why would you ever create an alliance*? Just use a dummy guild instead, set it as your WvW guild and done. Dont have to rep it at all and you get a free team chat plus guild missions if it already has a hall. All the pros.

 

The cap **must** be higher (considerable) than the guild cap to make any kind of design and implementation sense. Otherwise we dont need alliances.

 

Otherwise you would have to argue that the guild cap need to be lowered. That wont mess up current guilds *at all*, no sir...

 

Also the point is that a faction is multiple alliances... going by map limits is just lol without knowing the number of alliances and randoms. A server now is what, 2000 "active" WvW players? 4000? More? Dont know, dont care but its *alot* compared to a 500 member guild because real time is 24/7, not a seconds snapshot in prime.

[Druch.8573]

It sounds great!

 

With this new system we can try to have equal population between worlds, similar skilled players, avoid long queues and more active time for battles.

 

Thank you Anet for taking care of wvw!

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Spartacus.1549" said:

> Well, was good knowing you anet and gw2. You obviously prove once more you know nothing of wvw, and how we all played around it. This system will end up chaotic and also WILL be abused to pieces and in ways you haven't even thought of yet and can't even imagine. But i wont even go into the game breaking abuse of this idiotic system, i'll just go for the easy to see problems. Communications, communities, friends, those are the easy 1st issues that gonna appear as soon as this system happens. We don't need another eotm. Communities and server is ALL that kept this already dying mode still going, the fact that YOU and ONLY YOU, in Anet ruined the system more with idiotic ideas of links doesn't mean this new system is what wvw needs. And before you say BUT you can be with your friends with alliances and guilds. AND??? What if i wanna leave, cause i don't like this community anymore? i Become a nomad of wvw? Having a stupid algorithm choose where my fun will be???? Pls! Drugs are bad anet.

 

If you read the feedback you would see that the majority are in favour of the proposal and there are people that will come back to WvW because of the change so I don;t see how you and others can be so certain it will destroy WvW.

 

[geist.9173]

How can I like it. I have a small guild and we mainly roam in the borderlands. We sometimes stick to commanders gathering pugs and this is how wvw works for us. I don't see a place for roamers or pugs in this system.

[Sylv.5324]

I am concerned about how this will affect weighting when it comes to shards. As a roleplayer, server weighting helps me show up in the same shard (mainly tarnished cost players), so we can find each other more easily in, say, DR. If we no longer have a way to all be on the same world (aside from transferring every 8 weeks), that'll make it even harder to exist on the same shard.

 

Could you guys do choosable districts like in GW1, instead of having no way to control on which shard you end up?

[Deaths.9165]

Guys read the Posts clearly. U will be assigned based on a score not of an alliance or guild u are in. The alliance and ur guild will flow into the score. If it were to be just of ur guild, that u would be assigned to a server i would be fine with this system. But no it is not.

 

We all know how "good" this worked on megaservers. PPl should ended up on servers with their guilds, partys language base. But ended up somewhere else. At least we have a join funktion in PvE that solved most problems.

 

In wvw u have a join function as well that will cost u proberly gems. Imagine ur entire alliance ended up anywhere.

 

This entire idea could end up lika a great scaled gvg in gw1. WITHOUT the random assigne function.

 

We all know how the matchmaking is working in PvP. Platinum ppl end um with 4 bronze and fighting against diamond.

 

If it would be like the tourment system in pvp it would be fine. Maybe the best solution would be like in pvp. A Random matchmaking. And a tourment like server.

[SolitaryPillarist.5740]

Anet, just my 2 cents, but can you please not alienate the small roaming groups and cater only to the giant mobs that just want to kill each other. Some of us actually enjoy the challenge of taking keeps, towers etc. and not have to spend massive amounts of gold to be able to compete in those guild battles.

 

I know I am going to catch so much hate from those bigger groups for this post but some of us actually want to do WVW.

[chedder.6302]

Sometimes you have to apply the old Lego method of rebuilding in which you must destroy what you created to rebuild it better. As someone who specialized it small ops/havoc this is the change wvw needed.

 

For better match pairing allow guilds to specify the amount of people they run on average to br paired against other guilds of similar size in the same time zone.

 

Also commander tag time isnt going to be a good source of information because people will command with out a tag.

[RedBaron.6058]

Thank you ANet, this is the best news ever for GW2 since I play it (2011).

What really sets GW2 apart from all the other MMORPG´s/MMO's is the WvW. Investing time and resources to improve WvW is a very smart and wise decision.

 

Now, some thoughts I am adding to contribute to your decision making process:

 

1. How many worlds will be competing? Two? I think 2 worlds only avoid worlds allying to gank up on another.

2. WvW maps and war campaign progression during the 1 week/8 weeks period: Please have a look on a former MMORPG called Warhammer Online. Their RvR was awesome and usually ended with the capital city of the losing side invaded (huge fight between players of the opposing factions where the defenders could still save the day!) and sacked for a few hours (with numerous events, including super-bosses killing and extremely valuable loot drops) by the wining side.

3. In one of my older posts (can't remember when) I proposed to use a WvW version of exisiting open world maps (with camps, forts, keeps, castles, etc) as the overall campaign map, where both sides can advance their front lines or retreat as the situation dictates. Imagine 5 different sets of existing open maps, interchangeable every 8 weeks, based on a group of maps corresponding to each game race. Let me explain: For example, Asura WvW map grouping (mirrored for each side) with Rata Sum as the capital city that can be sacked by the wining side on the last few hours of the last day of every week. After 8 weeks, when a new 8 weeks campaign starts the new maps could be the Charr maps and so on, using WvW open maps grouping of every race.

4. To make things more interesting, if you want to introduce a 3rd side (or faction) make it a NPC race adapted to the maps grouping in use. This NPC race would attack both player opposing factions in every map, becoming an ANet fine tuning tool to balance WvW if needed (for example, increasing the pressure on the wining side while providing a respite on the losing side). Also, during low population periods this NPC faction could maintain WvW active and challenging.

5. Appropriate WvW Leaderboards. As we all know, vanity is the single most important factor to keep us all engaged and thriving to be better in GW2. WvW must have sufficiently detailed leaderboards to show performance on a large number of tasks/achievements and grouped by all types of professions, races, type of task, etc.

 

Thanks for reading, these are my 2 cents. If I remember anything else I will add it here.

 

Best regards.

[NeroBoron.7285]

Kinda the idea which i discussed with a friend a few weeks ago. I really like it :+1:

 

It is still called Guild Wars so i think it is good to move the focus more on guild communities then on server communities. (Yes, it is calles so because of the lore and history, but i like to bring that more back into the presence specially when GvGs are planned as well) And we get alliances back? You hopefully bring us a alliance chat as well like in Guild Wars 1 :)

Yes this will destroy the server communities, but I dont think that it is not possible to get a better balance without destroying it.

 

How good the system will work will probably depend hardly on the matching algorithm. If it is to bad it could happen that the a few players/ guilds are always matched together, while other are completly shuffled. So please make a good job on that :tongue: :sweat_smile: I would also like if you consider with whom one is often in a party while playing wvw.

 

Btw: What will happen with eotm? Will it be removed and integrated as a normal map?

I would still like to see more maps and some sort of map pooling.

 

_PS: Have seen 4 WvW servers since release, never was a server community guy, played the first years in bigger wvw guilds and since then in or with smallscale roaming guilds / smallscale with ppl from friendlist_

[HardRider.2980]

> @"Rod.6581" said:

> So, when do we get this?

>

> Do we get it this year, or wait for next expansion. Or we will get this in Q3 2025?

 

I don't think they have a set in stone period yet, which is very wise... just a more hopeful time period..

A period I dont think players should know right now. But from the wording sounds like it's many months off from launch to live yet

[Lascax.2163]

@"Rojay.1726"

Are you considering increasing the available guild slots if this solution will be coming effectively? Personally I still feel that 5 Guild Slots are restrictive in a game with so many ways to play ( PvP, WvW, Raid, Fractals, World Pve )..

If you can't talk about this aspect, I hope you can give this proposal to those who could decide about this.

[Norbe.7630]

WvW guilds should have a max capacity of 50-100

 

[Cyczer.7834]

I seriously think BG needs to get out of "Wvw was fine " attitude. Just because ur t1 since god knows when doesnt mean wvw was fine and improving lol. This is a good change after 5 years and Im happy to see it

[SkyFallsInThunder.8257]

> @"style.6173" said:

> I think this is a great idea. Of course a number of people from BG will complain, but in general it is a much better system than we have today. Population balance and time zone balance is a big issue. Looking forward to this being implemented as soon as possible.

 

When BG people complain, then you know a change might be good.

 

RIP BG. You will not be missed.

[FrouFrou.4958]

This is a very exciting change and at the same time a bit of a bummer too. I know my problem is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but I thought I would share my problem anyway. Over the past 5 years I have transferred down from T1 3 times I think, trying to escape from mother blobs and the pure PPT mentality that pushes servers higher because generally the higher the tier, less roaming action there is. It irks me that there is a chance the random shuffle throws me right back up in there again and there is no way to escape from it anymore. At least in the current system if I transfer to a low rank host server, there's a little to no chance for having to transfer again unless bandwagoners suddenly appears to make a certain server great again.

[SailorSpira.9371]

My biggest concerns about this proposal are around smaller guilds, roamers and those who play in multiple time zones. I feel the smaller guys are forced to join bigger guilds to stay with the friends they like to play with, small guilds will probably be overlooked for alliances and those who play multiple time zones are forced to chose which is their "main" and will be guildless in the other time zones. I understand that those guilds can make an alliance, but I have a feeling most alliance will be time zone centric.

 

Reading through can I please get clarification on:

1) How many servers will there be? Will this be evolving or a constant?

2) Will all servers be tried to balance at the same level or at rough tiers? I'd imagine with the EU language restrictions it will be more difficult to achieve that.

 

And purely trivial side ponderances:

1) Will this Pre-Generated server names be anything like to aweful PvP names or will they be more in line with traditional Server namings? Will there be new names every 8 weeks or the same names in circulation?

2) Titles based on old servers, will this be a generic "server" veteran, or could we please have something unique and relevant to each server like "Mag Swag" or "BeastGate" something that actually represents the community. One of my guildies also suggested that those with frequent transfers should be "World Traveler".

 

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Sylv.5324" said:

> I am concerned about how this will affect weighting when it comes to shards. As a roleplayer, server weighting helps me show up in the same shard (mainly tarnished cost players), so we can find each other more easily in, say, DR. If we no longer have a way to all be on the same world (aside from transferring every 8 weeks), that'll make it even harder to exist on the same shard.

>

> Could you guys do choosable districts like in GW1, instead of having no way to control on which shard you end up?

 

I fear very much that the answer they are going to give to this, mainly because they're part of the WvW team and dont do anything but WvW things, is either ignoring it or at best acknowledged but reacted on as if its out of their control, because they only do WvW.

 

Ofcourse, it is a harder change already, discussing this internally first might be what theyre doing before ghey can give an answer.

 

Considering that this change impacts communities and guilds especially, while not having a guild or community dev team but is mostly focused on how this affects WvW, worries me a little.

 

It's why I very much prefer a gamewide alliance system With WvW teams without said restrictions or a loose separate from WvW server style picking for mapinstance preferences or like you suggested, choosable districts.

 

The sole focus of their plan, however, seems to be "WvW balance", and they have not reacted to whatever side effects their change has on the rest of the game.

 

[spikey.3091]

There is a reason why some ppl never stepped into eotm. Time to say goodbye to tarnished coast and gw2

[davidiven.9408]

if you still have server pride in current year, it's time to reevaluate your life

this thread already turns into BG tears thread