World Restructuring

[Selwynn.2758]

I've been Jade Quarry since beta, and wvw is 100% of my game time. This change takes all the love and pride had for JQ and all the joy, pain sweat tears and success I've shared with a community that maintained world pride even through the dark time... And took a fat dump right in its mouth.

[Selwynn.2758]

Sounds absolutely awful, and caters to pve and spvpers who think everything should be an artifically maintained esport rather than a living breathing world where imbalance happens and you deal with it and bond over it. You talk about lack of server pride, but that's Exactly what I had, on Jade Quarry, the server I ever played on since literally beta. My friends extend beyond my guild. It includes many people who have been on the server forever. Some times individual people, not even part of a guild but connected just the same. And it includes people from all over the world, even speaking different languages. Trying to preserve those connections in a 500-1000 person alliance will never happen. Perhaps this will be a great new thing for people who don't already have a deep connection to a core community, but for me it means the final death of everything I loved in the game. WvW was life to me and server pride was the only thing that distinguished this from anything else. So, so long.

[Kraggy.4169]

So for those of us (the majority?) who don't WvW we get to lose our attachment to the world and other players we've known for years and get scattered to the four winds to appease the WvWers who endlessly complain about 'balance'.

 

Have I got that right?

 

Several posters have pointed out the obvious flaws in this 'brave new world' which will mean ANet's plans will end up achieving the same nothing as they've managed to achieve for WvW 'balance' over the years leading up to this point, and in the process will destroy world communities which mean a lot some of us who have zero interest in WvW.

[Caliburn.1845]

No, you don't have it right. You lost those world communities when megaservers went in.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Selwynn.2758" said:

> Sounds absolutely awful, and caters to pve and spvpers who think everything should be an artifically maintained esport rather than a living breathing world where imbalance happens and you deal with it and bond over it. You talk about lack of server pride, but that's Exactly what I had, on Jade Quarry, the server I ever played on since literally beta. My friends extend beyond my guild. It includes many people who have been on the server forever. Some times individual people, not even part of a guild but connected just the same. And it includes people from all over the world, even speaking different languages. Trying to preserve those connections in a 500-1000 person alliance will never happen. Perhaps this will be a great new thing for people who don't already have a deep connection to a core community, but for me it means the final death of everything I loved in the game. WvW was life to me and server pride was the only thing that distinguished this from anything else. So, so long.

 

So how many of these "friends" could you name off hand? 15? 25? 50? How many are "many", really? Or what, are we talking several thousands? Do you know the entire server so well you can name everyone? And even if you do... how many of them care about you? How many even want to play *with you*? People seem to look at it from one singular point of view - their own, as if all other players are just there to serve them and their pleasure.

 

I doubt many will have "friends" exceeding 50 people out of the thousands on an average server. The core community is probably tiny to begin with. Even on Far Shiverpeaks which I think have a great and fairly sizeable community, lots of regulars... I could name like 10 peeps I "know" off hand and maybe 4-5 guilds where I basicly only know a few people in each. Hell I could barely name 10 people in the community guild I am already part of. And some of the guilds went away yesterday too, so the list of guilds and people already went down. I dont see how new alliances or community guilds will be limited by this.

 

I also find it amusing that people talk as if the change is already implemented. If you are this fixed on the death of WvW for you, it doesnt matter anymore. You've already decided no matter how it turns out. It's already dead to you. You've given up. And that's kind of sad I guess.

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> > > @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > > I think a lot of people don't fully understand that WvW right now is very stratified and exclusive because for most of us winning does not matter, if anything many of us try to avoid winning. So we run closed, try to shake pugs, and look for the fights we consider quality.

> > >

> > > All these fears about guilds being super exclusive, and toxic, and kicking people to the curb are sort of silly when we see that numerous guilds and some entire servers are ALREADY LIKE THIS.

> > >

> >

> > Exactly my point.

>

> I didn't see that as your point. I see you arguing against the WvW restructuring based on things that already happen with server-based WvW, as if they don't exist now but will be introduced with the restructuring. That to me doesn't sound like a reason to oppose restructuring.

 

It is my point. The proposed solution will intensify/highlight/worsen the existing problems within wvw now, not alleviate them.

 

I am not against restructuring wvw - I am all for that. And I think with some minimal tweaking to the overall proposed system, many of the problems many of us on here are worried about can be adjusted/avoided - for example, allowing closed squads only after the numbers hit 45 out of 50 - or not giving guild leaders absolute power over their guild mates since doing so in the proposed system could potentially result in someone being ousted from a guild (or theoretically, all guilds) and have nowhere to go = EOTM, etc. or not allowing boots from guilds without cause or providing pugs with some rights separate and apart from/in addition to the "rights"/powers so freely proposed for guild leaders.

 

 

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Diku.2546" said:

> > My post was meant to shed light on strategies that win in sPvP can equally be applied to strategies to win in WvW.

> >

> > What happened to sPvP can be a good indicator of what can happen to WvW...this is what I was trying to say.

> >

> > Yours truly,

> > Diku

>

> OK, but the rules of how teams are formed in sPvP and how individuals are rated are different from WvW, and will remain different. So strategies that were used in sPvP won't automatically be equally applied in WvW.

 

We don't know what algorithms anet will use to place pugs/guilds/alliances into worlds during each matchup period. I'm pretty sure this poster is advocating anet be wary of not using the same type(s) of algorithms in the new wvw that were utilized in spvp as that resulted in huge attrition and many disgruntled/demoralized players.

 

It seems pretty obvious that anet is considering some type of ranking system since they have openly acknowledged that more seasoned vet pugs (hours played being one factor) will be paired with less seasoned guilds for balance (how fun for those pugs - teaching again, endlessly - just like in spvp - and when they grow frustrated with teaching guilds they drop out of those guilds and now run aimless EOTM mode and then they grow disinterested in the game mode altogether) - this approach could be nothing more than a repeat of the spvp fiasco - which I am sure ardent lovers of this game want to avoid.

 

That's all that is being said in here by those you characterize as being opposed to restructuring.

 

I for one cant understand why you are being so threatened by or vocal about our legitimate protests made in anticipation of a system which could, if not done carefully, be a rinse and repeat of the obviously flawed spvp system. We are trying to make anet aware in advance of implementation of issues that could prove mode breaking. No one wants that.

 

As long as we are heard, which is what Gaile asked us all to do, and anet at least considers our perspectives/concerns and implements something to avoid what we fear, then that is all we ask for. Why you should be constantly attacking our concerns in a post that is asking to state our views I will never understand. We ae entitled to our opinions -- our concerns for the new game mode are legitimate. Someone needs to speak on behalf of pugs (especially those who prefer to run guildless) since the guilds' positions are always advocated/considered/implemented, and as we have seen, that is not necessarily optimal for the game.

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

> @"Waffle.3748" said:

> > @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

>

> > I don't understand. A pug playing without a guild is supporting the alliance just as much as the guild is supporting the alliance. A pug playing without a guild is supporting the guild squad as much as guild members in the squad are - except the poor guildless pug is dying more/getting less protections from the squad he/she is running alongside, thus making it much more frustrating for the pug. Why should the pug have to join the guild in order to receive the protections of the squad when the whole point of the squad is to support the alliance (just like the pug) and win (just like the pug).

>

> And that's great for the pug that they want to support their alliance/world. The pug could also join an open pug tag, or open guild raid. Not all guild raids are closed. The "whole point of the squad" is not to support the alliance. The point of a squad is to facilitate a party system for a greater number of players than 5, that's it. If the pug is insistent on running alongside a closed guild raid they should take a more cautious playstyle or safer class/build to survive. One alliance is not going to be enough to dictate how the rest of the world plays for 8 weeks, there are going to be plenty of other guilds or even a whole other alliance in the matchup that will likely have open squads or pugmanders that pugs can play with.

>

> >

> > Also, why shouldn't the guild support all players? The goal is to be nice and allow all casual play and win. The pug is supporting the guild by playing. Why shouldn't the guild have to reciprocate. We don't want to have exclusion or elitism going on or encouraged. This is why self policing by guilds who are competitive and want to win is not a good idea as it will come at the expense of guildless players and solo pugs.

>

> Because they are allowed to play how they want? People have different goals in the game, you know. Maybe that closed guild raid just wants to chill together and play. If you want to start an open pug tag all you need is a commander tag. Have you considered that guilds need their own time together to play and have fun with each other? Why are you trying to stifle their way of playing by forcing them to play with people they might not want to? Guildless players and solo pugs are not on the mind of guilds that are running a closed squad, as they are wanting to play AS A GUILD by themselves most of the time.

> >

> > Also, I am not sure what you mean by "you consider it a right to be part of it" (ie - the guild community) means. No one is asking for the right to be part of a guild, in fact, it appears the person you were addressing was advocating for not being forced to play with a guild to have a meaningful/not hollow wvw experience under the new system and to have a place in the new alliances worlds as a solo guildless pug (where running alongside a zerg ala EOTM is the only option).

>

> If the pug cannot make friends/acquaintances in 8 entire weeks, there are other problems to work on. Many server communities will have a large open guild that anyone can join to stay with them if they enjoy playing together as well. If you don't want to join a guild, that's fine. You'll just be assigned a new world after 8 weeks. Perhaps moving around you will find a guild/group that you enjoy playing with and join them.

 

 

 

You speak in terms of: Mostly, likely, many, plenty of...

 

What about when all of those qualifying words fail - ie. - there is only 1 guild/squad and it is closed (or all the guilds/squads are closed) or none of the guilds in the alliance will let you join/they are full or you don't want to join a guild for multiple reasons or you don't want to be a commander or don't have the money for it, etc.

 

Then what (for pugs)? O, that's right - EOTM for you.

 

Also, your argument that we are forcing people to play with people they don't want is disingenuous - since you are already playing with us already as we are in the same world/same map as you. Joining a guild will be a practical necessity for play that is anything other than EOTM.

 

I think what you said here sums it up nicely: "Guildless players and solo pugs are not on the mind of guilds that are running a closed squad, as they are wanting to play AS A GUILD by themselves most of the time."

 

We know. That's why we are making anet aware of our pug concerns, cuz guilds and their members are not the only players playing this game nor are they the only ones that matter.

 

[Shining One.1635]

Guild-less pug here. Explain to me why I would be forced into EOTM if no guild wants me. I ran in two different squads last night. They were guilds I actively fought last week. One of the squads contained a scourge I killed over a dozen times in the last matchup. We had a laugh about it and got on with the fights, of which there were plenty.

 

Yes, some guilds run closed. I'm still not getting how you're drawing the conclusion that all guilds on all maps will run closed after the changes are made.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> I for one cant understand why you are being so threatened by or vocal about our legitimate protests made in anticipation of a system which could, if not done carefully, be a rinse and repeat of the obviously flawed spvp system.

 

I'm just trying to get you to clarify your ideas by asking some basic questions.

 

> allowing closed squads only after the numbers hit 45 out of 50

> not giving guild leaders absolute power over their guild mates since doing so in the proposed system could potentially result in someone being ousted from a guild

 

Yet stuff you write above just seems like you have a vendetta against someone by rather than any real issue with restructuring. Wanting to remove the existing ability of a guild leader to manage a guild roster or how squads function makes you disingenuous about restructuring. That's not a solution to toxic behavior. That's a toxic suggestion towards the game at large and everyone has a right to feel threatened by such a wrong-headed opinion. No game should be designed simply to solve someone's personal drama issues.

 

 

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

> @"Shining One.1635" said:

> Guild-less pug here. Explain to me why I would be forced into EOTM if no guild wants me. I ran in two different squads last night. They were guilds I actively fought last week. One of the squads contained a scourge I killed over a dozen times in the last matchup. We had a laugh about it and got on with the fights, of which there were plenty.

>

> Yes, some guilds run closed. I'm still not getting how you're drawing the conclusion that all guilds on all maps will run closed after the changes are made.

 

That's not my conclusion - its my concern.

 

What you do now on wvw is irrelevant to the concerns we are posting here - that wvw configuration won't exist under the new implementation.

 

You won't be forced into EOTM - you will be in wvw and playing without a guild will be the equivalent of EOTM as there will be zero camaraderie/immersion unless you are in a guild (and they might all be closed to you). This ofc assumes you are not roamer/ganker, in which case you would probably just go about bus as usual since these players are unconcerned with the squads/zergs anyway.

 

Also, I never find it funny when I kill enemy players, but that's just me - to each his own. And also, what's your point about the scourge you killed? Seems off topic to me. Perhaps that scourge was the only glass cannon in a small squad facing a large enemy zerg that was 2 v 1ing - so no big surprise there that you were able to kill them over and over (especially if positioning was bad), but whatever, not sure of the circumstances as I wasn't there - but glad it was entertaining for you. Not sure what your point is tho or how it is relevant here.

 

[Waffle.3748]

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

 

> You speak in terms of: Mostly, likely, many, plenty of...

>

> What about when all of those qualifying words fail - ie. - there is only 1 guild/squad and it is closed (or all the guilds/squads are closed) or none of the guilds in the alliance will let you join/they are full or you don't want to join a guild for multiple reasons or you don't want to be a commander or don't have the money for it, etc.

>

> Then what (for pugs)? O, that's right - EOTM for you.

>

> Also, your argument that we are forcing people to play with people they don't want is disingenuous - since you are already playing with us already as we are in the same world/same map as you. Joining a guild will be a practical necessity for play that is anything other than EOTM.

>

It's not disingenuous, you literally wanted to force people to have open squads when they don't want to. Just because you are on the same server doesn't mean people WANT to play with you. It's a 2-way street.

 

> I think what you said here sums it up nicely: "Guildless players and solo pugs are not on the mind of guilds that are running a closed squad, as they are wanting to play AS A GUILD by themselves most of the time."

>

> We know. That's why we are making anet aware of our pug concerns, cuz guilds and their members are not the only players playing this game nor are they the only ones that matter.

>

 

Guilds that run closed will still run closed, my friend.

Guilds that will run open will still run open.

If you don't want to join a guild or don't want to make your own squad you are avoiding your problem and shoving it onto other people. If you want an open squad, MAKE ONE. It isn't difficult to save up the 300g over 2 or so weeks. I don't know why you think being a guildless pug requires you to go into EoTM instead when there are always people not in a squad doing their own thing in WvW and contributing just fine.

[Shining One.1635]

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> What you do now on wvw is irrelevant to the concerns we are posting here - that wvw configuration won't exist under the new implementation.

How will the new implementation be different for me? I'm on a medium link server. I get paired with a random host server every 2 months. In the new implementation, I would get paired with random alliances / guilds / pugs every two months. I don't see a huge difference.

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> Also, I never find it funny when I kill enemy players, but that's just me - to each his own. And also, what's your point about the scourge you killed? Seems off topic to me. Perhaps that scourge was the only glass cannon in a small squad facing a large enemy zerg that was 2 v 1ing - so no big surprise there that you were able to kill them over and over (especially if positioning was bad), but whatever, not sure of the circumstances as I wasn't there - but glad it was entertaining for you. Not sure what your point is tho or how it is relevant here.

My point was that I am now on the same team with someone who was my enemy over the previous week. He wasn't bothered by the fact that I killed him and we had fun running together in a group.

 

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> > @"Shining One.1635" said:

> > Guild-less pug here. Explain to me why I would be forced into EOTM if no guild wants me. I ran in two different squads last night. They were guilds I actively fought last week. One of the squads contained a scourge I killed over a dozen times in the last matchup. We had a laugh about it and got on with the fights, of which there were plenty.

> >

> > Yes, some guilds run closed. I'm still not getting how you're drawing the conclusion that all guilds on all maps will run closed after the changes are made.

>

> That's not my conclusion - its my concern.

>

> What you do now on wvw is irrelevant to the concerns we are posting here - that wvw configuration won't exist under the new implementation.

 

You still not really explaining how the restructuring is going to change how players already play the game. The restructuring is nothing more than glorified server links - linking a wider variety of smaller chunks of the population together onto a team.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> > > @"Shining One.1635" said:

> > > Guild-less pug here. Explain to me why I would be forced into EOTM if no guild wants me. I ran in two different squads last night. They were guilds I actively fought last week. One of the squads contained a scourge I killed over a dozen times in the last matchup. We had a laugh about it and got on with the fights, of which there were plenty.

> > >

> > > Yes, some guilds run closed. I'm still not getting how you're drawing the conclusion that all guilds on all maps will run closed after the changes are made.

> >

> > That's not my conclusion - its my concern.

> >

> > What you do now on wvw is irrelevant to the concerns we are posting here - that wvw configuration won't exist under the new implementation.

>

> You still not really explaining how the restructuring is going to change how players already play the game. The restructuring is nothing more than glorified server links - linking a wider variety of smaller chunks of the population together onto a team.

 

And hopefully allowing for better distributed coverage.

 

If a player who is outside of a guild plays strongly, they will be let into a squad. And many tags will anyway. There are always going to be those (and it's their right to do it) that only want to run certain classes and builds and only want a certain number of players.

 

I agree Chaba, it won't change anything about how the game is played.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> > > > @"Shining One.1635" said:

> > > > Guild-less pug here. Explain to me why I would be forced into EOTM if no guild wants me. I ran in two different squads last night. They were guilds I actively fought last week. One of the squads contained a scourge I killed over a dozen times in the last matchup. We had a laugh about it and got on with the fights, of which there were plenty.

> > > >

> > > > Yes, some guilds run closed. I'm still not getting how you're drawing the conclusion that all guilds on all maps will run closed after the changes are made.

> > >

> > > That's not my conclusion - its my concern.

> > >

> > > What you do now on wvw is irrelevant to the concerns we are posting here - that wvw configuration won't exist under the new implementation.

> >

> > You still not really explaining how the restructuring is going to change how players already play the game. The restructuring is nothing more than glorified server links - linking a wider variety of smaller chunks of the population together onto a team.

>

> And hopefully allowing for better distributed coverage.

>

> If a player who is outside of a guild plays strongly, they will be let into a squad. And many tags will anyway. There are always going to be those (and it's their right to do it) that only want to run certain classes and builds and only want a certain number of players.

>

> I agree Chaba, it won't change anything about how the game is played.

 

That said, I should clarify. It won't change the way players play the game on the maps, etc. So vindictive non-solutions like forcing squads open won't address anything. The restructuring can though change how people play the so-called server meta.

 

Since teams will be re-shuffled every 8 weeks, that will frustrate what players do now through tanking and bandwagonning. At the beginning of a re-shuffle, players will have a foggy idea of who is where and what they can expect from another team which helps remove the incentive to tank to avoid X, etc. Matchmaking still will be 1u1d with static teams (that last for 8 weeks) so tanking for better rating via easier matches as what was mentioned done in sPvP won't achieve that result. I'm sure players will find some new server meta, but at this early point we don't have all the details yet. Tanking playhours is a mixed bag, as we saw with Kodash and JQ.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"Selwynn.2758" said:

> Sounds absolutely awful, and caters to pve and spvpers who think everything should be an artifically maintained esport rather than a living breathing world where imbalance happens and you deal with it and bond over it. You talk about lack of server pride, but that's Exactly what I had, on Jade Quarry, the server I ever played on since literally beta. My friends extend beyond my guild. It includes many people who have been on the server forever. Some times individual people, not even part of a guild but connected just the same. And it includes people from all over the world, even speaking different languages. Trying to preserve those connections in a 500-1000 person alliance will never happen. Perhaps this will be a great new thing for people who don't already have a deep connection to a core community, but for me it means the final death of everything I loved in the game. WvW was life to me and server pride was the only thing that distinguished this from anything else. So, so long.

 

This is what I have been saying and nobody seems to acknowledge it, or act like its a real thing. And even if they do, for some reason they think it doesn't matter.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> > > @"Shining One.1635" said:

> > > Guild-less pug here. Explain to me why I would be forced into EOTM if no guild wants me. I ran in two different squads last night. They were guilds I actively fought last week. One of the squads contained a scourge I killed over a dozen times in the last matchup. We had a laugh about it and got on with the fights, of which there were plenty.

> > >

> > > Yes, some guilds run closed. I'm still not getting how you're drawing the conclusion that all guilds on all maps will run closed after the changes are made.

> >

> > That's not my conclusion - its my concern.

> >

> > What you do now on wvw is irrelevant to the concerns we are posting here - that wvw configuration won't exist under the new implementation.

>

> You still not really explaining how the restructuring is going to change how players already play the game. The restructuring is nothing more than glorified server links - linking a wider variety of smaller chunks of the population together onto a team.

 

No cohesion for pugs, less cohesion for guilds because there's no servers. Wvw Guilds will have too much power over players, because the limited cohesion that guilds enjoy will be dangled like a carrot by guild leaders/officers over regular members heads.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> > > @"Shining One.1635" said:

> > > Guild-less pug here. Explain to me why I would be forced into EOTM if no guild wants me. I ran in two different squads last night. They were guilds I actively fought last week. One of the squads contained a scourge I killed over a dozen times in the last matchup. We had a laugh about it and got on with the fights, of which there were plenty.

> > >

> > > Yes, some guilds run closed. I'm still not getting how you're drawing the conclusion that all guilds on all maps will run closed after the changes are made.

> >

> > That's not my conclusion - its my concern.

> >

> > What you do now on wvw is irrelevant to the concerns we are posting here - that wvw configuration won't exist under the new implementation.

>

> You still not really explaining how the restructuring is going to change how players already play the game. The restructuring is nothing more than glorified server links - linking a wider variety of smaller chunks of the population together onto a team.

And not only that, it gives the control of the chunks over to the players. Basicly, we the community get to form *our own* link servers. The existing three server links isnt far from the new system if we imagine 500 man community WvW rep guilds forming a link server. *(Anets specification of alliances actually mean community rep guilds are "better" if you want lots of smaller guilds together, this depends on the alliance implementation/management/functions, thats why I keep saying community guilds)*

 

All the complaints here circle around getting kicked out of these guilds, or not being allowed to join (or outright refusal to join anything). Well yeah. It gives alot of control to guild leaders. But you know what happens to bad guilds? They die. People pick themselves up and join good guilds elsewhere to find new friends.

[Ra Ra.9423]

> @"Drecien.4508" said:

> I don't see this as a solution. This only creates the problem on a "season" basis. The structure as it has been is not perfect but it works. Those who play and enjoy WVW come together under a united banner of the server the represent. Many have loyalty to their server and have since the beginning. While the idea looks nice for you to be able to play with friends/guildmates the resulting mess will leave us back where we are.

> VOTE NO ON PROP 8 SERVER DESTRUCTION.

 

I think 'server identity' isn't what it used to be. Half of the servers, now 'guest' servers, have little or no identity anymore. Just a '+' to the host server whoever that might be for the current linking period. I've been on the same server since launch, but I can honestly say that I feel there's not much server identity left. In addition, there has always been a population of players/guilds that simply changes servers with regularity - just moving to where the fights are. They're interested in fights, not server identity, it seems to me.

 

I've been a supporter of linking worlds, as prior to that our server population was fairly scarce at times and after linking there were more players which was and still is nice. The balancing remains an issue at times, partially due to match manipulation and servers 'tanking' to move tiers. I don't know if Alliances can alleviate it, but I'm interested to see how it shakes out.

[Drecien.4508]

> @"Ra Ra.9423" said:

> > @"Drecien.4508" said:

> > I don't see this as a solution. This only creates the problem on a "season" basis. The structure as it has been is not perfect but it works. Those who play and enjoy WVW come together under a united banner of the server the represent. Many have loyalty to their server and have since the beginning. While the idea looks nice for you to be able to play with friends/guildmates the resulting mess will leave us back where we are.

> > VOTE NO ON PROP 8 SERVER DESTRUCTION.

>

> I think 'server identity' isn't what it used to be. Half of the servers, now 'guest' servers, have little or no identity anymore. Just a '+' to the host server whoever that might be for the current linking period. I've been on the same server since launch, but I can honestly say that I feel there's not much server identity left. In addition, there has always been a population of players/guilds that simply changes servers with regularity - just moving to where the fights are. They're interested in fights, not server identity, it seems to me.

>

> I've been a supporter of linking worlds, as prior to that our server population was fairly scarce at times and after linking there were more players which was and still is nice. The balancing remains an issue at times, partially due to match manipulation and servers 'tanking' to move tiers. I don't know if Alliances can alleviate it, but I'm interested to see how it shakes out.

 

My server still has identity. And we like to hold to it. I don't see how alliances will fix the tanking to drop tiers either. While I will welcome the ability to play alongside guildies, I see the alliances will become the new top tier servers and the whole process may start over again. But we wait patiently to see what changes may come. Honestly if they would look at accounts that do not wvw on high tier servers and boot them off it would have been easier. I'm sure all servers have some who never play wvw. And outside of wvw your server means nothing anymore.

[SkyShroud.2865]

As for now, population imbalance (skill and numbers) continue to be the major issue for WvW. This population imbalance which existed since ancient time isn't fun for either sides, especially the one getting rolled over. While people continue to held on how identity matters, that so-called identity sooner or later will just disappear along when everyone else quit, after continuous getting hopelessly squashed. Is there any point in doing anything when everyone else quit? Or is it wiser to do something now while we still have some juice left?

[JTGuevara.9018]

I'm curious about how this system will go. I like the idea of an alliance system. The server system is too limiting. Players are at the mercy of large guilds/alliances, bandwagoning, server stacking, server links, tanking and transfer costs. Players simply don't have a choice in the matter of who they want to play with unless they want to cough up gems. I'm reading all this stuff about "server pride". The truth of the matter is, is that "server pride" has never existed. What really existed and continues to exist are guild pride and roamers/PUGs/friends that you like to play with. The server itself was never important, just the people in it that _you_ like to play with. Server loyalty and tiers mean nothing because you need _coverage_ to win. (ask Blackgate about that!) The server system always culminates in a dominant server with stacked guilds and alliances. Plus, the server system eventually wears PUGs, roamers down as they constantly get farmed over and over again, so "server loyalty" goes out the window and they either stop playing wvw or transfer and stack other servers. Now I played wvw on and off since release. Looking back, the server system was screwed from the beginning. Titan Alliance anyone? They were stacked to the hilt.

 

Throughout the history of wvw. Servers were eaten up, one by one. ET, IoJ, SoR, etc. Certain guilds and servers exploited the server system and left players hung out to dry. Then server linking was implemented to stabilize wvw for a time. I think it did just that.

 

At least with world restructuring, power is in the player(s) hands. Players actually have a choice of who they want to play with. At the very least, it's a big change. There's a lot of chatter that the alliance system will be just another eotm train, but I think that's overblown. eotm's problem is the MAP. It's too big, it has pitfalls which discourage fighting because a noob can simply knock you off the platform. Plus, it's just a waiting spot for the 3 servers. Is it any wonder why people zerg there? Why even bother roaming alone or in PUGs? The eotm map isn't really meant for that.

[Sarrs.4831]

Truth be told I'm really hoping we can get an ETA or something for an implementation of this feature. It's a lot of work and I'm sure it's quite difficult to give a definitive date I'd be very curious about when we can expect to see it. Really looking forward to spinning up a casual WvW roaming guild to play with friends who're all on different servers at the moment.

[Iriadne.7098]

Anet you need to rethink this again. If you make people/guilds make alliances on their own by joining and linking their guilds, there will be a time where, again, will be a few good servers abusing and bullying the rest. And what is happening now will happen again.

In order to prevent that you need to do a map filling system as pve. People joining wvw, going to an instance until that map is full, then open another instance.

 

If you want to play with your friends, make a party/squad of up to +10 to enter the same side.

 

Or make a different logging system for wvw, so you see who is really playing wvw.

 

Also people ask for 100g commander tag.

Following someone else said to be able to use mentor tag in wvw.

there you got a few more ideas after a brainstorming moment of boredom in wvw ;)