World Restructuring

[ZNICK.8537]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > @"ZNICK.8537" said:

> > > @"hunkamania.7561" said:

> > > 2020. they prob got 1 dev working on it.

> >

> > In fact, this is accurate from what I've been told...

> > Z

>

> Reporting live from the drone in the broom closet at anet studios.

 

My GL knows a dev and gets pretty accurate info from him, that's where it came from.

 

Z

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"ZNICK.8537" said:

> > @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > > @"ZNICK.8537" said:

> > > > @"hunkamania.7561" said:

> > > > 2020. they prob got 1 dev working on it.

> > >

> > > In fact, this is accurate from what I've been told...

> > > Z

> >

> > Reporting live from the drone in the broom closet at anet studios.

>

> My GL knows a dev and gets pretty accurate info from him, that's where it came from.

>

> Z

 

Reported live from Znicks's phone in the backyard relayed from icq message from their guild leader out camping in the sleepy woods via satellite skype with the drone in the broom closet with the secret dev hidden in the classified living story lab in the second basement of anet studios.

[Menzo.2185]

> @"fewfield.7802" said:

> Do you really think that most of main wvw player play wvw because of these fancy machanics ?

I don't think, I know.

 

> You can see a result as the population in the red border. No one wants to go there.

Who is "no one"???? Your empty server perhaps.

 

> The fun part of wvw is massive scale pvp. I can play wvw for 5-6 hrs if i have some decent fights like Blob vs Blob. But i cant even play more than 20 mins against sieges and players hugging tower/keep.

Youo ARE not the majority of the WvW players. Speak for yourself.

 

 

[LetoII.3782]

> @"hunkamania.7561" said:

> 2020. they prob got 1 dev working on it.

 

Nah, Ben says he's got a fren. It's always "we"

But I suppose it might be an imaginary one because he's allllll alone down in the Anet basement and it's scary down there.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > @"hunkamania.7561" said:

> > 2020. they prob got 1 dev working on it.

>

> Nah, Ben says he's got a fren. It's always "we"

> But I suppose it might be an imaginary one because he's allllll alone down in the Anet basement and it's scary down there.

 

AND according to Xe(errrr) the spy he is there in a closet. So.... not sure how many people can fit in there...

[dailyroom.3024]

We should have an interesting post on Monday. 3 phases and still 16 - 24 months away :(

How many WvW peeps will still be around in 16 months?

[aspirine.5839]

> @"Menzo.2185" said:

> > @"fewfield.7802" said:

> > Do you really think that most of main wvw player play wvw because of these fancy machanics ?

> I don't think, I know.

>

> > You can see a result as the population in the red border. No one wants to go there.

> Who is "no one"???? Your empty server perhaps.

>

> > The fun part of wvw is massive scale pvp. I can play wvw for 5-6 hrs if i have some decent fights like Blob vs Blob. But i cant even play more than 20 mins against sieges and players hugging tower/keep.

> Youo ARE not the majority of the WvW players. Speak for yourself.

>

>

 

Not sure about the NA servers, but on EU these ideas will not land very well., They play wvw for a reason and would like to have as little pve in there as possible.

 

[Menzo.2185]

> Not sure about the NA servers, but on EU these ideas will not land very well., They play wvw for a reason and would like to have as little pve in there as possible.

 

I just want to see new and good content, as PvE, on WvW.

 

 

[Redponey.8352]

All we just need is a fun and competitive massive gamemode that allows hardcore player and casual gamers to play with fun.

The major issue is the lack of fun and objectives in WvW... Regular players are leaving because of this.

 

2 Big points that need change are :

 

** Few specialization possibilities**

1)

Specializations archetype is not that well suited for WvW because it forces you to take some specialization over others because of one or two traits. Old specialization system was more complexe but it allowed more flexible build and gave more possibility => More fun :D, Maybe a major rework would revitalize this gamemode and bring back old regular players in this gamemode.

 

**Lack of interest in Regular WvW population**

2) Anet should more focused on regular WvW players and associated communities. They are the WvW heart, they have made and carry on this gamemode for years. This is through these communities and players that casual gamers and beginners in WvW get charmed by this gamemode. Theses regulars players have taught and helped many beginners and casual gamers.

They can give good and fun moment to new player and show them that Massive Pvp isnt only for hardcore players.

 

I have led many Pick up player (PUG) over 3 years and that was a great experience and i loved that because of fun moment and fights with them.

Now all of these have nearly disappear because now with re-linking, server's heart (server communities) have been eroded to dust and people that join WvW doesnt care about playing with each others and get focused only on loot ...

 

**MAKE WvW GREAT AGAIN**

 

**We need major change and not waiting for a year to have change....**

 

 

[atheria.2837]

Wait, what?

 

Elitism and biases built in to 'inviting' into an alliance from the get go? Yikes, and I mean yikes.

 

WvW was supposed to bring people together for (hobby - wise) for a good cause.

 

Anti-Woman biases will be insanely fed by 'inviting' only in many time zones where VPNs rule and the player whose country they chose to play in, isn't being honored

by many - and most of those are very anti-female and even more anti-communication.

 

 

> One point I'm starting to appreciate at this point, is that Alliances, unlike Servers, gives players the chance to accept or deny players. Being a resident of Kaineng, I've seen our server been bandwagoned a few times, our entire community/culture trampled under bandwagoners that only cares about using us to be the next big thing and then dump it, letting us deal with the leftovers. And knowing that there isn't a single thing we can do about it, because lets face it, no player can stop another player from joining a server. In this regard I'm looking forward to the Alliances, because at least we have something we can build a community around...

 

[joneirikb.7506]

> @"atheria.2837" said:

> Wait, what?

>

> Elitism and biases built in to 'inviting' into an alliance from the get go? Yikes, and I mean yikes.

>

> WvW was supposed to bring people together for (hobby - wise) for a good cause.

>

> Anti-Woman biases will be insanely fed by 'inviting' only in many time zones where VPNs rule and the player whose country they chose to play in, isn't being honored

> by many - and most of those are very anti-female and even more anti-communication.

>

>

> > One point I'm starting to appreciate at this point, is that Alliances, unlike Servers, gives players the chance to accept or deny players. Being a resident of Kaineng, I've seen our server been bandwagoned a few times, our entire community/culture trampled under bandwagoners that only cares about using us to be the next big thing and then dump it, letting us deal with the leftovers. And knowing that there isn't a single thing we can do about it, because lets face it, no player can stop another player from joining a server. In this regard I'm looking forward to the Alliances, because at least we have something we can build a community around...

>

 

Curious why is this an elitist thing ? In the example I gave, a casual server was actually more or less "invaded" by elitists, trying to make a server into a hardcore server, and brush the existing fairly casual community (by comparison) under the rug ?

 

The idea here is that it can go in every direction. I mean you could just as well have a "casual" alliance that refuses any "hardcore" or "elite" players, is that any more or less biased/elitist than the other way around?

 

---

 

And what does any of this has to do with "anti-woman bias" ? I mean, what the heck is that even?

[Quixadhal.4257]

It sounds like a reasonable way to address balance issues in populations and play times, but I can't help but feel people will lose the sense of "patriotism" they might have towards their "home server", if it becomes a transient thing. Even if you're with your guild and alliance, drifting from world to world loses the sense that you're fighting alongside others for a "homeland", and pushes you into only caring about your guild/alliance.

 

Still, it's a tough puzzle to solve. It's not really fair to pit high population worlds against low population ones, or ones that can only field a solid fighting force during part of the day. I remember much worse back in the days of Shadowbane (!), when big guilds would find out when your keep was most lightly defended and schedule their attacks for that time, and there wasn't much you could do about it. Not fun to log in and discover you got wiped out while everyone was sleeping.

 

Perhaps factoring in how often someone plays WvW would help. By that, I mean when the algorithm to shuffle players (and guilds, and alliances) around to new "world" groupings runs, people who play WvW more consistently might be more likely to "stick" to the world they're already in, whereas the more casual players with a weaker connection to it would be more likely to shift around to balance population.

[Heibi.4251]

**On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.**

 

I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

 

Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

[aspirine.5839]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > @"atheria.2837" said:

> > Wait, what?

> >

> > Elitism and biases built in to 'inviting' into an alliance from the get go? Yikes, and I mean yikes.

> >

> > WvW was supposed to bring people together for (hobby - wise) for a good cause.

> >

> > Anti-Woman biases will be insanely fed by 'inviting' only in many time zones where VPNs rule and the player whose country they chose to play in, isn't being honored

> > by many - and most of those are very anti-female and even more anti-communication.

> >

> >

> > > One point I'm starting to appreciate at this point, is that Alliances, unlike Servers, gives players the chance to accept or deny players. Being a resident of Kaineng, I've seen our server been bandwagoned a few times, our entire community/culture trampled under bandwagoners that only cares about using us to be the next big thing and then dump it, letting us deal with the leftovers. And knowing that there isn't a single thing we can do about it, because lets face it, no player can stop another player from joining a server. In this regard I'm looking forward to the Alliances, because at least we have something we can build a community around...

> >

>

> Curious why is this an elitist thing ? In the example I gave, a casual server was actually more or less "invaded" by elitists, trying to make a server into a hardcore server, and brush the existing fairly casual community (by comparison) under the rug ?

>

> The idea here is that it can go in every direction. I mean you could just as well have a "casual" alliance that refuses any "hardcore" or "elite" players, is that any more or less biased/elitist than the other way around?

>

> ---

>

> And what does any of this has to do with "anti-woman bias" ? I mean, what the heck is that even?

 

Didnt you get the memo? Everything is anti-woman now.

Sorry for mansplaining while manspreading. :/

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Heibi.4251" said:

> **On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.**

>

> I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

>

> Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

 

It will prevent individual alliances from being able to effectively dominate multiple time zones.

[Blaeys.3102]

It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

 

This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Heibi.4251" said:

> **On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.**

>

> I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

>

> Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

 

How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?

 

500 people is a **ton** of people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.

[XenesisII.1540]

I'd like for 1 person to name 1 guild that has 500 active members for wvw.

Wait, ok let's try 400.

Maybe 300?

Ok ok 200?

For sure there's gotta be some with at least 100 right?

500 people even for a community guild is quite a lot to carry into a world.

Anyone prepare a community guild yet and reach that high? anyone?

 

Let's get a list before we start inflating max cap numbers for imaginary maxed out guilds. I say active because you can certainly can get 500 members with a ton of them haven't played in years, but they don't count if they're not on to list their wvw guild.

[shiri.4257]

> @"Heibi.4251" said:

> **On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.**

>

> I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

>

> Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

 

Make WvW guild limit 100. and the max guild pve/pvx stay at 500. Only 100 people can designate your guild as wvw. done, now 2 of them together make an alliance.

[BlueMelody.6398]

> @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

>

> This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

 

nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

 

[Blaeys.3102]

> @"BlueMelody.6398" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

> >

> > This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

>

> nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

>

 

It is definitely not nonsense. The people I play with on the 1-2 days I do go into WvW play with a lot of other hardcore WvW players - and among their existing guilds, they definitely number at least 500 players (not all play at once or are even very active, but they will not want to be left out). Me - and the 20 or so other members of my guild that only go into WvW a few days a week - would have to take the place of some of those hardcore players in order to be in their alliance. And their alliance would be the only one we are interested in. We have been playing with some of those people - in our casual way - for YEARS now. And I know that isn't a unique case. It is the obvious (to players if not to devs) problem we are going to run into if this system goes live. Alliances and WVW guilds will have to make some very tough decisions among their groups of friends.

 

Call it nonsense all you want. You obviously aren't in a situation where this will be a factor, and for that, I am glad - but others will be.

 

Anet needs to do better than this.

[BlueMelody.6398]

> @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > @"BlueMelody.6398" said:

> > > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > > It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

> > >

> > > This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

> >

> > nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

> >

>

> It is definitely not nonsense. The people I play with on the 1-2 days I do go into WvW play with a lot of other hardcore WvW players - and among their existing guilds, they definitely number at least 500 players (not all play at once or are even very active, but they will not want to be left out). Me - and the 20 or so other members of my guild that only go into WvW a few days a week - would have to take the place of some of those hardcore players in order to be in their alliance. And their alliance would be the only one we are interested in. We have been playing with some of those people - in our casual way - for YEARS now. And I know that isn't a unique case. It is the obvious (to players if not to devs) problem we are going to run into if this system goes live. Alliances and WVW guilds will have to make some very tough decisions among their groups of friends.

>

> Call it nonsense all you want. You obviously aren't in a situation where this will be a factor, and for that, I am glad - but others will be.

>

> Anet needs to do better than this.

 

If you're going to restrict yourself to getting into a particular hard-core guild as a casual player, then you are creating your own problem. You're asking anet to stop doing something that will improve the game for many people for the sake of a minority who refuse to look for other casual players to ally with. There will be *plenty* of non-elitist, non-hardcore alliances out there for you. Stamping your feet and insisting that you must play with only these particular players is a very narrow viewpoint.

 

You were new to the game once, you didn't know any of those people. You met them and became friends with them. Don't lock yourself into thinking you can only play with people you've met in the past few years. Meeting new people is how you picked up those existing friendships in the first place.

[Blaeys.3102]

> @"BlueMelody.6398" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > > @"BlueMelody.6398" said:

> > > > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > > > It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

> > > >

> > > > This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

> > >

> > > nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

> > >

> >

> > It is definitely not nonsense. The people I play with on the 1-2 days I do go into WvW play with a lot of other hardcore WvW players - and among their existing guilds, they definitely number at least 500 players (not all play at once or are even very active, but they will not want to be left out). Me - and the 20 or so other members of my guild that only go into WvW a few days a week - would have to take the place of some of those hardcore players in order to be in their alliance. And their alliance would be the only one we are interested in. We have been playing with some of those people - in our casual way - for YEARS now. And I know that isn't a unique case. It is the obvious (to players if not to devs) problem we are going to run into if this system goes live. Alliances and WVW guilds will have to make some very tough decisions among their groups of friends.

> >

> > Call it nonsense all you want. You obviously aren't in a situation where this will be a factor, and for that, I am glad - but others will be.

> >

> > Anet needs to do better than this.

>

> If you're going to restrict yourself to getting into a particular hard-core guild as a casual player, then you are creating your own problem. You're asking anet to stop doing something that will improve the game for many people for the sake of a minority who refuse to look for other casual players to ally with. There will be *plenty* of non-elitist, non-hardcore alliances out there for you. Stamping your feet and insisting that you must play with only these particular players is a very narrow viewpoint.

>

> You were new to the game once, you didn't know any of those people. You met them and became friends with them. Don't lock yourself into thinking you can only play with people you've met in the past few years. Meeting new people is how you picked up those existing friendships in the first place.

 

You obviously don't want to understand the situation. It has nothing to do with finding a particular kind of group - it is about wanting to keep a group of friends together a couple of nights a week in this game mode - friends that I know by name today - without forcing them to choose between their hardcore wvw relationships and with people like me and my guild. Those people Ive met in the past few years actually mean something to me. I hate that this system will force them to make these kinds of decisions. It is just unacceptable in any form.

 

Again, I respect that you have a different opinion about how the game works, but, for me, those friendships aren't something I want to replace. The idea that they will have to give up playing with their hardcore WvW friends to include my guild is unacceptable. The idea that if we might not be a part of their alliance because of the ridiculously low cap, which means there is a chance we might have to fight against them in WvW, is also unacceptable.

 

For people like that (and I know there are plenty of them out there), that only leaves one option - WvW wont be a part of the game for us anymore. And that should be unacceptable to ArenaNet. It seems like they are looking for any way they can to push casual players out of large portions of the game.

 

ArenaNet has to do better than this.

 

[Heibi.4251]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Heibi.4251" said:

> > **On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.**

> >

> > I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

> >

> > Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

>

> How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?

>

> 500 people is a **ton** of people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.

 

Let's say we wish to have 10 guilds for an alliance. We give each guild 50 slots for players to fill and hopefully give them room to recruit or add members who return at a later date. We hit our cap immediately. If one guild thinks they don't need 50 slots and gives some back, but then suddenly discovers that they need them back it is now too late since the other guilds may have used up the slots. There won't be 500 players all on at once, and not every day/night either. Of those 500 players their times will be spread out over the week.

 

By limiting that number to such a low number friends who show up in the a guild who have not yet been added to the slots allowed are now left out. This will split not only servers up, but guilds as well. This is a game killer overall. The server allowed all members of a guild to most likely be on the same server and be on the same side if they went to WvW. With the system being considered this will no longer be the case. Guilds will be separated by this alliance system.

 

ANeT you really need to do some more thinking on this. I'd like to see this alliance system implemented with as little pain to actual guilds as possible.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Heibi.4251" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"Heibi.4251" said:

> > > **On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.**

> > >

> > > I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.

> > >

> > > Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.

> >

> > How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?

> >

> > 500 people is a **ton** of people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.

>

> Let's say we wish to have 10 guilds for an alliance. We give each guild 50 slots for players to fill and hopefully give them room to recruit or add members who return at a later date. We hit our cap immediately. If one guild thinks they don't need 50 slots and gives some back, but then suddenly discovers that they need them back it is now too late since the other guilds may have used up the slots. There won't be 500 players all on at once, and not every day/night either. Of those 500 players their times will be spread out over the week.

>

> By limiting that number to such a low number friends who show up in the a guild who have not yet been added to the slots allowed are now left out. This will split not only servers up, but guilds as well. This is a game killer overall. The server allowed all members of a guild to most likely be on the same server and be on the same side if they went to WvW. With the system being considered this will no longer be the case. Guilds will be separated by this alliance system.

>

> ANeT you really need to do some more thinking on this. I'd like to see this alliance system implemented with as little pain to actual guilds as possible.

 

Which again begs the question... how many 50 man WvW guilds that want to be together do you know? Really?

 

I can barely name 5 "larger" guilds (ie those that can field 15+ active people in a raid) on my entire server and I can guarantee you most of them wouldnt work together in an alliance. That's also linked servers, so we're looking at 2 servers...

 

IMO you're giving a scenario that doesnt exist in practice and one that the alliances actively work to *prevent* - too much stacking. It's the same thing players have complained about for years and want to reduce, especially raiding guilds so they can "fight" (or at least that's what they say). I could also easily say well if 50 guilds with 100 players each want to play together, they cant under alliances, that's bad and limiting! But the very point of alliances is to make smaller chunks of players. Instead of one massive 2500+ man chunk like the current servers, Anet wants five 500 man chunks. The cap is there for a reason.

 

Also in your specific scenario and if we're assuming active players and raiding guilds, even at a "limiting" 10 guilds with 50 people in each you just created an alliance that would DOMINATE any current T1 matchup on its own. That's how many people 500 really are.