World Restructuring

[boneduste.4023]

I have a question..

 

"I have 2 guilds, A and B. I chose guild A to group for WvW selection, however guild B has more WvW buffs, just inactive. Can I represent B to obtain the buffs, after the season starts?"

[Void.3987]

-Could it be possible for an alliance to flag another alliance (or 3) as a rival alliance? It sounds like as players, forming guilds and alliances we would have a decent measure of control over who we play with. It would be equally as nice, especially for guilds, to have some control over who they would like to be paired against occasionally.

 

"We also want to give titles related to the worlds on which players currently are playing when World Restructuring goes live."

-Several people have commented that they recently transferred to a new server, I am one of them. And the server I left is full at the moment, but I would rather have a title for a server I spent several years on instead of one I have only been a part of for a few weeks/months. Would it be possible to let a person select their title from a list of their current and previous servers, instead of assigning a title based on current server only?

[Baldrick.8967]

So what would happen to a new player? First, has to join a wvw guild. None of the top alliances will want to go near him, will be 'full', so they will start out on the lowest possible tier which will likely be completely dead, no comms, after a few days they go back to pve or just quit the game.

 

One huge issue I see is elitism within alliances based on the amount of time you can play. Every day. People will stack an alliance (however many people that is) with only the most active hardcore players. That alliance will win every 8 weeks. More people will look to join. Politics will be awful.

 

Others will be in a more casual players section, get drawn against the mad hatters stacked alliance, and have 8 weeks where it's not even fun to log in. Hence 8 weeks is way too long. people will quit the game mode or quit the game entirely and go play something else.

 

If you are going to do alliances, then it should not be 'seasons' of 8 weeks, it should be new match ups every week. that way, even if you get drawn against some monster or some dead alliance, it's only a week before you get a potentially better match up.

 

If they launched this with new maps and as a complete reboot of the wvw system, with just one expanded map per match up and an alliance limit of 500 (and spend money on the server capacity so that massive battles were possible), 200 per side, effects to promote spreading and splitting rather than running in one mega blob, huge balance changes, then I'd be all in favour of restarting with a new system.

 

Just bringing in guild alliance style without addressing any of the other issues sounds like a 'least cost' solution and won't solve the central issues with wvw.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"boneduste.4023" said:

> I have a question..

>

> "I have 2 guilds, A and B. I chose guild A to group for WvW selection, however guild B has more WvW buffs, just inactive. Can I represent B to obtain the buffs, after the season starts?"

 

Yes! They answered that already somewhere back!

[boneduste.4023]

 

 

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > @"boneduste.4023" said:

> > I have a question..

> >

> > "I have 2 guilds, A and B. I chose guild A to group for WvW selection, however guild B has more WvW buffs, just inactive. Can I represent B to obtain the buffs, after the season starts?"

>

> Yes! They answered that already somewhere back!

 

I thought as much. It is easy to implement and makes the most sense. I will try to find the post.

[Blaeys.3102]

> @"Honest John.4673" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > While this will likely make the game mode more competitive and give hardcore players a more balanced experience, I think it will also likely push your more casual WvWers out completely. I know dozens of players that enjoy 1-2 days a week in WvW alongside their more hardcore friends. With limited space in alliances, I don't see them making the room for those more casual players - creating a have/have nots dynamic in the game mode. So, while it may seem like a good thing for some, it may be the end of the game mode for many others.

> >

> > It's also worth noting that those same casual players are unlikely to be as active in this subforum as the more hardcore WvWers. Anet really needs a better way to get their feedback on this issue.

>

> They could simply join those alliances while they can if they cared. But since they're casual, seems like, by definition, they don't care as much. And I suppose heaven forbid hardcore be matched up against hardcore and casual be matched up against casual, that might make for more competitive matches, and I guess you can't have that in a competitive gamemode, right? And woe is me, I won't get to carry all the casual leeches, I'll miss them one-pushing in fights and contributing nothing to the group. But I suppose the casuals are being oppressed into being have-nots by the more hardcore players too, right?

 

You're assuming there will be room in those alliances for more casual players, when we all know that is unlikely to be the case.

 

This isn't about carrying anyone. The current system allows for a variety of experiences throughout the week - shifting between different groups (of friends) that you enjoy playing with. That is something many experience in the current system that will not be there if they make this change. It is about balancing friendships, casual play and hardcore competitiveness.

 

Again, if the system had been implemented day 1, it would have worked well. But, people have been working within these communities for five years now, bringing the nuance and diversity of playstyles together in ways that simply will not be possible with the proposed changes. It would be extremely irresponsible of Anet to push these changes live without taking into account the damage they will do along with any potential improvements. I know a lot of people that will be affected by this change in ways that will, most likely, push them out of wvw completely (me probably being one of them).

[X T D.6458]

So let me see if I understand this part correctly…lets just assume that there are a bunch of guilds totaling hundreds of players that want to stack a new server.

 

Hypothetically you can just create a dummy guild, get it up to 500 members, have everyone mark it as their wvw guild so they can all get on the same server, then they can go back to their regular guilds after getting onto the new server?

 

[Theandil.6045]

WOW just WOW ! Its happening ! But but ... I will miss my Gandarian brothres in arms :(

But nevertheless this make WvW great again !

¬ Trump approves.

[Limodriver.4106]

1. while u are at it plz add queue save from dc and allow change char while in queue

2. whats to stop powerful alliance from dominating again?

[Grim West.3194]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> So let me see if I understand this part correctly…lets just assume that there are a bunch of guilds totaling hundreds of players that want to stack a new server.

>

> Hypothetically you can just create a dummy guild, get it up to 500 members, have everyone mark it as their wvw guild so they can all get on the same server, then they can go back to their regular guilds after getting onto the new server?

>

 

Or in other words. If BlackGate wants to game the system again and destroy competition again then they can cheat? Again?

 

I think the new system is designed to keep BG from killing the game... again. But I'm sure BG will try.

[PookieDaWombat.6209]

> @"fehyra.2764" said:

> I don't know if it was posted, but could implementation of voice chat (with channels say, map, team, squad, guild and party) _in game_ solve discord and teamspeak issues? It would even incentivise more grouping and more people actually being on group's voice channel.

 

While that would be stellar, it will never ever, eeeeever happen. Far too much for Anet to manage. This is why I try to avoid comms now.

[Sol.6213]

When tournaments come back, how much gold do you think it will cost to join the top Alliance?

[Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365]

How would this affected an account with characters in different guilds?

Would you be able to join one matchup for one character/guild, and another amtch up if you logged in on another character in a different guild?

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Sol.6213" said:

> When tournaments come back, how much gold do you think it will cost to join the top Alliance?

 

None, or they won't be the top alliance for long.

[OneYenShort.3189]

> @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> Participation? This seems a bit odd since assaulting an objective is not considered to be participating in WvW. Only a successful capture is considered participating.

 

From an outsider perspective, not really. I can recall how much complaining I'd hear popping into WvW on occasion because the WvW people would complain about PvE people coming into their area screwing things up.

Having participation as a marker will only keep the status quo, instead of encouraging non WvW people to give it a good solid shot to see if they'd like it.

 

To me... WvW is just about legendary stuff. *shrugs* The way the change reads, it won't really effect me.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> So let me see if I understand this part correctly…lets just assume that there are a bunch of guilds totaling hundreds of players that want to stack a new server.

>

> Hypothetically you can just create a dummy guild, get it up to 500 members, have everyone mark it as their wvw guild so they can all get on the same server, then they can go back to their regular guilds after getting onto the new server?

>

 

Yes and no. There is no difference between an alliance of 1 guild and 500 players and that of many that equates to 500 players. Once an individual claims a WvW guild. They are locked into that guilds match up for that world. Blackgate as a server is much more populated than 500 people. There is no physical way to get all of BG onto 1 alliance. There is no way for BG to manipulate a greater sum than 500 per alliance. The alliance cap does not have a threshold like servers do. So then a dummy guild would be pointless unless its for the pugs of a said community. Then the pug guild would be in an alliance with the actual guilds to play together.

[Hackuuna.4085]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> So let me see if I understand this part correctly…lets just assume that there are a bunch of guilds totaling hundreds of players that want to stack a new server.

>

> Hypothetically you can just create a dummy guild, get it up to 500 members, have everyone mark it as their wvw guild so they can all get on the same server, then they can go back to their regular guilds after getting onto the new server?

>

 

Those guilds are better off forming an alliance and just marking their regular guilds as WvW guilds. Not sure what the stacking of a guild would accomplish. Marking which guild is the WvW guild only impacts where you end up being restructured to. Repping a guild during regular play will be no different than today and changing which guilds you mark as your WvW mid-season won't affect you until you either a) transfer or b) get to the next season.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

as this change seems to push the mode towards a more fight centric atmosphere, I think adding in guild kdr into the algorithm could be a good idea. putting a bunch of high kdr guilds vs low kdr guilds would be just like what we have today, just switch out population and there you go same problems. that might be a step too far though, I wouldn't want a 100% fair playing field because it would take the fun out of things, but its something to consider if things start going screwy.

[X T D.6458]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > So let me see if I understand this part correctly…lets just assume that there are a bunch of guilds totaling hundreds of players that want to stack a new server.

> >

> > Hypothetically you can just create a dummy guild, get it up to 500 members, have everyone mark it as their wvw guild so they can all get on the same server, then they can go back to their regular guilds after getting onto the new server?

> >

>

> Yes and no. There is no difference between an alliance of 1 guild and 500 players and that of many that equates to 500 players. Once an individual claims a WvW guild. They are locked into that guilds match up for that world. Blackgate as a server is much more populated than 500 people. There is no physical way to get all of BG onto 1 alliance. There is no way for BG to manipulate a greater sum than 500 per alliance. The alliance cap does not have a threshold like servers do. So then a dummy guild would be pointless unless its for the pugs of a said community. Then the pug guild would be in an alliance with the actual guilds to play together.

 

What does this have to do with BG? I didn't say anything about BG, what is this insane obsession you all have?

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > So let me see if I understand this part correctly…lets just assume that there are a bunch of guilds totaling hundreds of players that want to stack a new server.

> > >

> > > Hypothetically you can just create a dummy guild, get it up to 500 members, have everyone mark it as their wvw guild so they can all get on the same server, then they can go back to their regular guilds after getting onto the new server?

> > >

> >

> > Yes and no. There is no difference between an alliance of 1 guild and 500 players and that of many that equates to 500 players. Once an individual claims a WvW guild. They are locked into that guilds match up for that world. Blackgate as a server is much more populated than 500 people. There is no physical way to get all of BG onto 1 alliance. There is no way for BG to manipulate a greater sum than 500 per alliance. The alliance cap does not have a threshold like servers do. So then a dummy guild would be pointless unless its for the pugs of a said community. Then the pug guild would be in an alliance with the actual guilds to play together.

>

> What does this have to do with BG? I didn't say anything about BG, what is this insane obsession you all have?

 

I was simply using your server as an example. Its in your signature.

[X T D.6458]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > > So let me see if I understand this part correctly…lets just assume that there are a bunch of guilds totaling hundreds of players that want to stack a new server.

> > > >

> > > > Hypothetically you can just create a dummy guild, get it up to 500 members, have everyone mark it as their wvw guild so they can all get on the same server, then they can go back to their regular guilds after getting onto the new server?

> > > >

> > >

> > > Yes and no. There is no difference between an alliance of 1 guild and 500 players and that of many that equates to 500 players. Once an individual claims a WvW guild. They are locked into that guilds match up for that world. Blackgate as a server is much more populated than 500 people. There is no physical way to get all of BG onto 1 alliance. There is no way for BG to manipulate a greater sum than 500 per alliance. The alliance cap does not have a threshold like servers do. So then a dummy guild would be pointless unless its for the pugs of a said community. Then the pug guild would be in an alliance with the actual guilds to play together.

> >

> > What does this have to do with BG? I didn't say anything about BG, what is this insane obsession you all have?

>

> I was simply using your server as an example. Its in your signature.

 

My post had nothing do with any server. It was just a hypothetical. It can be done with guilds/players from any server.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > > > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > > > So let me see if I understand this part correctly…lets just assume that there are a bunch of guilds totaling hundreds of players that want to stack a new server.

> > > > >

> > > > > Hypothetically you can just create a dummy guild, get it up to 500 members, have everyone mark it as their wvw guild so they can all get on the same server, then they can go back to their regular guilds after getting onto the new server?

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yes and no. There is no difference between an alliance of 1 guild and 500 players and that of many that equates to 500 players. Once an individual claims a WvW guild. They are locked into that guilds match up for that world. Blackgate as a server is much more populated than 500 people. There is no physical way to get all of BG onto 1 alliance. There is no way for BG to manipulate a greater sum than 500 per alliance. The alliance cap does not have a threshold like servers do. So then a dummy guild would be pointless unless its for the pugs of a said community. Then the pug guild would be in an alliance with the actual guilds to play together.

> > >

> > > What does this have to do with BG? I didn't say anything about BG, what is this insane obsession you all have?

> >

> > I was simply using your server as an example. Its in your signature.

>

> My post had nothing do with any server. It was just a hypothetical.

 

I used a real time hypothetical scenario. ;)

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @"Aenemius.7609" said:

> This makes me incredibly nervous. WvW benefits a lot from stable, long-term commitment and coordination, the kind that simply can't be made in 8 weeks. How will we know which groups are good at what kinds of play? What happens if one world happens to get a load of highly active roamers, and another gets a load of zerg blobby guilds, based on the algo?

> Or worse, let's say I and my friends are both in multiple WvW guilds, which are cross-linked in a couple of Alliances, and we happen to get dropped into different worlds? Why would there have to be a transfer cost for me to play with my friends? Will there be an association system to ensure that people with a tangible link will remain so on a reliable basis?

> Who asked for this to be the answer? A reduction in reliability is going to harm strategic relationships and potentially damage the overall population of the game. Without more information on how this will affect the community I don't imagine a lot of people will feel good about this.

> Population clumping is a problem sure, but burning down block of houses to turn them into non-renewable-lease apartments is surely not the answer, and that's what this feels like.

 

I am thinking this will end up nothing more than another HoM with a spangly new entrance screen.. with a cool money grab associated to world transfers.. which will inevitably happen as a lot more as players find themselves kicked out of guilds to make way for others or if your a casual player you don't get to participate as much. Then of course there is the "omg this world is terrabad, ima outta here" placing worlds in the exact same position servers have suffered from for so long.. transfers to losing /depopulated worlds just wont happen during match-ups so those worlds will just fester for weeks until reset... that is not match balancing.

If this system has any chance of making matchups stable and balanced then xfers after 24hrs of reset should just not be allowed imo. or maybe ANET setup a list of predefined guilds / Alliances that players pick and only ANET have the control of booting players once signed up... otherwise I can see this being abused as heck. Added to that I can already see all those "join awesomesauce guild, 20spots available, 10g/spot"

 

This has all come about cos of the vocal gimme GvG crowd not the rebalancing of servers.. the not very refreshing tiered system will now be replaced a not very refreshing power guild/power alliance tiered matchup week in week out... no thanks, I grew tired of karmazergwars a whiles back, hence why I don't wvw all that much these days..

[Namer.9750]

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

>

> 9:15 and just getting to work? You mean you actually see the sun while going to work? Unpossible. I get up at 4AM, arrive at work at 6AM, see the sun after 2:30 because I work in a basement.

 

Why would you need two hours to get from your bedroom to your office room while working from home?

 

> @"Baldrick.8967" said:

> So what would happen to a new player? First, has to join a wvw guild. None of the top alliances will want to go near him, will be 'full', so they will start out on the lowest possible tier which will likely be completely dead, no comms, after a few days they go back to pve or just quit the game.

>

> One huge issue I see is elitism within alliances based on the amount of time you can play. Every day. People will stack an alliance (however many people that is) with only the most active hardcore players. That alliance will win every 8 weeks. More people will look to join. Politics will be awful.

>

> Others will be in a more casual players section, get drawn against the mad hatters stacked alliance, and have 8 weeks where it's not even fun to log in. Hence 8 weeks is way too long. people will quit the game mode or quit the game entirely and go play something else.

>

> If you are going to do alliances, then it should not be 'seasons' of 8 weeks, it should be new match ups every week. that way, even if you get drawn against some monster or some dead alliance, it's only a week before you get a potentially better match up.

>

> If they launched this with new maps and as a complete reboot of the wvw system, with just one expanded map per match up and an alliance limit of 500 (and spend money on the server capacity so that massive battles were possible), 200 per side, effects to promote spreading and splitting rather than running in one mega blob, huge balance changes, then I'd be all in favour of restarting with a new system.

>

> Just bringing in guild alliance style without addressing any of the other issues sounds like a 'least cost' solution and won't solve the central issues with wvw.

 

Why would lower tiers be dead? One of the working points of this system is that it specifically makes matchups more granular, which means individual servers will be smaller (as I see it, most Alliances would be on the size of a link server currently, and *all* the servers would be smaller than the T1 servers currently, closer to T2/3 servers, which have more than enough activity even in 'dead' timezones).

[Richard.8207]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> I don't understand the logic of people who want to remain on some specific team but don't want to invest in being a team member by joining or making a guild or alliance. Why should you get preference over someone who is more dedicated to team-building?

 

This is exactly what people are talking about when they say elitism will ruin this new system.

 

I do not blame you at all, by the way. The system basically demands elitism. You only have X slots in an alliance, and you want the most fun possible to result from those slots, so you want people most committed to adding to your enjoyment to have those slots. Your response is the only one that makes sense. But hopefully you can understand casual players are not served well at all.

 

The thing is most casual players, myself included, recognize the hardcore players create the environment we have. The hardcore players have the required knowledge and expertise to lead everyone else. So I definitely want you to have tons of fun. But I also really hope the developers make a system that encourages a positive experience for casual players. But you guys will be wasting so much energy coordinating with the other guilds that random casuals will be an after thought. And I would completely understand.