World Restructuring

[Connla Dda.9407]

I am very negative about this idea. I am playing on one server few years, and know already players by character names. And all of it will be ruined just because dominant yankee server? We in Europe have more less healthy enviroment. Keep your experiments away from Europe. About 'murica, do what you please.

[Swamurabi.7890]

> @"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.

 

If an alliance is full then the guilds in the alliance won't be able to get new players. If a guild in a full alliance wants to grow it will have to leave the alliance or create it's own alliance.

 

As far as stacking an alliance with hardcore players so what, they will probably get paired with a casual alliance or even just pugs to even out the player hours between worlds and you won't see two hardcore alliances on the same world unless they can be matched up with other hardcore alliances on the other two worlds.

 

This is just a way to break up the players into smaller chunks so they can be put together in a way to balance populations. Instead of being locked into 21 chunks to make 12 worlds you can now have more than 21 chunks plus mercenary zerg guilds plus mercenary havoc guilds plus mercenary roamers to make 12 worlds.

 

 

[kermq.6258]

Ehh i dont wvw much but i wont be able to run with my friend even if our guild wont be WvW and were on same server we could be on other sides?

[Heibi.4251]

After reading nearly all the thread, up to this point, I'm somewhat ready for this post.

I also hope this isn't one of those ANeT "We want your feedback, but it doesn't really matter because we are doing it whether you like it or not."

 

Note: Not everyone who is against this is from BG. Those folks who post "Just ignore those who don't like this change" are just very vocal and don't truly represent WvW. It is quite apparent that those who are vocal in jabbing at those opposed to this are aware of the real WvW community that exists. I know our server has tons of server pride, and I know other servers do as well. For those who attack another's post because they disagree with you it is your post that needs to be ignored. Pointing out an error is one thing, but pew-pewing someone's concerns and opinion really isn't needed here. It makes it harder for the Devs to find the real meat of the issue.

 

I'm against this particular change. I'm one of those who never changed servers. I've been on HoD since Beta. So here are some of my reasons to be against it.

1. Community is alive and well. We have guilds that transfer to our server because they are looking for a less toxic environment in WvW. Getting rid of server identity will destroy much of what has been built on ours and many other servers.

2. We have a thriving teamspeak that the players on our server have invested in. The alliance system will destroy what was built over the years. We are able to include our linked servers due to the hard work of our admins. We have friends in a lot of the guilds that have channels in our TS server. Without a "world" identity this will leave smaller guilds without a place a to go.

3. Elitism will reign supreme. Imagine the power the alliance founder will have. He/she will have the power to kick any guild they like on a whim. You will have to conform or you won't be admitted to the alliance. We may have a common goal and cooperate with each other, but we have different ways we do it. Enforced Guild Repping already happens, so imagine the effect this will have on alliances. ANeT will be putting way too much power in the hands of too few. Look at what happens in homeowner's associations.

4. I'm a member of a guild that raids in the EU time as guilds that raid in the EU. With the limited number of guilds that an alliance may have I, and my friends, may not be able to raid in the same "WvW instance". I also lead in NA about 3 times a week. I put in about 15-25 hours a week into WvW due to my EU/NA WvW times. I can see the "yea-sayers" posting "Just get them in the same alliance or join their guild". Well, limits on size guilds and guilds in an alliance and number guilds may put a damper on that. And the EU guild may not allow people who rarely raid with them(NA main players) to join their guild. Plus they may be full on guilds and due to the size of their guild(small usually) the alliance doesn't want them. If the guild isn't in the alliance you are s.o.l.

5. Concern: Changing guild tags while in WvW - Say I'm repping my WvW guild and go to WvW. I wish to switch my tag to claim something but the tag I'm switching to isn't in the alliance. What happens? Am I kicked from WvW? Do I get transferred to a different instance of WvW? Do I become "red" to the other alliance members? Do I nee to rep the guild at all to enter WvW and be where I'm supposed to be with the alliance?

6. If my guild can't be a member of an alliance and my guildies aren't members of guilds in the alliance this would split up my guild. Not only is this proposed system a danger to community it is a danger to guilds. You will have created a true "Guild War" in a guild.

7. Community events get destroyed. One of the things our server likes to do is try to attract new players. We hold "Theme nights" and the occasional "WvW Training Night". I'm sure other server do this as well. Well, with the new system, so much for training night for new players. Why should we bother? Theme night is also basically gone because the alliance will be more concerned with winning than fun.

8. This goes away from the mantra that ANeT professed "Play like you want". With alliances implemented this way you destroy that - See point #3.

9. If this was implemented on day 1 of WvW this wouldn't be an issue. But to change everything now that we've established friendships, stable communities, and good times is like dropping a big can of doggy doo in the middle of a pizza.

 

Anyway, I do hope some the negative to the change comments get addressed. Otherwise it will look like this was just an ANeT exercise of letting everyone blow off steam for an already made decision. And for every one of the players who says they'll quit if this happens I'm sure there a five more who will do the same.

[Swamurabi.7890]

> @"Namer.9750" said:

> > @"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?

 

I'm in a basement of a building, not my home. Plus it's an hour drive to work, even at 90mph on some parts of the freeway.

[Richard.8207]

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> wow this is an ambitious move, exactly what wvw needs. rather than breaking up communities, the alliance system imo would draw them closer together as if you don't group up you will be lost to the mists. ofc there will always be people who disagree, and when this change comes I hope they can enter into it with an open mind. oh, and that this new system works would be good too lol.

>

> anet, ive been disappointed in the past but you continue to impress. I hope this new system works out for us!

 

Just curious if you recognize you said casuals “will be lost to the mists”? I agree that would happen, but as a casual I’d rather not be lost in the shuffle.

 

[Yukio blaster.9082]

@"McKenna Berdrow.2759" @"Raymond Lukes.6305"

This may work and may not depending on the guilds, so consider making a list of active guilds so you chose to join what guild you went, this will make guilds more dense and populated

The guilds can make a minimum requirement (armor and build ) and that's totally understandable if you accept random people with test builds you likely gonna be destroyed by any organised guild and that not fun .

this system should be on a couple months before the launch if this new system so the guilds gather enough people and that will make alliances easier for them

 

[StormPE.8201]

I'm very much in support of this change. I think this puts a lot more control into the hands of each player about who they're able to play with, and (if handled well) should really help improve WvW participation across all time zones. I can really see some great experiences coming from these changes if implemented well.

 

I do, however, see some potential issues with these changes:

1. Players that prefer to WvW as solo entities will be forced to choose between joining a guild/alliance to maintain the communities they've grown attached to or being grouped with potentially new people every reset.

2. Players that enjoy the WvW style of smaller servers may end up finding themselves in very highly populated/blobby matchups.

3. There's a high potential for highly dominating alliances to form and create similarly polarized match-ups that we currently deal with in higher tiers.

 

There are also some very important additions that I would like to see added to these changes as well:

1. There should be statistics for tracking Guild/Alliance participation (kdr,ppk,ppt,etc) - I believe this is important for encouraging players to invest their time with a guild or alliance and achieve a sense of pride for their group's accomplishments.

2. Metrics used to classify guilds should be added/visible to other guilds/alliances (in their shard). For example, preferred play style, commanders, active times, average size, etc I believe this would be incredibly useful for helping alliances and shards to organize strategy quickly and effectively with guilds they may not be familiar with.

3. Role tags for commanders and squads showing their current active goals on the map for other team members to quickly see and coordinate with. As worlds will be going away, much of the communication and organizational strategies that have been utilized in the past will be going away as well. This would allow guilds and commanders that have never worked together to easily coordinate on the map, as well as greatly help solo and roaming players to quickly assess the goals of larger groups for better team work.

 

 

I look forward to seeing more information on these changes, but from my perspective, there is a huge potential here to fix many of the population/coverage issues currently existing in WvW.

[heafrager.6709]

"There will be a max number of players in and Alliance but worlds will be balanced based on player score so the number of players is not fixed really but related to that score."

How does this score work, for example time spent playing gives no indication of whether you were any use during all that playing time we all know someone like that and I can just hear all the replies saying that's you mate

 

How will you stop cheating in wvw such as players with multiple accounts reporting on what enemy commanders are doing. Of course there are other ways of cheating some of which make you able to resurrect yourself from a downed state others increase your abilities to alter the skill resets and all sorts of other things that piss wvw players off to the max. Do you even know there is no way to report a cheat ingame and most players go for months even years without seeing a dev on their travels

 

Might it not be better to ensure all the maps are full rather than having people who stuff alt accounts that they never play onto the servers of their competitors for the purpose of pin watching and just general reduction of manpower in their competition.

 

Recently well within the last few years a new desert map was introduced this map is generally not as popular as the alpine maps. Perhaps a new map that encourages fights would be a good thing. My idea for a new map is one that encourages fights by wiping out the benefits of siege and towers. Make taking towers easier or eliminate towers on this new map by either limiting arrow carts and balistas or even just dropping them from this new map. Make big open play areas where 3 way fights can occur without the appalling lag that makes a 3 way battle for smc a battle of the 1s ie 180 people who can only press 1 as nothing else seems to work.

 

When are you introducing a guild war battle zone where guilds can join a10, 20, 30, 40 even 50 or 60 person fight against rival guilds

 

Good luck with your updates I am looking forward to many more balanced battles in the future I just worry that nothing can be done about the cheating and nothing will be done about making a new map that encourages large scale fights.

 

[Banono.4597]

All for this new system and my only question is when is this rolling out?

 

I know this is still unknown, but hurry because I want to play GW2 again.

[Princess.7584]

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

 

> I'm sure Mal is already hard at work creating a 4 timezone 500 player guild.

 

Now will be the time to see if they were all mouth about wanting to be competitive, will they stack a super alliance or actually make a few to fight each other?

 

 

 

 

[Khan.2374]

Did someone say NEW WORLD ORDER?

Illuminati confirmed

[floppypuppy.5789]

This is a great and badly needed change (any change is badly needed at this point).

 

My only suggestion would be to allow alliances to specify who they prefer to fight *against*. Anyone who actually likes to fight knows good opposition is as important as good allies.

[Swamurabi.7890]

> @"Princess.7584" said:

> > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

>

> > I'm sure Mal is already hard at work creating a 4 timezone 500 player guild.

>

> Now will be the time to see if they were all mouth about wanting to be competitive, will they stack a super alliance or actually make a few to fight each other?

>

>

>

>

 

A super alliance has a good chance of being the only alliance in a world and the other spots would be filled by casual guilds and players and also new players to even out player-hours and timezone coverage.

 

A super alliance and the guilds in the alliance might be locked if the alliance gets too big.

 

I expect the numbers for alliances and guilds to be adjusted to prevent stacking.

[Crazy.6029]

> @"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?

>

 

I thought about this also, so if the dummy guild signs up and and the get put in a particular group and then they don't show up, then...presto, its a lopsided match. I hope there is a fail safe measure to counter this in the planning.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

to build a super alliance and have there only be 1 of its kind, I need KEK TTD OnS SF KnT FOO QQ BOO RED BAN TAG TSYM PRX DIE TW FLUX LATE and iNs to all join the same 500 man alliance k thx.

[hunkamania.7561]

> @"Radymski.4987" said:

> What the hell is this crap?

>

> Sorry but server pride. Existing communities. However u do this u will end all that.

>

> We like our servers just kill some of the little ones screw them slackers anyway.... Limit the choice of servers. Dnt merging them temporary make perm links

>

>

> I really think your idea is waaaaaa to extreme.... Just delete small servers merge perm and be done with it.

>

> We dnt need a fraction or alliance crap, all that will do is best guilds farm bad pugs the new and pug casuals will quit further reducing player base and then the big bois got nothing to fight...

>

>

> It makes zero sense why u would make a drastic change when you have done nothing to perm address population balance by limiting or perm merge servers

>

> All u did was apply a band aid and now u go straight to amputation my leg? Wth anet.... Wth....

>

> Seasoned commander and guild raid leader here.

>

> Maybe contact wvw commandera and guilds or community and ask them rather than com up with thus bull.... Idea... Zzzz

>

> And no I love change. But this is the wrong one. I'll probably quit tbh I hate the sound of this concept

 

Wow zoi, just remember how bad it was on RoF and how unbalanced these servers are even in EU where all the best players go to one server like Vabbi or FSP. I'm a server leader and have no problem with this system which will give you more fights and will be more enjoyable than what we're doing now. :)

[Kilo.2539]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> to build a super alliance and have there only be 1 of its kind, I need KEK TTD OnS SF KnT FOO QQ BOO RED BAN TAG TSYM PRX DIE TW FLUX LATE and iNs to all join the same 500 man alliance k thx.

 

TKx counters your hypothetical OCX. fyi

[Dhan Rahl.8493]

> @"Void.3987" said:

> -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?

 

Rival system would be a nice implementation to have some say into who you're versing so you don't somehow get matched up with a group of guilds you'd rather fight.

 

Something I do see wrong with the concept at the moment is it doesn't solve the Tier-Locking issue that already exists with T1, where 1 world will Be the meGa-world with all the power amassed would be at the top save for the start of a new season where they'd take a minimum of 3 matchups to climb back up to, and the rest will settle in pretty quickly after that to have nothing really changed outside of a more coordinated world. You'd have to either shorten the length of seasons to avoid 5 weeks of the same matchups for some servers, or think of another method for how matchups are determined (either return to Glicko2 or something more volatile, or eve purely random).

 

Also curious about the titles. In the same situation, and would also like the title of the server I had been on for 2+ years, not the one I've only been on a few weeks.

 

@"McKenna Berdrow.2759" As for titles, will these be thought up by the dev team, or will the community be able to submit ideas for their community to wear with pride?

[Stand The Wall.6987]

> @"Richard.8207" said:

> > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > wow this is an ambitious move, exactly what wvw needs. rather than breaking up communities, the alliance system imo would draw them closer together as if you don't group up you will be lost to the mists. ofc there will always be people who disagree, and when this change comes I hope they can enter into it with an open mind. oh, and that this new system works would be good too lol.

> >

> > anet, ive been disappointed in the past but you continue to impress. I hope this new system works out for us!

>

> Just curious if you recognize you said casuals “will be lost to the mists”? I agree that would happen, but as a casual I’d rather not be lost in the shuffle.

>

 

yeah what I mean is that if youre someone who logs on every now and then, its probable the guild will kick you in order to make room for the alliance cap. I think this would only happen in the most competitive alliances though, as there are plenty out there who enjoy taking things casual and chill.

 

if you don't wanna be lost to the mists either try to increase your play time, get all buddy buddy with your guild leader, or join a different guild. one that fits into your play style.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"Kilo.2539" said:

> > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > to build a super alliance and have there only be 1 of its kind, I need KEK TTD OnS SF KnT FOO QQ BOO RED BAN TAG TSYM PRX DIE TW FLUX LATE and iNs to all join the same 500 man alliance k thx.

>

> TKx counters your hypothetical OCX. fyi

 

welp I tried. I hope people are reasonable enough to understand that the chances of someone making a super alliance and there only being a small few of its kind will simply not happen.

[Kilo.2539]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > @"Kilo.2539" said:

> > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > to build a super alliance and have there only be 1 of its kind, I need KEK TTD OnS SF KnT FOO QQ BOO RED BAN TAG TSYM PRX DIE TW FLUX LATE and iNs to all join the same 500 man alliance k thx.

> >

> > TKx counters your hypothetical OCX. fyi

>

> welp I tried. I hope people are reasonable enough to understand that the chances of someone making a super alliance and there only being a small few of its kind will simply not happen.

 

I think the majority of the people are smart enough to realize that.

[nagykocka.6839]

This is going to be a long comment and I want to clear a few things up for a start.

 

I completely agree that the issues of population disparity and coverage have to be solved in some way.

I know that some of the things I'm going to suggest are an immense amount of work.

 

FEEDBACK SECTION

 

As a start, I'm aware that this might be unavoidable, but I'd prefer not to the community even more split than it already is. There are server communities that have been together since release, and without knowing the preferences and priorities of the matching system, these loose groups are looking at an almost certain breakup.

 

 

With the amount of information provided in the post, for me as a player really hard to determine how this change will affect me in particular. There are some cloudy spots especially in the matching system that needs to be clarified to make sense.

 

 

Quote: "World Creation builds teams so they have similar predicted participation, skill, coverage, and language. Team assignment moves players onto teams by calculating the contribution value of a player and using that calculation to distribute players fairly. We plan to track stats like play hours in WvW, commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels."

 

This, in my opinion, bears multiple problems:

 

Predicted participation is next to meaningless, due to the fact that you can keep T6 participation all day, just by taking a camp every 8-10 minutes. On the other hand, you have small groups of roamers and such, who contribute a lot with escorting caravans, defending camps, and other minor tasks like that, while likely not even passing T4 participation in the process.

 

Skill, as in the form of individual player skill is almost, if not entirely impossible to determine unless you have hard data for damage, healing, and objective contributions like you do in PvP. Speaking of PvP, it would be unfathomably dumb to use PvP rankings to measure players skills in WvW, please don't even consider it.

 

Playing with players speaking your language would be great indeed, but national servers already have a clear advantage when it comes to voice communication. Besides, people of the same nationality, eg.: the French and German guilds would most likely strive to form massive alliances of their own language, and by that making the efforts to keep playtime coverage almost pointless.

 

 

Quote: "Guilds will be able to specify if they are a WvW guild. This essentially means the World Restructuring system will consider that factor at the start of each season when assigning the guild to a world. On an individual player level, once a player's guild has specified they are a WvW guild, the individual player will be able to set ONE of their guilds as their personal WvW guild. When World Restructuring happens at the start of a season, as long as you have specified your WvW guild, you will be assigned to the same world as everyone else in your WvW guild, guaranteeing you will be able to play with your guildmates."

 

This would likely create a massive black market for guild invitations - period.

 

As I already explained when talking about matching players of the same language, guilds and guild alliances would lead to a severe imbalance, with the addition of building elitism in the more competitive WvW scene (which to some degree already exists).

 

 

Quote: "We understand that even though this system tries to keep guilds and alliances together, there will be times during the season when people want to change teams. Because of this, there are plans to allow transfers between worlds during a season. This means that new worlds will have size restrictions on them, as they do currently."

 

This will make the new system inherit 90% of the current system's issues.

The entire issue with the player base and coverage were that whenever a server was doing better, or much worse, guilds and people, in general, started moving accordingly. This will still be happening unless you make the transfers extremely expensive, which would be wildly unpopular, or make it available only for guild members, which would be even more unpopular, and would bring up the before mentioned issue of a market for guild invitations. (The second part is already half true in the proposed version with the 91-99% population phase.)

 

 

SUGGESTION SECTION

(pretty please don't ban me for bringing up WoW on the official forum, I'm not promoting/advertising it)

 

 

I absolutely like the more guild oriented take on a large scale player vs. player game mode but in a much more structured way...

 

Therefore, I propose the idea of Guild Battlegrounds.

(I'm sure this has been brought up plenty of times on the forums but now it's more actual than ever.)

 

I'm bringing up this idea, because at the moment there is next to no incentive for guilds to go for objectives, making the game mode, especially in T1-2 servers very stale. It would introduce more guild content, which has been asked for multiple times, and it would get away with a lot of cheesy advertisements because it has 'guild' in the feature name (actual guild wars in Guild Wars ? hint hint).

 

With the Guild / Guild alliance system proposed with the WvW changes, it should be feasible to create a battleground system similar to what they have in World of Warcraft, but primarily guild focused.

These could be anything from 15v15 (standard gvg size) up to 50v50 (roughly 2 guild raids) fights on maps designed specifically for this purpose. Isle of Conquest from WoW could work as the perfect example: 50v50 open map with side objectives and plenty of environmental interactions (gunship, siege tanks and other such things).

For a map more in line with the current WvW maps, Alterac Valley is a good example of a mostly linear map with progression based on objective capturing.

 

Basically, remove the competitive gvg from world versus world. This would help with population and commander balance since (in prime time at least) most of the top servers are carried by the 3-4 top guilds on the server. Lowering the total population of players on the map in WvW would help with (the lack of?) optimization as well as reducing the skill lag when having more than 60 or so people around the same objective. (the latter might still be a problem in larger encounters)

 

Introducing guild battlegrounds, on the other hand, would bring up other problems, some of which I thought of are:

 

Filling in emptied spots on the roster:

Create a public queue.

Record individual player statistics the way you do in PvP to create a rating for every participating player. If someone drops out, a player of the same class, and of a similar rating should be automatically selected from the queue. This would mean that only players that already have some degree of experience would be able to join and by this keeping the skill level relatively high.

 

Blobs bruteforcing through the map:

Fixing this is purely up to map design. Progression should require multiple side objectives to be held at once, splitting up the forces on the map and creating minor skirmishes while keeping the opportunity for big fights.

 

 

Battleground design by itself could be weeks if not months of brainstorming and this post is already too long.

 

 

 

Even if the battlegrounds were to be implemented, WvW would still have some remaining issues:

No incentive for objective play. It's just simply faster and more profitable to go for kills instead of captures. The only real point in taking or defending is to have a waypoint closer to the enemy spawn.

Skill balance (sb bubble, desert shroud skills): It's a general issue but it needs some work. As a general rule of thumb, I would make stability unstripable and resistance uncorruptable.

 

Just give us a third unique borderland already!

[Crazy.6029]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> to build a super alliance and have there only be 1 of its kind, I need KEK TTD OnS SF KnT FOO QQ BOO RED BAN TAG TSYM PRX DIE TW FLUX LATE and iNs to all join the same 500 man alliance k thx.

 

Could you split that in to 2 or 3 super alliances? :)

[Ubi.4136]

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > @"Princess.7584" said:

> > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> >

> > > I'm sure Mal is already hard at work creating a 4 timezone 500 player guild.

> >

> > Now will be the time to see if they were all mouth about wanting to be competitive, will they stack a super alliance or actually make a few to fight each other?

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> A super alliance has a good chance of being the only alliance in a world and the other spots would be filled by casual guilds and players and also new players to even out player-hours and timezone coverage.

>

> A super alliance and the guilds in the alliance might be locked if the alliance gets too big.

>

> I expect the numbers for alliances and guilds to be adjusted to prevent stacking.

 

LOL, prevent stacking. Guilds have a 500 member cap. And it is certain that an alliance will have at least 2 guilds, otherwise, it's just 1 guild. That is 1000 members.

1000 is more than enough to stack nearly 24 hour coverage on all 4 maps. No one wants "competition", if they did players wouldn't have continued to stack/transfer/restack/ktrain the way they have been for all this time. Even skilled solo players who "want good fights" are constantly showcasing their videos of them farming people in broken spvp builds. That pretty much sums it up on an individual level and on a server level.

Players are going to create the strongest alliance they can prior to the final release of all information. If they have more players than can be fit, they will find a way around that limit. It's going to be exploited as badly as Anet lets them, and alliances and guild member caps give them tons of manipulation room.

 

Personally, I'm saddened to see the loss of server identity (TC since beta) and how this can, and likely will, destroy some guilds.