Trajan.4953 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 I just want to point out that this is the first and only thread in the WvW forums that has remained somewhat civil. While I understand some peoples attachment to their servers community but it is undeniable that the current system is on the decline. The simple fact we had to have linkings proves this. While this solution may seem heavy handed to those types it is a dynamic way to solve many of the problems that those same people have been on this forum complaining about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent.1378 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 How does a guild accept/create an alliance? Who control the alliance? Older post suggest that the guild who started an alliance can control it. How will that work? Sounds like hierarchy if the one guild who created it controls it. Alliance should be a group effort per the name. Do guild who has offered an alliance has to vote by majority to accept or decline? A bit more clarify on the concept please. Senario: Guild A: Guild leader has been in and out of the game. Guild is run by active leaders. Historically we have seen this a few times when new option in guildhall changes. Example the place memorial decorations. The power to allow to place was to guild leader only until leader modify the other ranks. Leader has to be back into the game before change can be made. If the same system exist where the acceptance of alliance is based on guild leader. Would the guild then miss out a chance to join an alliance? Because other ranks can’t decide on behalf of the guild? Guild B: There are 3 members guild leader rank, would all three have to agree to the alliance for it to join? Or if one is ok? If one how does it determine who to message for the approval? The first to read the message? The person who had the guild leader rank the longest? Let say a member of a guild that is already in an alliance finally decided to pick a wvw guild but the alliance has hit the max represented limit. Would that guild member be unable to join anymore until alliance free up room. That does not make for a good player experience or encouragement to come back to actively play the game. In adition to the wait time for same world, may range from 1 week to 9 weeks depending if it is before the 1 week lockdown before the season ends. On the other side, what happens if alliance is maxed but the alliance look through their guilds and found one guild has a lot of people that doesn’t play a lot but take up room. With this system there's a chance would the guild can get kicked or get pressured to lose some of it non-wvw-core members that can be 'artifically' inflating alliance membership limit, in-order to limit the size of rep and desired player type. Most people are guild capped. Many guild also went through the gold sink and upgraded. With limit to member number and guild number in an alliance there are chance people will be forced to drop guild they work hard on just to join an wvw guild to work under the guild number call in an alliance. How many matchup will there be? With the 1 up and 1 down still. Will the outcome of the 8 weeks affect the next 8 week’s which tier the alliance/player will land in for the next season? I am curious to see how the system will be implemented so people of the same guild can play together and not be excluded because alliance need headcount room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox.3469 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 I think this system is promising, but i do feel like one thing should be added, individual player spots in alliances. Some world have people on them we don't really belong to a guild but are known troughout the world as a great scout or individual players, roamers, stuff like that, these people are part of the WvW communities but don't belong to a guild, mostly because they can't make sheduled raids all the time or just prefer no obligations but run with a community when they want to. These people should not be forced into guilds, but, if they are well known in the existing community, could have a spot into an alliance so they can keep running with people they know. If 3 WvW guilds of a world form an alliance, they should be allowed to ask some individual players to join them without making them join their guilds, good solid solo people they know and have played with for years. Now i know this can easely be solved by having a "solo players" guild in an alliance, but not every alliance will think of that, while if an alliance can also invite individual players, they will be more likely to say "this guy has played with us for years, let's invite him into the alliance" without all those issues. I believe individual players who have stuck with a certain community and made friends, would be better served if alliances were able to include some individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aenemius.7609 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Having had time to think, I feel like the best thing that could happen to encourage community buy in would be a staged roll out by feature. If this is dropped on us like a feature pack, it'll feel pretty bad, but if guilds get the tools to adjust to the change and ensure their people are ready for it, I think the changes overall could be really good. For example; drop the WvW guild assignation feature (perhaps even with auto-rep-over while in WvW) in April, then the Alliance system in May. Give people a month or so to set themselves up, *while* delivering ANet some initial adoption data for Alliance buy-ins, on which to base their first algorithm deployment. Once the community is ready, decide whether to go ahead with the new Worlds system - or, if it really doesn't work at all, just leave the new tools out there for players to use anyway, because those tools will be good news whether the new Worlds system is in place or not. Buy-in and adoption for this will be a really important indicator of whether it'll help or harm things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samis.1750 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 For some people the community is the guild, but for others it is the server. One problem with basing the community on guilds is that guild leaders come and go. The turnover of guild leaders is pretty high due to burnout, RL issues, other games/interests, boredom,etc.. So eventually, one will be left with a really weak community. It will likely be harder for new players to get involved in WvW since it will be tough to get to know guild leaders since the new player will be joined with different players every matchup. In the past one could say, "Bob, Bill and Betty are on my server, Bob is very skilled but not much fun, Bill is not that skilled but fun, while Betty has decent skill and is pretty fun - I think I will join Betty's guild." It will be tougher to get to observe the commanders and guilds, especially for the newbie. Aside from Blackgate, WvW matchup balance is not too bad these days. It will also be tough to make any type of balancing fair when off hours players/guilds may be more valuable then primetime players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 > @"Caliburn.1845" said: > they don't stay on pin hey I'm na prime and I only do this sometimes cuz no one else is. don't wanna be that one sucker, ya know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joneirikb.7506 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Ironically, how will this affect EotM ? :p I mean, with the removal of worlds, are you going to just mesh together all the "new servers" of the same color instead ? Considering how this "new worlds" is setup, they're already pretty similar to how EotM been run. Perhaps they will just add EotM as a normal map to the rest of WvW ? Curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acheron.4731 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 I am ok with the changes as long as we can call the new worlds Ehmry Bay, Ebay, or Ehm C Hammer If not, i can't see them working :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliveman.5874 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 maybe one thing you can to use instead of lenguage is the IP, because in case of some one of us from spain, we have the game in spanish, but we play in eu servers, like me, Gandara, and use english to talk. If you use the IP the problem with BB and time diference with south america is finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aenaos.8160 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 > @"Evolute.6239" said: > > @"Aenaos.8160" said: > > Another nail in the coffin of WvW. > > WvW will be EotM with pips. > > Zero sense of world,simply alliances that will be sifted every 8 weeks,playing the same old boring campaign > > and after the hype boils down,the exact same issues that have brought the game mode in decline. > > > > I really don't understand this view point. What do you think link servers are? They're asked to change servers every two months, their name mostly irrelevant. Exactly. World linking is a problem. The alliance-free for all model,will only amplify the downsides of world linking. One of the main issues with RvR in GW2 and why it never became as engaging as it could be is the absence of factions and consolidated worlds on one hand,and a meaningless campaign on the other. In the end,after a few months of the new system being in place,we will end up with the same issues. Players not being able to play with their friends because alliances just like servers will be consisted of a finite amount of players,guilds bandwagoning the more powerful alliances,unofficial multi alliance alliances and the inevitable match manipulation. And the same campaign. Too much effort for nothing. WvW will become like EotM was before the loot there got nerfed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrolan.9608 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 > @"Graf.1945" said: > The proposed changes aren't needed as I understand them. The mode is dying, even if you personally haven't noticed it the fact that they are proposing such drastic action makes it clear. So yes it is needed. Form a CD alliance so you will stay together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loosmaster.8263 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > Ironically, how will this affect EotM ? :p > > I mean, with the removal of worlds, are you going to just mesh together all the "new servers" of the same color instead ? > > Considering how this "new worlds" is setup, they're already pretty similar to how EotM been run. Perhaps they will just add EotM as a normal map to the rest of WvW ? Curious. McKenna said EotM will remain the same. The new worlds will be based on the same colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infusion.7149 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 > @"Loosmaster.8263" said: > > @"Infusion.7149" said: > > "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" ... that seems low to me. > > You have to account for map cap in that figure. I'm not sure if that number includes all time-zones. However, after a server meeting it's around 15-40 people per guild active in WvW even if several guilds are nearly 500 (in the 490s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loosmaster.8263 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 > @"Infusion.7149" said: > > @"Loosmaster.8263" said: > > > @"Infusion.7149" said: > > > "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" ... that seems low to me. > > > > You have to account for map cap in that figure. > > I'm not sure if that number includes all time-zones. It should in their figure for balance. So to me in essence it would be foolish to create an alliance that on covers one particular time zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asha.4159 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Just reading the posts and concerns..... What about the players that don't want to join guilds but like playing with certain individuals in guilds? - why cant they join the guild? ask an officer to make an exception for a friend, or friend join a different guild? Guilds/ alliances end up needing to cooperate with guilds/ alliances they hate/ dont get along with in the same world? - possibly give a 'block guild/ alliance list' option to the officers? An extra Guild slot? - Why? 1 to do PVE/GMs, 1 to do PVP (although you can create a team within you PVE/GMs guild), 1 to do WvW - I struggle the need for more than 3 actually as the rest of the time you guys can communicate on Discord/ ts/ friends list. Queues? - this is will down to what the alliance cap is and the borderland cap - bring EOTM busy again by being able to gain pips and for it to go towards wvw score. This would relieve the queue concern What are developers thoughts on How many guilds in an alliance? who will have control of the alliance? would there be a lead guild like in GW1? will there be Alliance missions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben K.6238 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > @"Tolmos.8395" said: > > I would like to reiterate the previous questions posed, and not yet answered, about how this will affect Roleplayers. > This is something we hadn’t fully considered and we’ll start looking into possible solutions. > GW1 handled this by allowing players to select their "district" (instance) in a dropdown. When entering an outpost/town, you'd automatically get placed in an instance with the same language preference as you last selected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HazyDaisy.4107 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 > @"RobmannN.2689" said: > I assume the titles will be how you display your Server Pride (I get knocked down.... SoS) or something similar. A suggestion thread maybe in order. Sorrows Furnace - Anet lit it twice :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dzeRnumbrd.6129 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: >We started this dialogue early so we could hear feedback and work to improve the design where possible. Awesome thinking. This is far better communication/engagement than we've ever had in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaba.5410 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 > @"Richard.8207" said: > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > @"Richard.8207" said: > > > I don’t want another guild or alliance. > > > ...I want to be able to get familiar with the community. That community aspect is the important part of the game to me. If not for community, I’d be playing a different game. > > > > Do you not see what you are saying? Community is important but you don't want to join a community. It makes no sense. Elitism of others has nothing to do with that. > > Community is a lot more than a guild in the game, just like community is more than your bowling team or even entire church congregation in the real world. I can not protect my community in the game by joining a single guild or alliance. Yes, community is a lot more than a guild in the game. What is happening is alliances will be replacing servers as a larger-than-guild community container. Just like your bowling team example where a community springs up amongst the teams of a bowling league, the alliance is a new container that is meant for that larger community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trajan.4953 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > @"Richard.8207" said: > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > @"Richard.8207" said: > > > > I don’t want another guild or alliance. > > > > ...I want to be able to get familiar with the community. That community aspect is the important part of the game to me. If not for community, I’d be playing a different game. > > > > > > Do you not see what you are saying? Community is important but you don't want to join a community. It makes no sense. Elitism of others has nothing to do with that. > > > > Community is a lot more than a guild in the game, just like community is more than your bowling team or even entire church congregation in the real world. I can not protect my community in the game by joining a single guild or alliance. > > Yes, community is a lot more than a guild in the game. What is happening is alliances will be replacing servers as a larger-than-guild community container. Just like your bowling team example where a community springs up amongst the teams of a bowling league, the alliance is a new container that is meant for that larger community. Chaba for Anet Partner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegeta.2563 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 So far I've seen 500-1000 for alliance cap, and limited number of guilds.. but question is .. what is going to be the cap of the world population? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 > @"Infusion.7149" said: > > @"Loosmaster.8263" said: > > > @"Infusion.7149" said: > > > "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" ... that seems low to me. > > > > You have to account for map cap in that figure. > > I'm not sure if that number includes all time-zones. > > However, after a server meeting it's around 15-40 people per guild active in WvW even if several guilds are nearly 500 (in the 490s). Its been 25 pages and people still confuse 500-1000 in an alliance being 500-1000 online at any given time (lol) for what it actually mean, 500-1000 member rooster just like guilds now have a 500 member rooster cap. Thats why they are saying 500-1000 to begin with - less than 500 is utterly pointless. 1 full guild is as low as you can get for an alliance. And there are many alliances per world, just like there are 500 man guilds now. No point in trying to further explain I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearhugger.4326 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > @"Tolmos.8395" said: > > I would like to reiterate the previous questions posed, and not yet answered, about how this will affect Roleplayers. > This is something we hadn’t fully considered and we’ll start looking into possible solutions. Since PvE (not only RP) is independant of WvW, why not simply let players select their favorite activities and group them based on that? There could be tags like "Casual RP", "Hardcore RP", "Casual", "Support for New player", "Events", "Leveling", "Social", "Dungeons", "Raids", etc; you check the ones you like and the game would try to match you with players with similar preferences when there's multiple maps it could zone you in. Communities are about like-minded people, so if the server can be smart when grouping people, that could mitigate the issue. And why not help people that enjoy the same thing play together? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dramorion.5498 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Just make factions! I want torch the grove and sylvari as a char! Long shot I know, but it could happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcopaul.2156 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 pugmanding is officially dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now