World Restructuring

[shiri.4257]

Raymond deserves a 2nd promotion. Chaba needs to be hired by Anet as a moderator. All the my dead community cries...chill out. Your community died before linkings when you could only field 20 people throughout prime time and 5 through OCX/Sea in bronze league. For the ones in them "top tier communities." Get a grip, your "community" is a conglomeration of guilds and players that have been moving in and out for a bandwagon for years. If you had to take a look at actual numbers vs the analyzing your community after taking a bong, you'd come to the same conclusion. I bet you couldn't even put 500 people in 1 community guild under the parameters: 1) they were on the server since start and never transferred when the going got tough 2) they actually contributed something to community: ie: gold donations for warchests to buy those "community guilds" onto your server (sarcasm). 3) The guilds that have stayed on your server and anchored it through the rough times prolly don't give a rat's ass about non contributing wvwers like zergbusting teefs and mobile 1 push ACs aka Rangers. What did you do? Log in, capped a camp and yelled "INC, HALP THEY ON LORDS?"

 

I'd venture to bet "Blackgate Community" consists of 80% immigrants.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"Tolmos.8395" said:

> > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > > There has been a lot of discussion about the player “evaluation.” We already use play hours to determine population status of a world. With this system, moving people around ever two months we would like to track a few more things that can help us distribute players more effectively. One thing we are looking at tracking is commanding. Commanders are a big part of WvW no matter if your prefer scouting, roaming, running with a havoc squad or the zerg. Commanders are not the only piece to the WvW puzzle but they are a big piece. We would use commander time and squad sizes to determine a scaler to that commander players play time. For example, these are not the real values but I am not even a full cup of coffee in so for my sake I am going to make the math easy, PlayerA, PlayerB and PlayerC all play for roughly 100 hours a week. PlayerA commands smaller havoc squads, PlayerB is a PUG zerg commander, and PlayerC does not command. For all the time a commander is commanding squads let us say of more than two and less than size ten we’ll count those hours at a one and a half times multiplier and higher than ten we’ll count it at two times. If Player A were always commanding, in the small squad range, while playing their time, adjusted hours would be 150 hours. If PlayerB were always commanding, in the large squad range, while playing, their adjusted hours would be 200. Since Player C did not command their hours, remain the same at 100. Doing this can help us get more even matches. WvW is not completely a number of bodies game. A hundred veteran players will always beat a hundred casual players.

> >

> > And what if I command without a pin. You saying that you will hinder a alliance size or world size based off someones commanding potency. Makes me not want to wear a pin what so ever.

>

> Honest question here but... why? I mean, what detriment is there to wearing the pin if you are already doing everything else?

 

if they are going to add on 50 more hours to my play time because i command large forces simply for wearing a pin they will *adjust* me, the preferred way for any fighter is to run without a pin anyway. People will start to do this more so and I will to because its unfair to add on hours played just because I'm an effective commander. Its even more harsh to limit said world, guild or alliance based off someone commanding.

[Slugonaut.9841]

I think random placement could be fun, especially for a mercenary type roaming squad/guild. Specifically choose not to be a part of any alliance and enjoy floating around to different matchups/fights every 8 weeks. At least in theory that sounds kind of fun to me, a way to diversify any kind of stagnation from either straight up server alliance play or even a way to break out of being stuck in a certain tier.

[Cragga the Eighty Third.60]

It sounds good, especially for the hard-core, serious WvWers.

 

If I understand correctly, though, won't that mean that any new player is going to be stuck in a server with all the other people who have no idea what they're doing? If so, I'm wondering if that is going to be good for the long-term future of WvW.

[Skylark.1274]

> @"McKenna Berdrow.2759" said:

> > @"dargon.7253" said:

> > How will this work if for example, you have 4 guilds, where everyone is a member of all 4 guilds. These guilds have all been upgraded to allow for various types of claiming in WvW, so for example, 1 can hold 2 camps, 1 tower and 1 keep at the same time. Right now you can do this by swapping guilds. This brings up a couple questions.

> >

> > 1.) Will this sort of activity be possible under the new proposed system?

>

> Claiming and slotting tactics/upgrades is all still handled on the guild level and will still be possible.

 

So for clarification, in order to claim and slot tactics/upgrades, would a guild need to flag themselves as wvw guild?

 

Also regarding guild claiming...

I have a small number of guildies that are WvW focused. Because they play during off NA hours they may decide to choose different WvW guilds as their primary.

 

So say Guildie A joins a WvW guild that gets sorted to World Luxon. And Guildie B joins a WvW guild that gets sorted to World Kurzick. And they each decide to rep my guild, NOT their WvW primary in WvW.

 

Luxon and Kurzick worlds are matched up as enemies during a season. Can Guildie A claim a tower on EBG for my non-wvw guild and Guildie B claim a different tower on EBG AT THE SAME TIME as Guildie A's claim for my non-wvw guild?

 

Sorry, I know it is a confusing question. I am just looking a potential system challenges.

 

 

[chedder.6302]

> @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> There has been a lot of discussion about the player “evaluation.” We already use play hours to determine population status of a world. With this system, moving people around ever two months we would like to track a few more things that can help us distribute players more effectively. One thing we are looking at tracking is commanding. Commanders are a big part of WvW no matter if your prefer scouting, roaming, running with a havoc squad or the zerg. Commanders are not the only piece to the WvW puzzle but they are a big piece. We would use commander time and squad sizes to determine a scaler to that commander players play time. For example, these are not the real values but I am not even a full cup of coffee in so for my sake I am going to make the math easy, PlayerA, PlayerB and PlayerC all play for roughly 100 hours a week. PlayerA commands smaller havoc squads, PlayerB is a PUG zerg commander, and PlayerC does not command. For all the time a commander is commanding squads let us say of more than two and less than size ten we’ll count those hours at a one and a half times multiplier and higher than ten we’ll count it at two times. If Player A were always commanding, in the small squad range, while playing their time, adjusted hours would be 150 hours. If PlayerB were always commanding, in the large squad range, while playing, their adjusted hours would be 200. Since Player C did not command their hours, remain the same at 100. Doing this can help us get more even matches. WvW is not completely a number of bodies game. A hundred veteran players will always beat a hundred casual players.

 

Why would you punish those who lead? I agree that wvw needed to change because its stagnate and something like this is honestly the best way to do it but, why say hey youre bring the wvw community together on your server were going to punish you for that whilst ignoring the fact you can pin down run the same thing and make it harder for your server to play together. This boggles my mind. You guys have a good chance of revitalizing wvw but you also have 1 shot at it.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> And BG had everyone beat by double.

Careful. The chart shows that BG only doubled playtime of half the other other worlds. They beat out every world substantially, but doubled only the average. That makes it a useful metric for explaining why BG is never linked, why they win their match-ups most of the time, and why they remain in T1. It's also helpful in explaining why "world" is no longer a useful tool in building even match-ups.

 

Let's be careful, however, not to overstate the actual numbers or the importance of the metric.

 

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > And BG had everyone beat by double.

> Careful. The chart shows that BG only doubled playtime of half the other other worlds. They beat out every world substantially, but doubled only the average. That makes it a useful metric for explaining why BG is never linked, why they win their match-ups most of the time, and why they remain in T1. It's also helpful in explaining why "world" is no longer a useful tool in building even match-ups.

>

> Let's be careful, however, not to overstate the actual numbers or the importance of the metric.

>

The link doesnt show linked pairs. Linked servers can equate or surpass blackgate. Still BG singularly doubles that of the average server and linked pairs dont make up the difference due to lack of organization and time used to make a solid effort to compete.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

 

> And what if I command without a pin. You saying that you will hinder a alliance size or world size based off someones commanding potency. Makes me not want to wear a pin what so ever.

How would you expect them to identify someone "commanding without a pin?" They also don't measure "good" versus "bad" commanders, which surely matters.

 

There's only so much any model can do to predict what would happen if this group is paired with that against another group paired with two others. All ANet can do is identify the factors that are highly correlated with even matches. Hours played is clearly going to be the biggest factor; everything else is going to be used to modify how they use hours played. People who tag up are going to have a disproportionate influence over people who don't; guilds that play together will impact outcomes more than guilds that play at varying times. Big guilds with high rep will dominate over even tight-knit smaller ones with high rep.

 

My hope is that they identify _more_ factors than they plan to use on day 1 and setup the formulas so they can tweak ratios and breakpoints **and** add (or remove) factors from the formula, without having to overhaul the system again.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > And BG had everyone beat by double.

> > Careful. The chart shows that BG only doubled playtime of half the other other worlds. They beat out every world substantially, but doubled only the average. That makes it a useful metric for explaining why BG is never linked, why they win their match-ups most of the time, and why they remain in T1. It's also helpful in explaining why "world" is no longer a useful tool in building even match-ups.

> >

> > Let's be careful, however, not to overstate the actual numbers or the importance of the metric.

> >

> The link doesnt show linked pairs. Linked servers can equate or surpass blackgate. Still BG singularly doubles that of the average server and linked pairs dont make up the difference due to lack of organization and time used to make a solid effort to compete.

 

BG doesn't play against the "average" server.

Of course it's relevant that BG doubles the average; it's just misleading to say "BG had everyone beat by double." That statement is not supported by the evidence in the chart.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

>

> > And what if I command without a pin. You saying that you will hinder a alliance size or world size based off someones commanding potency. Makes me not want to wear a pin what so ever.

> How would you expect them to identify someone "commanding without a pin?" They also don't measure "good" versus "bad" commanders, which surely matters.

>

> There's only so much any model can do to predict what would happen if this group is paired with that against another group paired with two others. All ANet can do is identify the factors that are highly correlated with even matches. Hours played is clearly going to be the biggest factor; everything else is going to be used to modify how they use hours played. People who tag up are going to have a disproportionate influence over people who don't; guilds that play together will impact outcomes more than guilds that play at varying times. Big guilds with high rep will dominate over even tight-knit smaller ones with high rep.

>

> My hope is that they identify _more_ factors than they plan to use on day 1 and setup the formulas so they can tweak ratios and breakpoints **and** add (or remove) factors from the formula, without having to overhaul the system again.

 

I dont expect them to identify someone commanding without a pin which is why I think this metric is a terrible idea. Guilds already command without pins. We have an entire server that is very well known to swarm without a pin. For them to hinder commanders and increase they're play hours for helping their community, when they dont have to and when they're playing the same time as everyone else is unfair and because of this, more people will choose not to wear a public pin. But that will not stop them for continually commanding. Overall this is a very bad thing to track and when you bring in the coordination of alliances .

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

What if i have 50 players all running a commander pin. goofing off in wvw(this has happened) what is Arena Net going to do? increase everyones play time by 50?

Of course this is a flawed example but you get the point. Pins are used for strategy and coordination. They should not be used to determine server status or or they shouldn't increase someones play time for wearing one.

[MachineManXX.9746]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > @"Tolmos.8395" said:

> > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > > > There has been a lot of discussion about the player “evaluation.” We already use play hours to determine population status of a world. With this system, moving people around ever two months we would like to track a few more things that can help us distribute players more effectively. One thing we are looking at tracking is commanding. Commanders are a big part of WvW no matter if your prefer scouting, roaming, running with a havoc squad or the zerg. Commanders are not the only piece to the WvW puzzle but they are a big piece. We would use commander time and squad sizes to determine a scaler to that commander players play time. For example, these are not the real values but I am not even a full cup of coffee in so for my sake I am going to make the math easy, PlayerA, PlayerB and PlayerC all play for roughly 100 hours a week. PlayerA commands smaller havoc squads, PlayerB is a PUG zerg commander, and PlayerC does not command. For all the time a commander is commanding squads let us say of more than two and less than size ten we’ll count those hours at a one and a half times multiplier and higher than ten we’ll count it at two times. If Player A were always commanding, in the small squad range, while playing their time, adjusted hours would be 150 hours. If PlayerB were always commanding, in the large squad range, while playing, their adjusted hours would be 200. Since Player C did not command their hours, remain the same at 100. Doing this can help us get more even matches. WvW is not completely a number of bodies game. A hundred veteran players will always beat a hundred casual players.

> > >

> > > And what if I command without a pin. You saying that you will hinder a alliance size or world size based off someones commanding potency. Makes me not want to wear a pin what so ever.

> >

> > Honest question here but... why? I mean, what detriment is there to wearing the pin if you are already doing everything else?

>

> if they are going to add on 50 more hours to my play time because i command large forces simply for wearing a pin they will *adjust* me, the preferred way for any fighter is to run without a pin anyway. People will start to do this more so and I will to because its unfair to add on hours played just because I'm an effective commander. Its even more harsh to limit said world, guild or alliance based off someone commanding.

 

It absolutely is fair. It's not just you getting higher hours, it's ALL commanders. All worlds will be calculated with the commanders getting higher hours. It can't get any fairer. And if you choose to run without a pin, then so be it. You will be less effective.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"MachineManXX.9746" said:

> > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > @"Tolmos.8395" said:

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

> > > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > > > > There has been a lot of discussion about the player “evaluation.” We already use play hours to determine population status of a world. With this system, moving people around ever two months we would like to track a few more things that can help us distribute players more effectively. One thing we are looking at tracking is commanding. Commanders are a big part of WvW no matter if your prefer scouting, roaming, running with a havoc squad or the zerg. Commanders are not the only piece to the WvW puzzle but they are a big piece. We would use commander time and squad sizes to determine a scaler to that commander players play time. For example, these are not the real values but I am not even a full cup of coffee in so for my sake I am going to make the math easy, PlayerA, PlayerB and PlayerC all play for roughly 100 hours a week. PlayerA commands smaller havoc squads, PlayerB is a PUG zerg commander, and PlayerC does not command. For all the time a commander is commanding squads let us say of more than two and less than size ten we’ll count those hours at a one and a half times multiplier and higher than ten we’ll count it at two times. If Player A were always commanding, in the small squad range, while playing their time, adjusted hours would be 150 hours. If PlayerB were always commanding, in the large squad range, while playing, their adjusted hours would be 200. Since Player C did not command their hours, remain the same at 100. Doing this can help us get more even matches. WvW is not completely a number of bodies game. A hundred veteran players will always beat a hundred casual players.

> > > >

> > > > And what if I command without a pin. You saying that you will hinder a alliance size or world size based off someones commanding potency. Makes me not want to wear a pin what so ever.

> > >

> > > Honest question here but... why? I mean, what detriment is there to wearing the pin if you are already doing everything else?

> >

> > if they are going to add on 50 more hours to my play time because i command large forces simply for wearing a pin they will *adjust* me, the preferred way for any fighter is to run without a pin anyway. People will start to do this more so and I will to because its unfair to add on hours played just because I'm an effective commander. Its even more harsh to limit said world, guild or alliance based off someone commanding.

>

> It absolutely is fair. It's not just you getting higher hours, it's ALL commanders. All worlds will be calculated with the commanders getting higher hours. It can't get any fairer. And if you choose to run without a pin, then so be it. You will be less effective.

 

so If I dont wear a pin and be just as effective because lets say I have a well oiled coordinated alliance. I get away from being adjusted with 50 more play hours. Got cha.

[Swamurabi.7890]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

>

> > And what if I command without a pin. You saying that you will hinder a alliance size or world size based off someones commanding potency. Makes me not want to wear a pin what so ever.

> How would you expect them to identify someone "commanding without a pin?" They also don't measure "good" versus "bad" commanders, which surely matters.

>

> There's only so much any model can do to predict what would happen if this group is paired with that against another group paired with two others. All ANet can do is identify the factors that are highly correlated with even matches. Hours played is clearly going to be the biggest factor; everything else is going to be used to modify how they use hours played. People who tag up are going to have a disproportionate influence over people who don't; guilds that play together will impact outcomes more than guilds that play at varying times. Big guilds with high rep will dominate over even tight-knit smaller ones with high rep.

>

> My hope is that they identify _more_ factors than they plan to use on day 1 and setup the formulas so they can tweak ratios and breakpoints **and** add (or remove) factors from the formula, without having to overhaul the system again.

 

The two issues I see running tagless is

 

1. In the new world restructuring, not only do you want to balance play hours but you would want to balance commanders.

2. Maps with no tags will be the biggest deterrent to WvW growth because players look for a pin when they enter the map.

 

We've all told new players, "go to a map, find pin, follow pin, get on TS".

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> What if i have 50 players all running a commander pin. goofing off in wvw(this has happened) what is Arena Net going to do? increase everyones play time by 50?

 

They are going to look at the numbers and figure out if it's a useful tool for predicting outcomes. If it is, of course they are going to use it. If not, they won't.

 

You make it seem as if squads of 50 goofing off are equally likely than squads of 50 crushing opponents. They are both _possible_ situations, but one is far more likely than the other... and even if it isn't, ANet's has the data to figure that out and change the metrics accordingly. It wouldn't surprise me, for example, if squads with a core of 25 + 10 more (adding & dropping) affect warscores far more than squads with 10 core + 40 (adding & dropping). If that's the case, ANet might set a smaller multiplier for commanders with huge squads than those with smaller/tighter squads.

 

The point is that any model is going to be an approximation of what's really going on in the game. If it's useful in predicting results, they'll use it; if not they won't. And we won't every have access to anything close to enough data to evaluate whether ANet's doing that well or not, whether they missed something big or coincidence plays a bigger factor than they can handle.

 

Netflix can't tell you for certain if you're going to enjoy a movie; they can just predict whether that's likely to be true or not. And that's all that's reasonable to expect from ANet: that this will allow them to do a better job of arranging match ups, compared to the tools they have now.

[Yolaus Kriff.3465]

Overall, this proposed change seems positive. Thank you Anet for finally taking some decisive action to balance population and freshen up WvW.

There is a definite downside to losing some of the sense of community, but I feel it is 95% addressed by the alliance system. I forsee many alliances being created that try to maintain the same sense of community the old servers had. If you want to preserve your community, take action **now **and band with other like-minded players/guilds. 500-1000 members is a pretty good size, I'd imagine alliances of 4-5 guilds at least(with room for casual guilds/scout guilds). Dust off your people skills and make some alliances.

Are you a roamer who hates zergs? Fine, make a roaming guild, and ally that guild in an alliance. Scouts and roamers are always needed. The idea that WvW will turn into Eotm karma farming is just without any basis.

 

Just my initial thoughts,

Kriff

[NEW] Learn to WvW Here

Northern Shiverpeaks

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> >

> > > And what if I command without a pin. You saying that you will hinder a alliance size or world size based off someones commanding potency. Makes me not want to wear a pin what so ever.

> > How would you expect them to identify someone "commanding without a pin?" They also don't measure "good" versus "bad" commanders, which surely matters.

> >

> > There's only so much any model can do to predict what would happen if this group is paired with that against another group paired with two others. All ANet can do is identify the factors that are highly correlated with even matches. Hours played is clearly going to be the biggest factor; everything else is going to be used to modify how they use hours played. People who tag up are going to have a disproportionate influence over people who don't; guilds that play together will impact outcomes more than guilds that play at varying times. Big guilds with high rep will dominate over even tight-knit smaller ones with high rep.

> >

> > My hope is that they identify _more_ factors than they plan to use on day 1 and setup the formulas so they can tweak ratios and breakpoints **and** add (or remove) factors from the formula, without having to overhaul the system again.

>

> The two issues I see running tagless is

>

> 1. In the new world restructuring, not only do you want to balance play hours but you would want to balance commanders.

> 2. Maps with no tags will be the biggest deterrent to WvW growth because players look for a pin when they enter the map.

>

> We've all told new players, "go to a map, find pin, follow pin, get on TS".

>

 

Yeah I thought they would want to encourage more pins not sway them from pinning at all.

[MachineManXX.9746]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > @"MachineManXX.9746" said:

> > > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > > @"Tolmos.8395" said:

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

> > > > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > > > > > There has been a lot of discussion about the player “evaluation.” We already use play hours to determine population status of a world. With this system, moving people around ever two months we would like to track a few more things that can help us distribute players more effectively. One thing we are looking at tracking is commanding. Commanders are a big part of WvW no matter if your prefer scouting, roaming, running with a havoc squad or the zerg. Commanders are not the only piece to the WvW puzzle but they are a big piece. We would use commander time and squad sizes to determine a scaler to that commander players play time. For example, these are not the real values but I am not even a full cup of coffee in so for my sake I am going to make the math easy, PlayerA, PlayerB and PlayerC all play for roughly 100 hours a week. PlayerA commands smaller havoc squads, PlayerB is a PUG zerg commander, and PlayerC does not command. For all the time a commander is commanding squads let us say of more than two and less than size ten we’ll count those hours at a one and a half times multiplier and higher than ten we’ll count it at two times. If Player A were always commanding, in the small squad range, while playing their time, adjusted hours would be 150 hours. If PlayerB were always commanding, in the large squad range, while playing, their adjusted hours would be 200. Since Player C did not command their hours, remain the same at 100. Doing this can help us get more even matches. WvW is not completely a number of bodies game. A hundred veteran players will always beat a hundred casual players.

> > > > >

> > > > > And what if I command without a pin. You saying that you will hinder a alliance size or world size based off someones commanding potency. Makes me not want to wear a pin what so ever.

> > > >

> > > > Honest question here but... why? I mean, what detriment is there to wearing the pin if you are already doing everything else?

> > >

> > > if they are going to add on 50 more hours to my play time because i command large forces simply for wearing a pin they will *adjust* me, the preferred way for any fighter is to run without a pin anyway. People will start to do this more so and I will to because its unfair to add on hours played just because I'm an effective commander. Its even more harsh to limit said world, guild or alliance based off someone commanding.

> >

> > It absolutely is fair. It's not just you getting higher hours, it's ALL commanders. All worlds will be calculated with the commanders getting higher hours. It can't get any fairer. And if you choose to run without a pin, then so be it. You will be less effective.

>

> so If I dont wear a pin and be just as effective because lets say I have a well oiled coordinated alliance. I get away from being adjusted with 50 more play hours. Got cha.

 

Say what you will, but you simply will not be as effective. Small advantages that occur while following a pin add up eventually.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"MachineManXX.9746" said:

> > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > > @"MachineManXX.9746" said:

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

> > > > > @"Tolmos.8395" said:

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

> > > > > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > > > > > > There has been a lot of discussion about the player “evaluation.” We already use play hours to determine population status of a world. With this system, moving people around ever two months we would like to track a few more things that can help us distribute players more effectively. One thing we are looking at tracking is commanding. Commanders are a big part of WvW no matter if your prefer scouting, roaming, running with a havoc squad or the zerg. Commanders are not the only piece to the WvW puzzle but they are a big piece. We would use commander time and squad sizes to determine a scaler to that commander players play time. For example, these are not the real values but I am not even a full cup of coffee in so for my sake I am going to make the math easy, PlayerA, PlayerB and PlayerC all play for roughly 100 hours a week. PlayerA commands smaller havoc squads, PlayerB is a PUG zerg commander, and PlayerC does not command. For all the time a commander is commanding squads let us say of more than two and less than size ten we’ll count those hours at a one and a half times multiplier and higher than ten we’ll count it at two times. If Player A were always commanding, in the small squad range, while playing their time, adjusted hours would be 150 hours. If PlayerB were always commanding, in the large squad range, while playing, their adjusted hours would be 200. Since Player C did not command their hours, remain the same at 100. Doing this can help us get more even matches. WvW is not completely a number of bodies game. A hundred veteran players will always beat a hundred casual players.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And what if I command without a pin. You saying that you will hinder a alliance size or world size based off someones commanding potency. Makes me not want to wear a pin what so ever.

> > > > >

> > > > > Honest question here but... why? I mean, what detriment is there to wearing the pin if you are already doing everything else?

> > > >

> > > > if they are going to add on 50 more hours to my play time because i command large forces simply for wearing a pin they will *adjust* me, the preferred way for any fighter is to run without a pin anyway. People will start to do this more so and I will to because its unfair to add on hours played just because I'm an effective commander. Its even more harsh to limit said world, guild or alliance based off someone commanding.

> > >

> > > It absolutely is fair. It's not just you getting higher hours, it's ALL commanders. All worlds will be calculated with the commanders getting higher hours. It can't get any fairer. And if you choose to run without a pin, then so be it. You will be less effective.

> >

> > so If I dont wear a pin and be just as effective because lets say I have a well oiled coordinated alliance. I get away from being adjusted with 50 more play hours. Got cha.

>

> Say what you will, but you simply will not be as effective. Small advantages that occur while following a pin add up eventually.

 

That depends on the size of my guild and alliance and coordinated folk around me.

[Caedmon.6798]

> @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> WvW is not completely a number of bodies game. A hundred veteran players will always beat a hundred casual players.

 

This does not make sense. Wvw is not a number of bodies game where afterwards you make a comparison between two equal sizes,which the only difference being Casual Vs Veteran ( well no shit what happens ).WvW IS all about numbers and theres no denying it, a more realistic version would be 15 veterans vs 40 - 50 Casuals.Its a shame you people never do anything when it comes to roamers ( People running with Less than 5,anything above is not roaming ) who Always fight outmanned fights because everyone else is running with a higher "number of bodies" where even when doing good,downed state comes to the rescue or more "bodies" join the side of people who are already outmanning the few roamers. Statements like these make me realize roaming is not something you people ever do or even look at.Its been getting worse for roamers each patch,people stop playing,including myself and you only got the condi spammers and the blobbers left pvding doors and having a contest of who can spamm more aoe's.

 

WvW is in a disgusting state and the underlying problems wont be touched,this new restructuring system will do more bad than it will do good.

 

 

*Question; Can i give someone the right in my guild to make these changes necessary as i will stop playing this game or is only the leader of a guild able to do so ?*

[CETheLucid.3964]

> @"Tolmos.8395" said:

> Honest question here but... why? I mean, what detriment is there to wearing the pin if you are already doing everything else?

 

A lot of guilds are organized in TS and the commander there will command their guild without a tag so that randoms don't join up with them and as not to interfere or take away players from other commanders that may be organized on the field.

 

It's a non-issue however as these same players will almost certainly align and organize themselves together and consequently be kept together with who they want to be with to do what they do now. Probably not with the exact over (or under) population that they've come to expect, but they will none the less be together with who they typically do their WvW fun times with.

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> And what if I command without a pin. You saying that you will hinder a alliance size or world size based off someones commanding potency. Makes me not want to wear a pin what so ever.

 

They could probably also look at who throws siege in a tagged squad or even who is throwing siege in a tagless squad. You only hurt yourself and any community building opportunities if you run a tagless squad.

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> What if i have 50 players all running a commander pin. goofing off in wvw(this has happened) what is Arena Net going to do? increase everyones play time by 50?

 

They'll probably require your squad to be more than just 1 person to count.

 

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

> @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> > What if i have 50 players all running a commander pin. goofing off in wvw(this has happened) what is Arena Net going to do? increase everyones play time by 50?

>

>

> They could probably also look at who throws siege in a tagged squad or even who is throwing siege in a tagless squad. You only hurt yourself and any community building opportunities if you run a tagless squad.

 

thats not true. As a guild whose ran tagless and tagged plenty of times there is a tactical advantage to running without a pin. If I'm large enough as well in my own squad, I do not need a pin. Meanwhile, a large number of guilds actually prefers to run this way as people pointed out. This will continually invoke that. Arena Net has once said they don't want private commander tags because they want to promote everyone playing together. Well this goes against that. If they want to promote public commanders, they shouldn't hinder them for their efforts.

[Ben K.6238]

> @"Skylark.1274" said:

>

> So for clarification, in order to claim and slot tactics/upgrades, would a guild need to flag themselves as wvw guild?

>

> Also regarding guild claiming...

> I have a small number of guildies that are WvW focused. Because they play during off NA hours they may decide to choose different WvW guilds as their primary.

>

> So say Guildie A joins a WvW guild that gets sorted to World Luxon. And Guildie B joins a WvW guild that gets sorted to World Kurzick. And they each decide to rep my guild, NOT their WvW primary in WvW.

>

> Luxon and Kurzick worlds are matched up as enemies during a season. Can Guildie A claim a tower on EBG for my non-wvw guild and Guildie B claim a different tower on EBG AT THE SAME TIME as Guildie A's claim for my non-wvw guild?

>

> Sorry, I know it is a confusing question. I am just looking a potential system challenges.

>

>

 

Already tested this with the present system. A guild can only claim one asset at a time on any map, regardless of which server's asset it is. Claiming a new one will remove the claim from the existing one, even if it's owned by a different server.