World Restructuring

[Kovu.7560]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > > @"hmsgoddess.3869" said:

> > > I'd like to make a suggestion in regards to alliances and number cap. As a guild leader I am in charge of making alliances that benefits my guild, that said this means I need to know how many of my guild members are choosing my guild as their WvW guild, as you can imagine one larger guilds this is a guild leader nightmare. I need to know how many are choosing my guild as their WvW guild. When the time comes, I do hope that ANET places some sort of UI that guild leaders can see as to whom is selecting their guild as the WvW guild choice. A simple 50/100 have selected this guild for WvW is fine it would at least give guild leaders a base number to foster alliances with. Just my 2 cents.

> >

> > There will be UI to help manage the guild aspects of this change so you'll *defiantly* be able to see guild members that have picked your guild as their WvW guild.

>

> There's that word again. :joy:

 

[image](https://image.ibb.co/mSYmac/guild.gif "https://image.ibb.co/mSYmac/guild.gif")

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Thelgar.7214" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> > > > @"Thelgar.7214" said:

> > > > I have four accounts, two of them with both expansions and with characters in legendary/ascended gear. It looks like I'll be able to swap those two accounts to play with a different WvW guild every 8 weeks. So, I could play with Dcon on my main account and WL on my secondary account for eight weeks, then swap so I can play with WL on my main account and Dcon on my secondary account for eight weeks. And all I need to do is switch which guild is my WvW guild for each account. Is that switch going to cost me anything?

> > >

> > > On the cost, "No". You will have to do the guild switch before the last week of the season. It will not take effect until the start of the next season.

> > > Transfers only cost on the restructure if you decide to move during the season and if the world is not full.

> >

> > Except if the guild is in an alliance, and that alliance is full, the switch may keep you from playing with them. Not sure how they will prioritize, but I am sure done form of a wait list will exist for full alliances... though that is speculation.

>

> I would hope an alliance I'm part of would recognize that I'm the same person and switching accounts wouldn't move me to the bottom of a list. :)

 

:smile:

Would argue they would like to do that. I am not sure they would have a choice. Would it be an automatic queue? That would be my question to the process.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Grim West.3194" said:

> > @"Isbot.6701" said:

> > I have been on Ferguson's Crossing (FC) since the game came out and WvW has been my favorite game mode for the last 4+ years. Last week we had a discussion of these changes that included around 40 active FC WvW players in our discord channel.

> >

> > The one thing that was very clear is that all of those who communicated wanted to continue to play together. Since then I have talked to a number of FC people and their response has been the same. They want to continue to play with the FC people that they have gotten to know over the years.

> >

> > FC is mostly made up of many smaller guilds. (I came up with 25+ off the top of my head that I have seen in the last 2 weeks) and most people identify very strongly with their guild. To clarify what I mean by smaller guilds, most have 2-8 active WvW members and the larger FC guilds generally have 15-25 active WvW members.

> >

> > For FC to continue to play together one of a couple of things will happen.

> >

> > 1) The number of guilds in an alliance is set to a high number so we can all join together as we are.

> > 2) The above doesn't happen and we at FC need to form our own "server" guild and invite everybody who wants to continue to play together.

> >

> > If scenario 2 comes to pass I would ask that a 6th guild slot be added so people can stay in their current guilds and also join this new WvW guild.

> > Thank you very much for listening to our feedback and I look forward to more information on the new system as it is finalized and released.

> >

> > Able Sentry

>

> These are good suggestions.

>

> Don't see a reason to have limits to the amount of guilds in an alliance. Perhaps the devs can tell us why this is needed. But if they do limit the amount of guilds in an alliance then a sixth guild slot makes sense. Especially if it is exclusively for the WvW guild you represent. If a player doesn't have a WvW only guild then it would remain open. Which has the added benefit of subliminally encouraging players to choose a WvW only guild.

 

There is a reason and its mmr.

 

If you have say 30 small guilds that want to be in an alliance that means you only got 1 alliance to slot into a world.

 

If these where 6 alliances, you got much more flexibility as each could be put in where needed to balance against the opponents. All 6 could be on one world, or spread on 2, or 6.

 

This is what make the new system work for population balance... so yeah thats the reason.

 

The only reason we even need alliances is just because of small guilds. The new system would work just as good with just guilds and no alliances period. Problem is that forces max size guilds. Alliance allow guilds to group up, like a 5 man party. You dont want too big parties.

[archerspk.7394]

i LOVE this idea

[TheQuickFox.3826]

**Disclaimer**: I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but I don't feel like reading through 37 pages of this topic to find out.

 

What about guildless players or players who are still in an inactive guild?

 

My guild is mostly inactive and I mostly play with random commanders and some fellow players of my Ruins of Surmia (EU) server. I might just as well leave my guild. What does the change mean to me? Will WvW still be as accessible to random players (not in a guild or ally). Will there be as many open commanders who accept players regardless of alliance? Is there a way to continue to play with the players of my Ruins of Surmia server who i frequently come across?

[Dravenultimate.6983]

I only just started playing three months ago and honestly I never did WvW or even PvP so what's lost I can't ever miss what I never experienced.

[Swamurabi.7890]

> @"TheQuickFox.3826" said:

> **Disclaimer**: I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but I don't feel like reading through 37 pages of this topic to find out.

>

> What about guildless players or players who are still in an inactive guild?

>

> My guild is mostly inactive and I mostly play with random commanders and some fellow players of my Ruins of Surmia (EU) server. I might just as well leave my guild. What does the change mean to me? Will WvW still be as accessible to random players (not in a guild or ally). Will there be as many open commanders who accept players regardless of alliance? Is there a way to continue to play with the players of my Ruins of Surmia server who i frequently come across?

 

If you are guildless then you will be assigned a world when you enter WvW.

If you are in an inactive WvW guild and you select that as your WvW guild, when you enter WvW, you will be assigned a world and anyone else in the guild that also selects that inactive WvW guild as their WvW guild will join you in the same world.

 

If you wish to play with other Ruins of Surmia players then in the next few months you should join a guild that you like so you can continue to play with them when the restructuring is rolled out. Otherwise you could be placed on any world every 8 weeks and you'd have to look for a guild to run with, assuming that they want you around. My guess is that some guilds will stop accepting players once they can have 50 players on every raid. Some will continue to accept players. I even expect some to act as a holding guild and give specific roles to players that are from separate guilds but want to play together on the same world/alliance.

[Sesbog.8705]

If you look at the update without euphoria, then we'll get the same maps, the same gameplay, maybe the same colors and

new "server" names

 

If you are already tired of the current www, after the update you will get it the same.

 

They will just make a new skeleton, on which this boring mode will hang out.

[Rod.6581]

> @"Shiera.3152" said:

> I have a couple of questions I really need answered before I decide which side of the fence I sit on with this issue:

>

> 1. _Why would any guild ever NOT set themselves as a WvW guild?_

>

 

Personal bank guilds, guilds made by people in same country/region to stay in touch while playing in their main guild etc.

 

[Euryon.9248]

> @"Rod.6581" said:

> > @"Shiera.3152" said:

> > I have a couple of questions I really need answered before I decide which side of the fence I sit on with this issue:

> >

> > 1. _Why would any guild ever NOT set themselves as a WvW guild?_

> >

>

> Personal bank guilds, guilds made by people in same country/region to stay in touch while playing in their main guild etc.

>

 

You're missing the point. The question isn't "when would it be a moot point to set the wvw flag" (e.g., personal bank guild), but when would it have costs or negative repercussions to set the flag to wvw.

 

So far I haven't seen any dev supply any such reason.

[Euryon.9248]

> @"Sesbog.8705" said:

> If you look at the update without euphoria, then we'll get the same maps, the same gameplay, maybe the same colors and

new "server" names

>

> If you are already tired of the current www, after the update you will get it the same.

>

> They will just make a new skeleton, on which this boring mode will hang out.

 

If you mean the low-level experience of running around solo, with a havoc guild, or in a zerg -- you're mostly right, this proposal isn't about changing the specifics of on-the-ground gameplay. It will drastically change the framework, but it's not going to "ruin" or even significantly change havoc groups or solo roaming other than for T4 and maybe T3 players used to roaming around off hours with zero opposition. Those players will probably find more people on the map than they are currently accustomed to. But in a general sense, this isn't about updating maps/objectives/etc.

[Rod.6581]

> @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > @"Rod.6581" said:

> > > @"Shiera.3152" said:

> > > I have a couple of questions I really need answered before I decide which side of the fence I sit on with this issue:

> > >

> > > 1. _Why would any guild ever NOT set themselves as a WvW guild?_

> > >

> >

> > Personal bank guilds, guilds made by people in same country/region to stay in touch while playing in their main guild etc.

> >

>

> You're missing the point. The question isn't "when would it be a moot point to set the wvw flag" (e.g., personal bank guild), but when would it have costs or negative repercussions to set the flag to wvw.

>

> So far I haven't seen any dev supply any such reason.

 

It is an answer to the question. And with the amount of information and stage of this feature, only one we can be sure of.

[Draygo.9473]

> @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > @"Rod.6581" said:

> > > @"Shiera.3152" said:

> > > I have a couple of questions I really need answered before I decide which side of the fence I sit on with this issue:

> > >

> > > 1. _Why would any guild ever NOT set themselves as a WvW guild?_

> > >

> >

> > Personal bank guilds, guilds made by people in same country/region to stay in touch while playing in their main guild etc.

> >

>

> You're missing the point. The question isn't "when would it be a moot point to set the wvw flag" (e.g., personal bank guild), but when would it have costs or negative repercussions to set the flag to wvw.

>

> So far I haven't seen any dev supply any such reason.

 

I think you have a misunderstanding, its the players that choose which guild is their 'wvw' guild. You can be a member of 5 different guilds that do wvw, but you can only have one flagged as your wvw guild which will determine your matchup.

 

So I don't quite get your question here. The only thing that matters on the guild entity level is what alliance they are a part of, and that members that have flagged that guild as their 'wvw' guild go with that alliance from matchup to matchup. Each individual player will have to make their own choice as to what guild they flag to. So I really don't get why there should be any cost or repercussion.

[Euryon.9248]

> @"Draygo.9473" said:

> > @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > > @"Rod.6581" said:

> > > > @"Shiera.3152" said:

> > > > I have a couple of questions I really need answered before I decide which side of the fence I sit on with this issue:

> > > >

> > > > 1. _Why would any guild ever NOT set themselves as a WvW guild?_

> > > >

> > >

> > > Personal bank guilds, guilds made by people in same country/region to stay in touch while playing in their main guild etc.

> > >

> >

> > You're missing the point. The question isn't "when would it be a moot point to set the wvw flag" (e.g., personal bank guild), but when would it have costs or negative repercussions to set the flag to wvw.

> >

> > So far I haven't seen any dev supply any such reason.

>

> I think you have a misunderstanding, its the players that choose which guild is their 'wvw' guild. You can be a member of 5 different guilds that do wvw, but you can only have one flagged as your wvw guild which will determine your matchup.

>

> So I don't quite get your question here. The only thing that matters on the guild entity level is what alliance they are a part of, and that members that have flagged that guild as their 'wvw' guild go with that alliance from matchup to matchup. Each individual player will have to make their own choice as to what guild they flag to. So I really don't get why there should be any cost or repercussion.

 

That wasn't the original question that was being asked. The poster wanted to know why a given *guild* would not choose to set itself as a "wvw guild". Obviously there is not much point to doing so if the guild is nothing but a personal bank guild, but for any given guild that may be PvX and not necessarily wvw-focused, is there any drawback/cost/penalty/repercussion for setting your guild as a wvw guild so that the members of your guild can be grouped and join an alliance? That is the information being sought, and which, afaik, we haven't gotten a direct answer to yet. There may not be an answer until the implementation is further down the road.

 

The question wasn't about individuals choosing which guild to set as their one wvw guild.

[Eramonster.2718]

> @"Sesbog.8705" said:

> If you look at the update without euphoria, then we'll get the same maps, the same gameplay, maybe the same colors and

new "server" names

>

> If you are already tired of the current www, after the update you will get it the same.

>

> They will just make a new skeleton, on which this boring mode will hang out.

 

Pretty much. After all the system designed purpose (mentioned 4 in the FAQ) is mainly about coverage for competative play. No mention on changing anything else I believed?

[Norbe.7630]

> @"blackgamma.1809" said:

 

> 1. can we get exclusive titles to represent what world we used to represent when the new wvw system goes live?

 

i was hoping for an exclusive account bound server WvW finisher for each servers name motif

 

 

 

[Egg.6198]

I think is will breath fresh air into WvW and its always nice to see major attention given to the game mode.

 

My only concern is for players who play WvW regularly or as their only game mode but can not commit to guilds due to real life commitments or can not play at primetime (which most WvW guilds require) or are on the night cap team or roamers. A lot players are hardcore and only play WvW but are solo guild (bank) players or small groups/guilds that join tag/TS/Discord and would like to stick with the community they are with at present because it suits their needs. The alliance system looks like this would solve the problem and keep communities together as long as its not too strict and its flexible for the amount of guilds that can alliance.

 

An example would be guild A 50 players, guild B 30 players, guild C 20 players, guild D 15 players, guild E 5 players, guild F 2 players, guild G-Z 1 player. If the example is possible, flexibility with guild amounts in the alliance system to allow many guilds of lower number or solo hardcore WvW players to alliance with each other, I can see the system could work. The example above will keep communities together and players that regularly play together but not necessarily in one of the main WvW server guilds, if you see my point. If not then a lot of hardcore WvW solo guild players, small groups/guilds and roamers who join the community TS/Discord and join tag will be screwed and we will end up forced into communities we don't know, are not friendly with, not committed to and may eventually stop playing with for 8 weeks because we will end up stuck in a rut.

 

You could maybe argue the point to transfer to the alliance/community with the players you want to play with for 8 weeks but again there is limitations on that with population being fulls etc and paying to transfer will be forced onto players in this situation that has already been forced into the previous situation mentioned above. Players who get screwed will be double screwed with a pay wall every 8 weeks ££££$$$$$.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Norbe.7630" said:

> > @"blackgamma.1809" said:

>

> > 1. can we get exclusive titles to represent what world we used to represent when the new wvw system goes live?

>

> i was hoping for an exclusive account bound server WvW finisher for each servers name motif

>

>

>

 

That would be cool as kitten. Only it would mean making about 54 finishers..... Not sure almost doubling the current number of finishers would be workable...

 

But I'd sure as hell pay some Gems for it..,,

[Norbe.7630]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Norbe.7630" said:

> > > @"blackgamma.1809" said:

> >

> > > 1. can we get exclusive titles to represent what world we used to represent when the new wvw system goes live?

> >

> > i was hoping for an exclusive account bound server WvW finisher for each servers name motif

> >

> >

> >

>

> That would be cool as kitten. Only it would mean making about 54 finishers..... Not sure almost doubling the current number of finishers would be workable...

>

> But I'd sure as hell pay some Gems for it..,,

 

the design can be made by players and approved by anet so less work for anet

think of it as an art contest in memories of everyones' servers to commemorate your devotion to a server... (i can't remember the word in english about building a statue about it)

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FxjMdxTwag

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Norbe.7630" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Norbe.7630" said:

> > > > @"blackgamma.1809" said:

> > >

> > > > 1. can we get exclusive titles to represent what world we used to represent when the new wvw system goes live?

> > >

> > > i was hoping for an exclusive account bound server WvW finisher for each servers name motif

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > That would be cool as kitten. Only it would mean making about 54 finishers..... Not sure almost doubling the current number of finishers would be workable...

> >

> > But I'd sure as hell pay some Gems for it..,,

>

> the design can be made by players and approved by anet so less work for anet

> think of it as an art contest in memories of everyones' servers to commemorate your devotion to a server... (i can't remember the word in english about building a statue about it)

>

>

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FxjMdxTwag

 

Monument would be one.

 

That's a really good idea. I would love to see them do it.

[diamondgirl.6315]

> @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > @"Rod.6581" said:

> > > @"Shiera.3152" said:

> > > I have a couple of questions I really need answered before I decide which side of the fence I sit on with this issue:

> > >

> > > 1. _Why would any guild ever NOT set themselves as a WvW guild?_

> > >

> >

> > Personal bank guilds, guilds made by people in same country/region to stay in touch while playing in their main guild etc.

> >

>

> You're missing the point. The question isn't "when would it be a moot point to set the wvw flag" (e.g., personal bank guild), but when would it have costs or negative repercussions to set the flag to wvw.

>

> So far I haven't seen any dev supply any such reason.

 

Why should it have costs?

[Eroder.7698]

I guess this will be the end of WvW \ GW2 for a few folks.

[Threather.9354]

> @"Eroder.7698" said:

> I guess this will be the end of WvW \ GW2 for a few folks.

 

Every patch has its drama queens that will pull out the "I will quit the game now" card because they dont like the patch. In the end they dont quit.

[Euryon.9248]

> @"diamondgirl.6315" said:

> > @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > > @"Rod.6581" said:

> > > > @"Shiera.3152" said:

> > > > I have a couple of questions I really need answered before I decide which side of the fence I sit on with this issue:

> > > >

> > > > 1. _Why would any guild ever NOT set themselves as a WvW guild?_

> > > >

> > >

> > > Personal bank guilds, guilds made by people in same country/region to stay in touch while playing in their main guild etc.

> > >

> >

> > You're missing the point. The question isn't "when would it be a moot point to set the wvw flag" (e.g., personal bank guild), but when would it have costs or negative repercussions to set the flag to wvw.

> >

> > So far I haven't seen any dev supply any such reason.

>

> Why should it have costs?

 

Not suggesting that it should. I'd be fine if *every* guild could mark itself as a wvw guild. And if there are no other ramifications to doing so, why wouldn't they?

 

[diamondgirl.6315]

> @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > @"diamondgirl.6315" said:

> > > @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > > > @"Rod.6581" said:

> > > > > @"Shiera.3152" said:

> > > > > I have a couple of questions I really need answered before I decide which side of the fence I sit on with this issue:

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. _Why would any guild ever NOT set themselves as a WvW guild?_

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Personal bank guilds, guilds made by people in same country/region to stay in touch while playing in their main guild etc.

> > > >

> > >

> > > You're missing the point. The question isn't "when would it be a moot point to set the wvw flag" (e.g., personal bank guild), but when would it have costs or negative repercussions to set the flag to wvw.

> > >

> > > So far I haven't seen any dev supply any such reason.

> >

> > Why should it have costs?

>

> Not suggesting that it should. I'd be fine if *every* guild could mark itself as a wvw guild. And if there are no other ramifications to doing so, why wouldn't they?

>

 

Honestly, the easiest reason that comes to mind is that a lot of the PVE people I know never ever even think of WVW and it simply wouldn't occur to them to do it. That's not really a reason NOT to, per se, but I bet it won't occur to plenty of people.