World Restructuring

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

I don't care anything about bags/loot trains. Anet could take it all away, and I would still play. That's not why I play.

 

Personally, I am also not interested in joining a "community guild" - one that recruits "almost everyone" (still exclusionary) or a quasi militaristic "fight guild" that demands blind cookie cutter allegiance and builds essentially requiring nothing more than a good follower with a tank build (who never dies above all else) and who is willing or able to listen ad nauseum to music not of their choice and mindless toxic banter/commands on TS.

 

I am a solo pug and I have skill. As a full ascender viper scourge and full ascended zerker chrono and full ascended meta warrior/ele/guard/etc (Ive played them all) I help to make it so that many people in zerg enjoy many bags and our server has many wins.

 

So, to answer you, as to me personally, I am skilled, and I don't want to be part of a guild and I am not sure any of them will have me anyway. So now what?

 

And btw, I am just one player. There are many similarly situated for many different reasons. What do we do with them all? If we force them into guilds, whatever their composition/formality level (whatever that is), they might/will quit. And worse, if no one or few guilds will have them - why force them to humiliate themselves into begging for a guild they don't want to be in the first place? Why are we forcing the issue?

 

Can't Anet and the community think of something better than a system that at its core encourages mindless/resentful affiliation or worse, abusive exclusionary alienation and eventual attrition?

[Shining One.1635]

Nothing is being forced. I'm primarily a solo player myself. I'm not in an active guild (I still rep a dead guild for purposes of claim benefits). I don't see how this upcoming change negatively affects me. I can and will continue to play exactly the way I do now after the change. Am I missing something?

[Dralor.3701]

This will be the best thing that has happened to wvw in ages, only people defending the current status quo are the bandwagon players.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> If pugs don't want to join guilds on their current server, and just randomly joining pug zergs going on, then what does it matter what world they play on? If they are indeed skilled then I'm sure there are guilds that would take them regardless of the other hurdles listed, guilds are always looking for skilled players willing to be part of a team.

>

> The question is that "skilled pug" really looking to be part of a community whether that be a fight guild(one that wants skill and expects to follow their gear/spec rules) or a community guild(one that recruits almost everyone and you can play however you want), or are they just looking to jump on for two hours and join the loot train zerg? If it's for the loot train well then the only important thing that will change is the commander, and that already partly happens when relinks are done every 2 months.

 

Because we are used to playing with guilds and commanders in a cohesive environment that elicits camaraderie. IF we make it random, that cohesion is lost. I don't want to lose that, I also don't want to lose my identity as being on BG. I also don't want to play with guilds and other players from servers I have come to despise. I also don't want to play in a guild and have to adhere to rules. So is there any compromise or concessions or place for someone like me? or am i just done w/the game mode after 6 years of playing?

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Shining One.1635" said:

> Nothing is being forced. I'm primarily a solo player myself. I'm not in an active guild (I still rep a dead guild for purposes of claim benefits). I don't see how this upcoming change negatively affects me. I can and will continue to play exactly the way I do now after the change. Am I missing something?

 

No. You aren't missing anything. It's change, and there are many who hate change.

 

People who play solo will only need to get used to different people running around them every 8 weeks. Even alliances will

Have to adjust each 8 weeks (as currently noted, an alliance would only be as big as 20% of the world cap), though their core will be familiar.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

>

> Can't Anet and the community think of something better ?

Can't you?

 

As to the rest, if you simply cannot find any group to suit you, one will be assigned. Pugs will be the mortar between the stones (guilds) evening things out. It seems a better situation than the dogpile on the winner situation we've had since launch.

Heck, back at launch guilds like the one I was in routinely had to move just to play. You bought the game, so did I.. is the group of purchasers less than the one?

Does your desire to be on the winning server mean I have to move ahead of the queues you create after my group boosted that server into a good position?

 

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

> @"Shining One.1635" said:

> Nothing is being forced. I'm primarily a solo player myself. I'm not in an active guild (I still rep a dead guild for purposes of claim benefits). I don't see how this upcoming change negatively affects me. I can and will continue to play exactly the way I do now after the change. Am I missing something?

 

Yes. You basically wont be able to play in wvw unless u r part of a guild that is accepted by an alliance. So if guild numbers per alliance are capped (which I suspect they will be as it that was it how it operated in GW1 and it seems improbable that endless guilds can join an alliance) your dead guild (ie - solo player) will be excluded and you will have to disband it (or not use it in wvw) and join another guild that is part of the alliance (ie- exclusionary play is encouraged - ie - we don't want you/your guild/your build/your whatever). If you don't join another guild that is an accepted part of an alliance (or if you don't want to join a guild at all) or if they won't have you or your guild for whatever reasons, then what happens to you?

 

Where do you play? How do you play? Who do you play with? Especially if you are not a solo ganker/roamer but are outfitted/built for zerg play?

 

No accommodation has been made for the multitudes of players (or even just a minority few) similarly situated. No one has proposed a single solution as to what to do in this situation, except to let the players go bye bye forever. Kicked to the curb so to speak.

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

Why wouldn't you be able to play in WvW if you aren't part of an alliance or guild?

 

No where is that stated. And the original diagram has individual players listed for the 'worlds'.

 

Please don't spread falsehoods.

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

> @"Dralor.3701" said:

> This will be the best thing that has happened to wvw in ages, only people defending the current status quo are the bandwagon players.

 

Not sure what a "bandwagon player" is or what that/they look like in wvw. I will watch out for them tho - they sound like people who will have nowhere to go under the new system. What will we do with them then?

 

Btw, I am not defending the current status quo. I am amenable to much change in wvw, just not the proposed exclusionary-based system.

[Shining One.1635]

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> If you don't join another guild that is an accepted part of an alliance (or if you don't want to join a guild at all) or if they won't have you or your guild for whatever reasons, then what happens to you?

I assume I'll be placed somewhat randomly on a server that has space for me. I fail to see how this is bad. I'm on a link server, so I'm used to host changes.

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> Where do you play? How do you play? Who do you play with? Especially if you are not a solo ganker/roamer but are outfitted/built for zerg play?

I've been paired with many host servers. I've never had trouble finding a zerg to join in those moments I chose to join one during "prime time" for that host.

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> No accommodation has been made for the multitudes of players (or even just a minority few) similarly situated. No one has proposed a single solution as to what to do in this situation, except to let the players go bye bye forever. Kicked to the curb so to speak.

We are not being kicked to the curb. We will still be able to play. We will still have zergs to join.

 

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> Why wouldn't you be able to play in WvW if you aren't part of an alliance or guild?

>

> No where is that stated. And the original diagram has individual players listed for the 'worlds'.

>

> Please don't spread falsehoods.

 

I am not spreading falsehoods. Perhaps my statements were open to misinterpretation. Let me clarify my concerns so people do not get the wrong impression.

 

You will be able to play, it just won't be the same experience that people in guilds will have. It also won't be what people understand as, or have come to associate with, the wvw experience.

 

It won't be wvw for pugs any longer - it will be EOTM for pugs, yet at the same time, it will still be wvw for guild players. So not the same thing, even tho we are all on the same game mode playing the same game for the same purchase price. Its punitive. It won't resemble wvw as it now exists for these pug players, and it won't resemble a new and improved wvw version for pugs as it will be for guild players. It will be nothing more than an alienating, non cohesive, EOTM experience for pugs, while guild players continue right on having fun.

 

This reminds me exactly of the same argument and issues that arose when Anet decided in spvp to allow hot join solo pug players to be teamed up against organized TS team players battling their way up the leaderboards - guess who got trounced and guess who was penalized forever by the experience (once your rank was tanked it was never able to be raised as it followed you thru all the seasons). This is the same thing here - once solo without a guild, your experience is hollow and looks nothing like the experience guild players are having - yet you are all following the same zerg/commander fighting for the same cause and playing at the same time for the same price.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> > @"Shining One.1635" said:

> > Nothing is being forced. I'm primarily a solo player myself. I'm not in an active guild (I still rep a dead guild for purposes of claim benefits). I don't see how this upcoming change negatively affects me. I can and will continue to play exactly the way I do now after the change. Am I missing something?

>

> Yes. You basically wont be able to play in wvw unless u r part of a guild that is accepted by an alliance. So if guild numbers per alliance are capped (which I suspect they will be as it that was it how it operated in GW1 and it seems improbable that endless guilds can join an alliance) your dead guild (ie - solo player) will be excluded and you will have to disband it (or not use it in wvw) and join another guild that is part of the alliance (ie- exclusionary play is encouraged - ie - we don't want you/your guild/your build/your whatever). If you don't join another guild that is an accepted part of an alliance (or if you don't want to join a guild at all) or if they won't have you or your guild for whatever reasons, then what happens to you?

>

You play with your guild or solo, like you do now. With guilds and alliances that are in your world for 8 weeks.

You do not have to be a part of an alliance. In fact, up to 60% of the population won't be in one of the alliances. So, in fact, you will be part of the majority.

 

> Where do you play? How do you play? Who do you play with? Especially if you are not a solo ganker/roamer but are outfitted/built for zerg play?

>

A person will play alongside the running Zerg that exists at that time, like they would currently. Not a change except for likely different commanders with different expectations. Like linked servers now.

 

> No accommodation has been made for the multitudes of players (or even just a minority few) similarly situated. No one has proposed a single solution as to what to do in this situation, except to let the players go bye bye forever. Kicked to the curb so to speak.

>

People aren't being kicked to the curb. They will have a world for 8 weeks, then be assigned a new one.

 

And if, along the way, those individual players find a group of people they enjoy, they may be recruited. Or they might not.

 

That exists today.

 

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> Because we are used to playing with guilds and commanders in a cohesive environment that elicits camaraderie. IF we make it random, that cohesion is lost. I don't want to lose that, I also don't want to lose my identity as being on BG. I also don't want to play with guilds and other players from servers I have come to despise. I also don't want to play in a guild and have to adhere to rules. So is there any compromise or concessions or place for someone like me? or am i just done w/the game mode after 6 years of playing?

 

Some would just look at that as leeching kills from guilds, since people don't want to join the guilds, probably don't want to join ts, but still want to run with that group anyways.

 

Now for the other part, you know the joining of guilds into an alliance is basically for world creation?

So here's how this can play out. Current server communities will probably create a community guild (I would expect this to happen for BG at the very least) so that those random pug players that you see every day, that you talk to every day, can join together when worlds are created. You can make alliances with other BG guilds(which is up to them) to make sure all those players stick together.

When the worlds are created your entire alliance will be placed in the same world, then here's what you can do then, drop repping the community guild the entire time thereafter because choosing a wvw guild to rep is only needed at the point of world creation, nothing more.

 

There is a place for everyone, the question is how much effort they want to put into finding that place. Blackgate population has broken wvw, it's great some of you had a great time taking advantage of that and winning over servers, call it skilled play, call it successful community building, call it whatever. Overall it wasn't good for wvw when one server is so out of place compared to the rest. Players want balanced fights, they want balanced populations, they want balanced coverage so that one week you don't feel like fighting 60 man blobs every night to the next week of facing a server that's dead in that same timezone.

 

Your community can stick together, the option is still there, the question is do you all really want to stay together? It's really not going to take much to do so.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> > > @"Shining One.1635" said:

> > > Nothing is being forced. I'm primarily a solo player myself. I'm not in an active guild (I still rep a dead guild for purposes of claim benefits). I don't see how this upcoming change negatively affects me. I can and will continue to play exactly the way I do now after the change. Am I missing something?

> >

> > Yes. You basically wont be able to play in wvw unless u r part of a guild that is accepted by an alliance. So if guild numbers per alliance are capped (which I suspect they will be as it that was it how it operated in GW1 and it seems improbable that endless guilds can join an alliance) your dead guild (ie - solo player) will be excluded and you will have to disband it (or not use it in wvw) and join another guild that is part of the alliance (ie- exclusionary play is encouraged - ie - we don't want you/your guild/your build/your whatever). If you don't join another guild that is an accepted part of an alliance (or if you don't want to join a guild at all) or if they won't have you or your guild for whatever reasons, then what happens to you?

> >

> You play with your guild or solo, like you do now. With guilds and alliances that are in your world for 8 weeks.

> You do not have to be a part of an alliance. In fact, up to 60% of the population won't be in one of the alliances. So, in fact, you will be part of the majority.

>

> > Where do you play? How do you play? Who do you play with? Especially if you are not a solo ganker/roamer but are outfitted/built for zerg play?

> >

> A person will play alongside the running Zerg that exists at that time, like they would currently. Not a change except for likely different commanders with different expectations. Like linked servers now.

>

> > No accommodation has been made for the multitudes of players (or even just a minority few) similarly situated. No one has proposed a single solution as to what to do in this situation, except to let the players go bye bye forever. Kicked to the curb so to speak.

> >

> People aren't being kicked to the curb. They will have a world for 8 weeks, then be assigned a new one.

>

> And if, along the way, those individual players find a group of people they enjoy, they may be recruited. Or they might not.

>

> That exists today.

>

 

Only now we have servers and it's cohesive, it won't be cohesive anymore in the future, even for guilds, it will become a hollow empty experience.

[Dralor.3701]

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> > @"Dralor.3701" said:

> > This will be the best thing that has happened to wvw in ages, only people defending the current status quo are the bandwagon players.

>

> Not sure what a "bandwagon player" is or what that/they look like in wvw. I will watch out for them tho - they sound like people who will have nowhere to go under the new system. What will we do with them then?

>

> Btw, I am not defending the current status quo. I am amenable to much change in wvw, just not the proposed exclusionary-based system.

 

Topic has been beaten to death but T1 has been broken for a long time now with one stacked server. I imagine a number of those guilds will form an alliance and that is fine. Restructuring allows for a leveled playing field once again.

 

I don’t think anyone will be left behind, there are tons of pugs and unguilded players. You can’t believe they wouldn’t put something in place for that large of a population.

 

 

[Caliburn.1845]

Poster in this thread have actually read the OP I hope? The one with nice graphics showing that individual players will have the same ability to play WvW as any guild or alliance.

 

Almost every guild in this game is recruiting. Every alliance is going to be recruiting. Every player is going to have a buffet of hundreds of options to align themselves with in WvW. If some players are so picky that none of those options work, and they're too lazy to make their own guild/alliance then they can remain as a solo player, sampling different guilds/zergs/alliances every eight weeks.

 

You get to pick and choose, you can literally do whatever you want, with more choices than have ever been offered under the server based system.

 

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> I have read all 47 pages of this thread and still don't see a single suggestion for resolution of the issue of pugs.

>

> What are we to do with pugs under the new proposed system?

 

I believe it was Leto who wrote that unaffiliated players will become true pugs ("pick up group" players) because they won't have an attachment to a single, continuous team. Just as in fractals or raids, some players like to casually pug using the LFG. Others like to play that content with a static group so they organize that way. The restructuring simply applies that correct definition of "pug" to unaffiliated players in WvW. What issue about it is in your mind?

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> Poster in this thread have actually read the OP I hope? The one with nice graphics showing that individual players will have the same ability to play WvW as any guild or alliance.

>

> Almost every guild in this game is recruiting. Every alliance is going to be recruiting. Every player is going to have a buffet of hundreds of options to align themselves with in WvW. If some players are so picky that none of those options work, and they're too lazy to make their own guild/alliance then they can remain as a solo player, sampling different guilds/zergs/alliances every eight weeks.

>

> You get to pick and choose, you can literally do whatever you want, with more choices than have ever been offered under the server based system.

>

>

 

Sure, but we all know this is going to be one large power vacuum, with the top wvw guilds aligning to form superguilds in order to try and manipulate the matchups as best they can each time.. so instead of having one server dominant in matchups like T1.. we will have 1 dominant guild each time made up of mostly the same players same guilds just under some random name each matchup.. thus wvwvw is becoming gvgvg.

And if your not in one of those superguilds your just going to be a scrub trying to follow footsteps.. highly enjoyable, not.

[Caliburn.1845]

Blackgate has not lost a match in what, well over a year now? No alliance is going to be capable of that.

 

The only way any alliance of guilds could match that level of success is if alliances had an enormous player cap(say 2000 or more). More importantly you would have to change the mindset of most of the leadership of the competent WvW guilds out there. The "fighting" guilds are not going to all flock to the same alliance it would be counterproductive. And yes, we're already having meetings about that stuff.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > Because we are used to playing with guilds and commanders in a cohesive environment that elicits camaraderie. IF we make it random, that cohesion is lost. I don't want to lose that, I also don't want to lose my identity as being on BG. I also don't want to play with guilds and other players from servers I have come to despise. I also don't want to play in a guild and have to adhere to rules. So is there any compromise or concessions or place for someone like me? or am i just done w/the game mode after 6 years of playing?

>

> Some would just look at that as leeching kills from guilds, since people don't want to join the guilds, probably don't want to join ts, but still want to run with that group anyways.

>

> Now for the other part, you know the joining of guilds into an alliance is basically for world creation?

> So here's how this can play out. Current server communities will probably create a community guild (I would expect this to happen for BG at the very least) so that those random pug players that you see every day, that you talk to every day, can join together when worlds are created. You can make alliances with other BG guilds(which is up to them) to make sure all those players stick together.

> When the worlds are created your entire alliance will be placed in the same world, then here's what you can do then, drop repping the community guild the entire time thereafter because choosing a wvw guild to rep is only needed at the point of world creation, nothing more.

>

> There is a place for everyone, the question is how much effort they want to put into finding that place. Blackgate population has broken wvw, it's great some of you had a great time taking advantage of that and winning over servers, call it skilled play, call it successful community building, call it whatever. Overall it wasn't good for wvw when one server is so out of place compared to the rest. Players want balanced fights, they want balanced populations, they want balanced coverage so that one week you don't feel like fighting 60 man blobs every night to the next week of facing a server that's dead in that same timezone.

>

> Your community can stick together, the option is still there, the question is do you all really want to stay together? It's really not going to take much to do so.

 

You don't know how large alliances will be, your assuming that everyone will be invited, also Anet is leaving us a the mercy of some nebulous guild leader in order to maintain some semblance of world cohesion. Either way alliances will be set adrift as well as pugs with no actual place to call our home and no shared identity.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > Poster in this thread have actually read the OP I hope? The one with nice graphics showing that individual players will have the same ability to play WvW as any guild or alliance.

> >

> > Almost every guild in this game is recruiting. Every alliance is going to be recruiting. Every player is going to have a buffet of hundreds of options to align themselves with in WvW. If some players are so picky that none of those options work, and they're too lazy to make their own guild/alliance then they can remain as a solo player, sampling different guilds/zergs/alliances every eight weeks.

> >

> > You get to pick and choose, you can literally do whatever you want, with more choices than have ever been offered under the server based system.

> >

> >

>

> Sure, but we all know this is going to be one large power vacuum, with the top wvw guilds aligning to form superguilds in order to try and manipulate the matchups as best they can each time.. so instead of having one server dominant in matchups like T1.. we will have 1 dominant guild each time made up of mostly the same players same guilds just under some random name each matchup.. thus wvwvw is becoming gvgvg.

> And if your not in one of those superguilds your just going to be a scrub trying to follow footsteps.. highly enjoyable, not.

 

Yes and this is why I will quit wvw once this change is implemented, unless something else is done.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> Blackgate has not lost a match in what, well over a year now? No alliance is going to be capable of that.

>

> The only way any alliance of guilds could match that level of success is if alliances had an enormous player cap(say 2000 or more). More importantly you would have to change the mindset of most of the leadership of the competent WvW guilds out there. The "fighting" guilds are not going to all flock to the same alliance it would be counterproductive. And yes, we're already having meetings about that stuff.

 

Great that you guys get to decide for all of us.

[Caliburn.1845]

 

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > Blackgate has not lost a match in what, well over a year now? No alliance is going to be capable of that.

> >

> > The only way any alliance of guilds could match that level of success is if alliances had an enormous player cap(say 2000 or more). More importantly you would have to change the mindset of most of the leadership of the competent WvW guilds out there. The "fighting" guilds are not going to all flock to the same alliance it would be counterproductive. And yes, we're already having meetings about that stuff.

>

> Great that you guys get to decide for all of us.

 

We just get to decide for us, you get to decide for you.

[jacksmith.6028]

> @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> Sure, but we all know this is going to be one large power vacuum, with the top wvw guilds aligning to form superguilds in order to try and manipulate the matchups as best they can each time.. so instead of having one server dominant in matchups like T1.. we will have 1 dominant guild each time made up of mostly the same players same guilds just under some random name each matchup.. thus wvwvw is becoming gvgvg.

> And if your not in one of those superguilds your just going to be a scrub trying to follow footsteps.. highly enjoyable, not.

 

Guilds will make up alliances and a "world" will be made up of guilds, alliances and pugs. Forming a "superguild" won't really work because Anet has stated that they will reset everything 8 weeks. So at most a "superguild" or "super alliance" can dominate for only 8 weeks. Then, Anet is going to match the "super whatever" against an equal number of guilds and/or alliances.

 

In other words, the current situation like we have with BG will only last for 8 weeks. Imagine BG is a "super alliance" - then Anet will match them up against an equal opponent and BG will have to fight (rather than just over-blob) for their win. Anet has also said that they will take a look and adjust the caps so, for example, if the "BG" alliance is too big or powerful, all Anet has to do is lower the world population cap and the super alliance (BG) will be broken up.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"jacksmith.6028" said:

> > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > Sure, but we all know this is going to be one large power vacuum, with the top wvw guilds aligning to form superguilds in order to try and manipulate the matchups as best they can each time.. so instead of having one server dominant in matchups like T1.. we will have 1 dominant guild each time made up of mostly the same players same guilds just under some random name each matchup.. thus wvwvw is becoming gvgvg.

> > And if your not in one of those superguilds your just going to be a scrub trying to follow footsteps.. highly enjoyable, not.

>

> Guilds will make up alliances and a "world" will be made up of guilds, alliances and pugs. Forming a "superguild" won't really work because Anet has stated that they will reset everything 8 weeks. So at most a "superguild" or "super alliance" can dominate for only 8 weeks. Then, Anet is going to match the "super whatever" against an equal number of guilds and/or alliances.

>

> In other words, the current situation like we have with BG will only last for 8 weeks. Imagine BG is a "super alliance" - then Anet will match them up against an equal opponent and BG will have to fight (rather than just over-blob) for their win. Anet has also said that they will take a look and adjust the caps so, for example, if the "BG" alliance is too big or powerful, all Anet has to do is lower the world population cap and the super alliance (BG) will be broken up.

 

Which is true if the alliances strive for balanced coverage.

 

However, in NA, with the OCX and SEA pops being very limited, all it takes is enough motivation for them to stack in their own alliance. Which would mostly ensure that whichever world they went to would dominate most of the 8 weeks.

 

Now, chances are the majority won't do this.

 

But if rewards are good enough for winning.....