Krustydog.3072 Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 I will miss server pride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supernatural Dawn.3194 Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 > @"Krustydog.3072" said: > I will miss server pride. > For many of us server pride is already dead. Bring on the guild pride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 > @"Supernatural Dawn.3194" said: > > @"Krustydog.3072" said: > > I will miss server pride. > > > > For many of us server pride is already dead. Bring on the guild pride. Make guild wars about guilds? Preposterous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loosmaster.8263 Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > @"Supernatural Dawn.3194" said: > > > @"Krustydog.3072" said: > > > I will miss server pride. > > > > > > > For many of us server pride is already dead. Bring on the guild pride. > > Make guild wars about guilds? > > Preposterous! TK is gonna 2 man it!!! Maybe 3 if I can a guildie to play more than 5 minutes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrolan.9608 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 > @"Supernatural Dawn.3194" said: > > @"Krustydog.3072" said: > > I will miss server pride. > > > > For many of us server pride is already dead. Bring on the guild pride. Alliance pride FTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxanne.6140 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Alliance will kill off hour gameplay because it will be possible for the few you-know-who guilds around to form one alliance themselves and everybody else will be just pve mob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > @"BlueMelody.6398" said: > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lol no. **Entire servers** are 2500+ people and they have *nowhere near* "full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing *forcing* people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap. > > > > > > > > > > I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking. > > > > > > > > This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is **servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size**. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have. > > > > > > > > For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each *every single day of the week*. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality. > > > > > > > > The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap. > > > > > > You need to re-read. When I meant two such zerg, it is not derived from a single 250 but two 250. A single 250 can run a 20-30 sized zerg 24 hours. Two 250 can combine run 40-60 24 hours. Then you add in random guilds and pugs, the off hours will be greatly unbalanced. Also, let's not forget that if guilds if so want to abuse it, same timezone can all stack on the same alliance and immediately create a unbalance. > > > > > > Also, these numbers is base on actual experience than fantasy. Even in a regional pvp mmorpg, a 500-men size alliance can rally 20-30 people at sleeping hours. This 20-30 sized zerg is already considered a floor than a ceiling for a game like gw2 that has people from all over the world. > > > > Current world size is *already* 5x this number. Max guild size is *already* 500. If this were going to be a realistic scenario, it would already be happening regularly, with 500-man wvw guilds "stacking" a server. > > > > Alliances are going to make this kind of stacking less likely, not more likely. I don't understand your complaint at all. > > Currently, there isn't a 500-men wvw guild that has 50% online rate. In the past there were and they were in T1 for most part. There were even SEA guilds that easily queue a map by themselves back then. With alliance system, not that hard for anyone to make up a single timezone alliance if they really want to. This argument isn't about they will or will not do it, it is about can or cannot. Stacking happen because they can stack, not because they will or will not. Same thing for blackout, they did it because they can do it not because they know it will work. > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > > There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lol no. **Entire servers** are 2500+ people and they have *nowhere near* "full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing *forcing* people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking. > > > > > > > > > > > > This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is **servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size**. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have. > > > > > > > > > > > > For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each *every single day of the week*. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap. > > > > > > > > > > You need to re-read. When I meant two such zerg, it is not derived from a single 250 but two 250. A single 250 can run a 20-30 sized zerg 24 hours. Two 250 can combine run 40-60 24 hours. Then you add in random guilds and pugs, the off hours will be greatly unbalanced. Also, let's not forget that if guilds if so want to abuse it, same timezone can all stack on the same alliance and immediately create a unbalance. > > > > > > > > > > Also, these numbers is base on actual experience than fantasy. Even in a regional pvp mmorpg, a 500-men size alliance can rally 20-30 people at sleeping hours. This 20-30 sized zerg is already considered a floor than a ceiling for a game like gw2 that has people from all over the world. > > > > > > > > You cant "abuse" it by stacking the same timezone. Thats a ridiculous claim and self-moderated by the fact borders get queued because they dont have infinite space. Its the same as saying that queues in primetime is exploiting the game and players playing the game is undesirable. > > > > > > > > Also if two capped 500 man guilds/alliances with at least 250 in each logging on daily, you are *literally talking about half a server*. Kitten yeah thats alot of people. And they would **still** have to log 5h+ every single day, every week. Still. Not. Reality. > > > > > > > > Whats next? Shall we boost that zerg population to not two or three and not even four but *five* 500 man alliances stacking a server, populating it 24/7, oh the horror, the horror!!! > > > > > > > > ... oh wait thats what Anet said was what your average world would be sized as. Nevermind. > > > > > > Ermm...it sounds that you are assuming that all timezones have sufficient people to queue a map, for all the servers which in reality not the case. > > > > > > Why would they need to logon 5hrs+? Your math and math seems to be completely different. It seems to me that your zerg size is at 50-man which to me is a blob. > > > > A full zerg is a full squad, or a 50 man. If you want to assume far beyond realistic effiecency at equally unrealistic numbers, so will I. > > > > And if my math is wrong there then do go ahead and correct me. The way I see it, for you to maintain two 50 man zergs for a day you need 100x24 man hours, or 2400 man hours. 250 people (50% guild cap) at 100% attendance around the clock would need to put in 2400/250 hours each, or 9.6 hours a day. Double that and you would obviously half the hours, so 4.3 hours a day for two such alliances. > > > > If you want to actually reach plausible numbers that the average players is online... say 2h... you will have to double up on the alliances and then you reach - you guessed it - *server size*. If you want more realistic numbers for the average player, you will probably also assume that there is nowhere near 100% attendance from all those players - they will probably only put in maybe 3-4 days a week. So we are talking double server size for the constant presence you think you will get from just two alliances. Which actually makes sense if you think about how WvW looks today outside primetime. > > And I gave a number of 20-30 24/7 per 500-men guild, maybe you want to read first before typing? And if my math is correct then 20-30 man zergs doing that work would **still** be *server size*, not two 500 man guilds. Is it unreasonable to expect a server to have 40-60 people online at any given time? Thats just ~10-20% capacity of 4 queued maps!!! Think about that for a moment. What exactly are we arguing? That WvW at 10% capacity is overcrowded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspirine.6852 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 > @"Supernatural Dawn.3194" said: > > @"Krustydog.3072" said: > > I will miss server pride. > > > > For many of us server pride is already dead. Bring on the guild pride. Pride of stacking like one group and as soon as you are 20 feet away they do not know what to do kinda pride? Not seeing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxanne.6140 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > Current world size is *already* 5x this number. Max guild size is *already* 500. If this were going to be a realistic scenario, it would already be happening regularly, with 500-man wvw guilds "stacking" a server. > > > > > > Alliances are going to make this kind of stacking less likely, not more likely. I don't understand your complaint at all. > It sort of is happening already in some servers where you see more off hours than others. Currently, stacking servers is limited by the resident pug population which determines how many guilds can fit onto the server and this can't be controlled by anyone yet. Also, in order to move multiple large guilds, you would need to pay alot of transfer fees but I believe you simply need to declare an alliance with another guild in the new system without paying any gold? I think you guys are arguing too far into the math, you only need to see that there are much fewer players in off hours than during NA time to know that the same metrics cannot be applied for both timezones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 > @"Roxanne.6140" said: > Also, in order to move multiple large guilds, you would need to pay alot of transfer fees but I believe you simply need to declare an alliance with another guild in the new system without paying any gold? At what will probably be the same cap as a guild. Which is why we are saying it doesnt matter. 500 man guild (possible right now) or 500 man alliance, its the same thing. Transfer cost hasnt stopped anyone before. Making it free for guilds to reorganize after an 8 week season changes nothing. Alliances will stack as good as a 500 man guild can stack, guilds thinking they are hardcore and want to go their separate way because they are a fight guild and everyone else is a ppt whore will still exist. Guilds rising and falling with a single commander will still be a thing. Players getting shunned and taking half an alliance with them to a new alliance will no doubt happen. Alliances just adds another layer on GW2 guild and server drama scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxanne.6140 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Roxanne.6140" said: > > Also, in order to move multiple large guilds, you would need to pay alot of transfer fees but I believe you simply need to declare an alliance with another guild in the new system without paying any gold? > > At what will probably be the same cap as a guild. Which is why we are saying it doesnt matter. > > 500 man guild (possible right now) or 500 man alliance, its the same thing. Transfer cost hasnt stopped anyone before. > > Making it free for guilds to reorganize after an 8 week season changes nothing. Alliances will stack as good as a 500 man guild can stack, guilds thinking they are hardcore and want to go their separate way because they are a fight guild and everyone else is a ppt kitten will still exist. Guilds rising and falling with a single commander will still be a thing. Players getting shunned and taking half an alliance with them to a new alliance will no doubt happen. > > Alliances just adds another layer on GW2 guild and server drama scene. In short, it is easier to find 500 man NA than 500 man SEA or OCX or EU or whatever. Now take that to another level, it is easier to find 500 man organized NA fight guilds than 500 man organized SEA/OCX/EU ( non-NA ) fight guilds. Please let me know what you don't understand from that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > @"BlueMelody.6398" said: > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lol no. **Entire servers** are 2500+ people and they have *nowhere near* "full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing *forcing* people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking. > > > > > > > > > > This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is **servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size**. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have. > > > > > > > > > > For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each *every single day of the week*. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality. > > > > > > > > > > The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap. > > > > > > > > You need to re-read. When I meant two such zerg, it is not derived from a single 250 but two 250. A single 250 can run a 20-30 sized zerg 24 hours. Two 250 can combine run 40-60 24 hours. Then you add in random guilds and pugs, the off hours will be greatly unbalanced. Also, let's not forget that if guilds if so want to abuse it, same timezone can all stack on the same alliance and immediately create a unbalance. > > > > > > > > Also, these numbers is base on actual experience than fantasy. Even in a regional pvp mmorpg, a 500-men size alliance can rally 20-30 people at sleeping hours. This 20-30 sized zerg is already considered a floor than a ceiling for a game like gw2 that has people from all over the world. > > > > > > Current world size is *already* 5x this number. Max guild size is *already* 500. If this were going to be a realistic scenario, it would already be happening regularly, with 500-man wvw guilds "stacking" a server. > > > > > > Alliances are going to make this kind of stacking less likely, not more likely. I don't understand your complaint at all. > > > > Currently, there isn't a 500-men wvw guild that has 50% online rate. In the past there were and they were in T1 for most part. There were even SEA guilds that easily queue a map by themselves back then. With alliance system, not that hard for anyone to make up a single timezone alliance if they really want to. This argument isn't about they will or will not do it, it is about can or cannot. Stacking happen because they can stack, not because they will or will not. Same thing for blackout, they did it because they can do it not because they know it will work. > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > > > There might be no such guild but let say there is and such a guild has a 50% active daily online rate thus 250-men log in daily. Such a guild can hold up a full coverage by themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lol no. **Entire servers** are 2500+ people and they have *nowhere near* "full coverage". No server today is even close. You would need 10,000+ to have "full coverage" and they would all have to work together to make perfect time slices of play. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your estimates assumes people have no life, dont eat, dont sleep and only play GW2 24/7. That not how reality works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing *forcing* people to have max size alliances anymore than you are forced to have 500 man guilds today. An alliance could be 3 guilds with 80 people in total. Or 2 guilds with 120 people. Or 5 guilds with 200 people. It doesnt matter. 500 is not too high when that equals the guild cap. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am pretty sure you are assuming map queues but I am not talking about map queues. 250-men daily logon surely can have a zerg around the clock and two such zergs would be equivalent to a blob and combine it with random guilds and pugs, that certainly will be population inequality. Just think about it, is there enough people to go around? Nah. It is just formula for disaster with such high cap. And let just say that anet decide to not have two or more alliances per server but one instead to allow 500 cap, that is just inviting stacking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This still isnt reality. Your numbers is complete fantasy. Reality is **servers today have 2500+ players by Anets comparison of the 500 man alliance size**. And they dont have 2 zergs running around the clock. Not even T1 have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For two zergs to cover a server around the clock, 250 people would have to clock 10+ hours each *every single day of the week*. Do you see any guild that advertise 10h raids on a daily basis or guild kick? No? I dont. Because it doesnt happen. Its. Not. Reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The system obviously wont have a fixed amount of alliances per world either - Anet dont know how large an alliance will be anymore than we do, because that will change all the time as guilds come and leave. A world could have 50 alliances and these could still have a total population smaller than 2 alliances on the world they are fighting. The cap would be just that, a cap. > > > > > > > > > > > > You need to re-read. When I meant two such zerg, it is not derived from a single 250 but two 250. A single 250 can run a 20-30 sized zerg 24 hours. Two 250 can combine run 40-60 24 hours. Then you add in random guilds and pugs, the off hours will be greatly unbalanced. Also, let's not forget that if guilds if so want to abuse it, same timezone can all stack on the same alliance and immediately create a unbalance. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, these numbers is base on actual experience than fantasy. Even in a regional pvp mmorpg, a 500-men size alliance can rally 20-30 people at sleeping hours. This 20-30 sized zerg is already considered a floor than a ceiling for a game like gw2 that has people from all over the world. > > > > > > > > > > You cant "abuse" it by stacking the same timezone. Thats a ridiculous claim and self-moderated by the fact borders get queued because they dont have infinite space. Its the same as saying that queues in primetime is exploiting the game and players playing the game is undesirable. > > > > > > > > > > Also if two capped 500 man guilds/alliances with at least 250 in each logging on daily, you are *literally talking about half a server*. Kitten yeah thats alot of people. And they would **still** have to log 5h+ every single day, every week. Still. Not. Reality. > > > > > > > > > > Whats next? Shall we boost that zerg population to not two or three and not even four but *five* 500 man alliances stacking a server, populating it 24/7, oh the horror, the horror!!! > > > > > > > > > > ... oh wait thats what Anet said was what your average world would be sized as. Nevermind. > > > > > > > > Ermm...it sounds that you are assuming that all timezones have sufficient people to queue a map, for all the servers which in reality not the case. > > > > > > > > Why would they need to logon 5hrs+? Your math and math seems to be completely different. It seems to me that your zerg size is at 50-man which to me is a blob. > > > > > > A full zerg is a full squad, or a 50 man. If you want to assume far beyond realistic effiecency at equally unrealistic numbers, so will I. > > > > > > And if my math is wrong there then do go ahead and correct me. The way I see it, for you to maintain two 50 man zergs for a day you need 100x24 man hours, or 2400 man hours. 250 people (50% guild cap) at 100% attendance around the clock would need to put in 2400/250 hours each, or 9.6 hours a day. Double that and you would obviously half the hours, so 4.3 hours a day for two such alliances. > > > > > > If you want to actually reach plausible numbers that the average players is online... say 2h... you will have to double up on the alliances and then you reach - you guessed it - *server size*. If you want more realistic numbers for the average player, you will probably also assume that there is nowhere near 100% attendance from all those players - they will probably only put in maybe 3-4 days a week. So we are talking double server size for the constant presence you think you will get from just two alliances. Which actually makes sense if you think about how WvW looks today outside primetime. > > > > And I gave a number of 20-30 24/7 per 500-men guild, maybe you want to read first before typing? > > And if my math is correct then 20-30 man zergs doing that work would **still** be *server size*, not two 500 man guilds. > > Is it unreasonable to expect a server to have 40-60 people online at any given time? Thats just ~10-20% capacity of 4 queued maps!!! > > Think about that for a moment. What exactly are we arguing? > > That WvW at 10% capacity is overcrowded? **Is it unreasonable to expect a server to have 40-60 people online at any given time? Thats just ~10-20% capacity of 4 queued maps!!!** Yes, start playing the game around the clock more. It seems you are very detached from current population situation. > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Roxanne.6140" said: > > Also, in order to move multiple large guilds, you would need to pay alot of transfer fees but I believe you simply need to declare an alliance with another guild in the new system without paying any gold? > > At what will probably be the same cap as a guild. Which is why we are saying it doesnt matter. > > 500 man guild (possible right now) or 500 man alliance, its the same thing. Transfer cost hasnt stopped anyone before. It did, try talking to more guilds. Not in the way of "hey wasssup" but something more in-depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiri.4257 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 They could just add a WvW registration fee every 2months for Alliances. Forces some maintenance of guild and active players. Also forces use of gold for the economy. Could even add a gem amount for WvW registration. If you can't pony up that money then you'll just be randomized as a solo guild. non-registrant= 25g 0-49 registrants = 50g + WvW battles/badges whatever currency 50-100 Registrants= 100g =^ 100-199 Registrants= 200g 200-299 Registrants = 300g 300-399 registrants = 400g 400-500 registrants =500g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pomdepin.7068 Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 So, can we have any information about the advancements of this system? I’d like to play with my friends no matter our server. Would be the feature that would bring many back! When? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwaihir.1745 Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 They aren't capable of delivering I guess. Guess the 20 people playing raids takes priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trajan.4953 Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 So like, worlds are being restructured or something? There was no TL:DR, didn't bother with the last 53 PAGES of griping. This is Anet kids, it's not like this is happening anytime soon, and based off past performance we will see 2 more Xpacs out before this even smells like reality. There will be at least 6-7 months of hype for everyone to figure their stuff out. Your world is safe for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenesisII.1540 Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 Maybe you guys should like... read the very first post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass Pandemic.3517 Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Roxanne.6140" said: > > Also, in order to move multiple large guilds, you would need to pay alot of transfer fees but I believe you simply need to declare an alliance with another guild in the new system without paying any gold? > > At what will probably be the same cap as a guild. Which is why we are saying it doesnt matter. > > 500 man guild (possible right now) or 500 man alliance, its the same thing. Transfer cost hasnt stopped anyone before. > > Making it free for guilds to reorganize after an 8 week season changes nothing. Alliances will stack as good as a 500 man guild can stack, guilds thinking they are hardcore and want to go their separate way because they are a fight guild and everyone else is a ppt kitten will still exist. Guilds rising and falling with a single commander will still be a thing. Players getting shunned and taking half an alliance with them to a new alliance will no doubt happen. > > Alliances just adds another layer on GW2 guild and server drama scene. Someone has hurt you haven't they ? I feel like someone hurt your feelings badly in this game for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass Pandemic.3517 Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 > @"Gwaihir.1745" said: > They aren't capable of delivering I guess. Guess the 20 people playing raids takes priority. OR they clearly said it was going to take a long time to implement and happen and that other stuff would be a priority first. I would rather them take their time on something make sure its built the best it can be and with longevity in mind then rushed out to please someone who is just going to complain about the first hiccup the see with it anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mechanicalman.8645 Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 When can we expect an announcement as to when the new WvW system will arrive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunkamania.7561 Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 2020. they prob got 1 dev working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlippyCheeze.5483 Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 > @"mechanicalman.8645" said: > When can we expect an announcement as to when the new WvW system will arrive? Probably a month or less ahead of it launching, and nothing before the system is finalized, implemented, and tested thoroughly internally to ANet. This is the same for every major, or minor, change in the game; this one is big enough that it actually got some pre-announcement that most things don't, but it is unlikely we will see anything more save for a significant change in plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovu.7560 Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 We haven't heard anything in recent months. Morever, I don't even remember the last time a dev posted in this subforum. It's been a while. I think it was that thread about siege updates, or possibly the thread asking the players for feedback on smaller updates to the gamemode. They may still be working through that. You have to remember they have a finite amount of resources and pve will generally take priority as that's where the majority of the players are. So basically you can assume that its a while off before they tell you otherwise. I doubt they'll post here on Tuesday saying "shit's live on Friday." Something that major, they'll give decent notice. > @"XenesisII.1540" said: > Maybe you guys should like... read the very first post? And the second! <3 ~ Kovu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klypto.1703 Posted June 20, 2018 Share Posted June 20, 2018 I begin to wonder if this restructure is even going to happen lol. We had the introduction to it but literally no updates on it or anything. Meanwhile the only thing keeping some going is time gated legendary armors lol. I figure at some point soon something will have to be said as resets seem to not even feel like a reset night anymore. The fights dying off after an hour of playing after the reset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devious.4605 Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 > @"Klypto.1703" said: > I begin to wonder if this restructure is even going to happen lol. We had the introduction to it but literally no updates on it or anything. Meanwhile the only thing keeping some going is time gated legendary armors lol. I figure at some point soon something will have to be said as resets seem to not even feel like a reset night anymore. The fights dying off after an hour of playing after the reset. To be honest, it wouldn't be the first time Arena net said they would do a major overhaul to WvW only to back peddle. If you've been playing WvW since or close to launch you will remember Devon Carver "Major WvW Revamp" When it was quietly announced he was no longer with Anet, Devon disclosed on Reddit he hadn't worked on WvW for the prior 8 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now