World Restructuring

[Sovereign.1093]

looking forward to the change. it will finally be guild wars. guild.vs guilds vs guilds.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> looking forward to the change. it will finally be guild wars. guild.vs guilds vs guilds.

 

It..... really won't....

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > looking forward to the change. it will finally be guild wars. guild.vs guilds vs guilds.

>

> It..... really won't....

 

because?

[Redponey.8352]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > looking forward to the change. it will finally be guild wars. guild.vs guilds vs guilds.

> >

> > It..... really won't....

>

> because?

 

I think that world restructuring as it has been presented wont work on long term.

I explain: Many veterans players left the game due of lack of competition (vs servers , vs an reward ladder) and objectives, the fight (metabuild) and the overhelming DPS which create fully onesided fight for nearly most of all.

 

The major issue is the reason why vet players have left? because of this. They got tired to be bench WvW have been left to dust many years and still now change remain far too long, no deadline, no planning. if anet doesnt bring new features which can keep vet in, WvW will just transform into EOTM 2.0 just loot.

 

how can it be fun to be one or two shot by someone who press 1 or 2 skill ? check this [https://youtu.be/n4cs_RdPdZk](https://youtu.be/n4cs_RdPdZk "https://youtu.be/n4cs_RdPdZk") DPS is far too much (condi and power) or Def stats arenot enough except healing stat)? when i check GvG round before Hot it last in general for more than 2-3min easily but now it's more less than 1 min... often it's only 1 impact. Moreover all Expansion spec is far more stronger than a core build.

 

Less damage (condi (duration/stacks?) and power) and less healing efficiency would be really nice. Moreover adding an leader board ingame with servers, WvW guilds (kills/cap etc? surely weighted by guild member?) would be really nice. Some and big part of players (in WVW) really like competition especially in WvW and Spvp. i know game is having fun but we had fun in defending our server, on epic and tremendous fight , grinding a ladder... but now all of this fun vanish no more reason to play... when you have unlock skin and loot..

 

Before=> [https://youtu.be/u5UQP8f0-Ks](https://youtu.be/u5UQP8f0-Ks "https://youtu.be/u5UQP8f0-Ks")

 

Now => [https://youtu.be/2MuvMM4TBTk](https://youtu.be/2MuvMM4TBTk "https://youtu.be/2MuvMM4TBTk")

 

Fight # ARENT FUN anymore. Fight need more teamplay and rythm. major healing should not remain on 1 support class but on synergy of class (water +blast?)

 

I'm not a hardcore player but more like a casual but regular in WvW and i like tryhard.

 

I really think WvW devs may directly talk with vet WvW players (casual, hardcore, regular) in game, it could bring some nice idea, features for WvW and FIX SOME MAJOR ISSUE as soon as possible.

 

[Sovereign.1093]

hope anet allows us to betatest asap

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > looking forward to the change. it will finally be guild wars. guild.vs guilds vs guilds.

> >

> > It..... really won't....

>

> because?

 

Because most guilds aren't alliance sized. And alliances will only be a small part of the world.

 

I think it will be a slightly better way to balance population, though coverage has a high potential to be borked.

 

I don't think it will be a bad change (as I did initially) but I am not sure it's going to be a tremendous change that many feel it will be.

[Liston.9708]

Just look at current pseudo alliances of kain, sor, and possibly ar. How has that turned out so far? Just a new way to stack....

[XenesisII.1540]

Part of the problem of the new alliances forming in the current system is they're doing it in between relinks, and so we have to wait almost two months before things get reorganized, plus the imbalance of pugs on every server especially those affected by the mass transfers. In the new system no one is going to form an alliance in the middle of the season, then move in between worlds because that will happen for them automatically and for free at the end of the season. There's also no real reason to have anything lower than 1800 gem cost to transfer, so that should also help hold mass transfers until the system does it at the end of the season.

 

[SkyShroud.2865]

The idea that wvw that support alliance is that it will significantly reduce imbalance while giving people freedom to play with people they want to.

 

However, the same risk still apply which is guild can still stack on the alliance like how they stack on server now. Thus, whether it really significantly reduce imbalance is yet to be seen.

[Liston.9708]

Will probably come down to how finite the size of an alliance is as well. Not holding out hope if it is as large as the # that grouped on kain or sor.

[Marcel.1857]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Marcel.1857" said:

> > E.g. you have 1k players but only 200 can join the wvw since of the map caps ( 50 ea map for e.g.). So there would be 2 positive affects first the map of the enemy could be filled the same way since 50 ppl is way lower then the actual one and also helps to reduce the lags occurring if 3 server smash each other e.g. in stone mist.

>

> That makes absolutely no sense. Whether you have two 500 man alliances or one 1000 man alliances, you still dumped the same amount of people into WvW. What you suggest only reduce the caps, letting less players play - which goes against the point you're trying to make, to get more people to play together.

>

> Will alliances make guilds to clean the rooster? Maybe. Is that so bad? If you have 15 active players in your 84 man guilds *maybe it's about time*. Lots of guilds have inactive players, that's fine. But it's not like you need someone that hasnt logged on for like 2 years. I'm sure you can loose *some* of those 69 players. Send them a mail, thank them for their time, encourage them to look you up if they ever start playing the game again cause you can always reinvite them.

>

> Or you could bypass the inactive "fat" completely simply by making a specific alliance guild. In theory, if it works like we suspect and if WvW rep is seperate from guild rep it should be incredibly simple.

>

> Create a new guild, invite the 15 active players. Set that guild as your WvW guild and/or join an alliance with that guild. Never rep it, only rep the old guild. Boom done deal. You now have an alliance guild that only take 15/500 slots.

 

The idee behind is that if they get back to play they would need to wait *2 month till* you can play together again, what i would be pissed of if i would be them. Amt there is no problem about that since you play on one server and the full state is determinate by play hours of the active player in wvw .

 

And i see no problem in decreasing the cap because i never seen a guild with more then 50 ppl raiding together. Only public leads but a lower cap would mean the other bl need to be played to since on my server the red bl is nearly death and the public commander don´t want to play on it so there will be a need if the other bl would be full. And smaller guilds would have more chances to contest the enemy blobs since 25 vs 80 is no way to kill with the actuall meta so 25 vs 50 would be more interesting and rise the chance to compete. And the 1000 alliance player won´t be a problem since i wont thonk there would be more than 200 on the same time. At least if you want to rise in the server ranking you need 24h per day player so it would be 200 player on the maps * 4 6h shifts = 800 Player considering there would be some playing less so i would need 1k players to have 24h players. But yeah you are right actual it is 320players can play the same time wvw and if you play it yourself you exatly know how bad anets server perform if you have a 80x80x80 fight. And atm it´s lokal servers like all play the same time with the new system you can choose the players yourself and which o clock thy would play so you can build a 24h shift on that but well you would need players.

[BlueMelody.6398]

> @"Liston.9708" said:

> Will probably come down to how finite the size of an alliance is as well. Not holding out hope if it is as large as the # that grouped on kain or sor.

 

I don't know about Kain, but I'd be shocked if the massive SoR bandwagon that took a link server and skyrocketed it to the top of Tier 1 isn't significantly larger than a single alliance can hold.

 

If one single 500-man alliance (one-fifth of a world) can *dominate* the entire state of NA wvw, then we have far too many worlds for the number of people playing.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

I'm in Crystal Desert so it makes sense now why we were getting Outnumbered so often when I played. That was the only reason getting pip completion was reasonable. From 30 unreasonable hours to 16 barely okay hours a week.

[Marcel.1857]

Well > @"BlueMelody.6398" said:

> > @"Liston.9708" said:

> > Will probably come down to how finite the size of an alliance is as well. Not holding out hope if it is as large as the # that grouped on kain or sor.

>

> I don't know about Kain, but I'd be shocked if the massive SoR bandwagon that took a link server and skyrocketed it to the top of Tier 1 isn't significantly larger than a single alliance can hold.

>

> If one single 500-man alliance (one-fifth of a world) can *dominate* the entire state of NA wvw, then we have far too many worlds for the number of people playing.

To be honest i think it was told that the world will consist of such an alliance estimate 500player max and player anet puts there too so. But yeah if you got 500 hardcore player playing 12h per day i guess they would be able to dorminate the server rank but only if there would be no world with the same ppl ^^.

 

But in this point there will it be just like now linked server vs unlinked server.

 

[SkyShroud.2865]

With how small WvW is becoming. You don't need hardcore players, even 500 experienced old players that play couple hours per day would make a huge impact. I am sure anet has statistic on how many active and experienced players are out there but I believe they think such scenario would not occur. Much like how people think that people will stop stacking if they realise is boring, well, people still stack. You can't change a human nature of wanting to win at all cost.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> Part of the problem of the new alliances forming in the current system is they're doing it in between relinks, and so we have to wait almost two months before things get reorganized, plus the imbalance of pugs on every server especially those affected by the mass transfers. In the new system no one is going to form an alliance in the middle of the season, then move in between worlds because that will happen for them automatically and for free at the end of the season. There's also no real reason to have anything lower than 1800 gem cost to transfer, so that should also help hold mass transfers until the system does it at the end of the season.

 

We'll eventually see how players game the ability to pay to transfer but yeah all transfers in the new system should be 1800 gems, no exceptions.

 

[eduminator.7845]

I think it is a good idea. Nevertheless I'e like to ask you if yoy have considered the language issue:

Current worlds + entering on WvW is the only way spanish players can find & meet other spanish players on a guaranteed way, and if you blow up our world, dont know how spanish guild could recrute more new spanish players.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> With how small WvW is becoming. You don't need hardcore players, even 500 experienced old players that play couple hours per day would make a huge impact. I am sure anet has statistic on how many active and experienced players are out there but I believe they think such scenario would not occur. Much like how people think that people will stop stacking if they realise is boring, well, people still stack. You can't change a human nature of wanting to win at all cost.

 

This is no longer just a possible scenario but one that is becoming a reality. Anet need to consider skill balance otherwise the restructure will just fall apart within first 6 months of its release.

[BlueMelody.6398]

> @"eduminator.7845" said:

> I think it is a good idea. Nevertheless I'e like to ask you if yoy have considered the language issue:

> Current worlds + entering on WvW is the only way spanish players can find & meet other spanish players on a guaranteed way, and if you blow up our world, dont know how spanish guild could recrute more new spanish players.

 

They have already said that preferred language will be a factor in grouping players onto worlds.

 

 

[Rozalina.3196]

It would be cool if we could have up to 5 different alliances like how we can be in 5 different guilds including chats for each one as well. What I mean by this is a guild can make an alliance either by being the leader of the alliance or joining into one. 1 full alliance would be at most 10 guilds (or whatever anet thinks is best). Every guild can create an alliance emblem which will be represented when they are the leader of an alliance. This way you have a little bit more freedom with who you want to be allied with instead of being trapped in one alliance with 1 guild you like and the rest of the guilds having problems between each other. I remember that happening in gw1 when we were apart of the top luxon alliance where drama started between some of the guilds in it which spoils the fun lol. All I'm getting at is this way makes it so you can choose exactly who you want to be allied with instead of being stuck in one that not everyone gets along with each other.

 

Example on what I'm trying to say:

possible guild tag: [bOOM] (picture your tribe)

 

Alliance 1: (A1 chat)

Alliance Leader: [bOOM] (your tribe) (Represents [bOOM]'s alliance emblem)

Allies:

1. [bOMB]

 

Alliance 2: (A2 chat)

Alliance Leader: [FROG] (Represents [FROG]'s alliance emblem)

Allies:

1. {BOOM] (your tribe)

2. [DIP]

3. [TACO]

4. [bAT]

5. [sOUL]

6. [bAM]

7. [DASH]

8. [ZOOM]

9. [ZIP]

10. [DIVE]

 

Alliance 3: (A3 chat)

Alliance Leader: [bOOM] (your tribe) (Represents [bOOM]'s alliance emblem)

1. [TACO] (same from alliance 2)

2. [TAPE]

3. [sUN]

4. [MOON]

5. [DISH]

 

Alliance 4: (A4 chat)

Alliance Leader: [sEEK] (Represents [sEEK]'s alliance emblem)

1. [bOOM] (your tribe)

2. [sOUR]

 

Alliance 5: (A5 chat)

Alliance Leader: [bOOM] (your tribe) (Represents [bOOM]'s alliance emblem)

1. [NAIL]

2. [sTAR]

3. [bOLT]

 

 

[WhatLiesBeneath.9018]

Wrong subforum and just no.

[JDub.1530]

Alliances are for assigning matchups for WvW. Multiple alliances don't make sense. I also doubt they will create the concept of an alliance leader. That has the potential of all sorts of bad blood as one guild sees itself as superior.

[Linken.6345]

if you want a diffrent alliance Im sure you will be able to switch and the switch take affect after the current match

[Sovereign.1093]

they can always make a poll.

 

can you read english? y or n.

 

if you can read, you can write.

 

also, if majority of players can read and write english then there.should be no issue.

 

this way, you have a basis. =)

 

do the poll in game.

[Redponey.8352]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> they can always make a poll.

>

> can you read english? y or n.

>

> if you can read, you can write.

>

> also, if majority of players can read and write english then there.should be no issue.

>

> this way, you have a basis. =)

>

> do the poll in game.

 

I think in NA there no issue but in EU , on many national server people dont understand and talk at all english.