WvW Restructuring will be Hollow

[Stand The Wall.6987]

if the players are solo, how exactly are they getting punished for not joining a guild? I don't think a lot will care if they get reshuffled.

[Euryon.9248]

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > It's pretty straightforward, the new system is going to stack zergs of organized guilds vs single players who are solo. The matchups will become lopsided because the first thing they will do is figure out how to get all organized alliances on the same server/team color. The system caters to guilds and not solo players, as in there are mechanics which are going to reserve spots for alliance members on teams, but not solo players. Wvw will now be a slew of prideful guilds which stomp solo players who don't even have a server or any semblance of pride or identity. The experience will become hollow and I think it will ruin a lot of the motivation to play wvw.

>

> ah, no. What will happen is that alliances stacked with organized guilds will be paired with low play hour players and guilds to balance the total play hours for a world. The stacked alliances would be more likely to be NOT paired together because there wouldn't be a balance in play hours between worlds.

>

> The successful alliances will be the ones that work with their unaligned guilds and solo players. An exclusive alliance will soon find that they don't have enough players to compete with the alliances that are inclusive and either change their ways or drop in tiers. Once an exclusive alliance drops tiers they will break apart because of infighting and all you'd have left are alliances that are inclusive. Inclusive alliances will eventually reach max cap and break up into smaller alliances that can once again grow.

 

I think so too. Successful alliances -- and worlds -- will be those where the big hardcore alliances also quickly establish rapport and communications with the smaller alliances/roamers/randoms and figure out how to work together, while the insular inflexible territorial alliances won't have the numbers to dominate a world the way they can now, and will suffer due to lack of cooperation from the rest of the world.

[Swamurabi.7890]

> @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > It's pretty straightforward, the new system is going to stack zergs of organized guilds vs single players who are solo. The matchups will become lopsided because the first thing they will do is figure out how to get all organized alliances on the same server/team color. The system caters to guilds and not solo players, as in there are mechanics which are going to reserve spots for alliance members on teams, but not solo players. Wvw will now be a slew of prideful guilds which stomp solo players who don't even have a server or any semblance of pride or identity. The experience will become hollow and I think it will ruin a lot of the motivation to play wvw.

> >

> > ah, no. What will happen is that alliances stacked with organized guilds will be paired with low play hour players and guilds to balance the total play hours for a world. The stacked alliances would be more likely to be NOT paired together because there wouldn't be a balance in play hours between worlds.

> >

> > The successful alliances will be the ones that work with their unaligned guilds and solo players. An exclusive alliance will soon find that they don't have enough players to compete with the alliances that are inclusive and either change their ways or drop in tiers. Once an exclusive alliance drops tiers they will break apart because of infighting and all you'd have left are alliances that are inclusive. Inclusive alliances will eventually reach max cap and break up into smaller alliances that can once again grow.

>

> I think so too. Successful alliances -- and worlds -- will be those where the big hardcore alliances also quickly establish rapport and communications with the smaller alliances/roamers/randoms and figure out how to work together, while the insular inflexible territorial alliances won't have the numbers to dominate a world the way they can now, and will suffer due to lack of cooperation from the rest of the world.

 

The hope is that in the long run WvW will be more accessible to newer players and will not slowly die like the old system. The other thing I'm looking for is whether commanders/guilds that quit the game will come back.

[Euryon.9248]

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > It's pretty straightforward, the new system is going to stack zergs of organized guilds vs single players who are solo. The matchups will become lopsided because the first thing they will do is figure out how to get all organized alliances on the same server/team color. The system caters to guilds and not solo players, as in there are mechanics which are going to reserve spots for alliance members on teams, but not solo players. Wvw will now be a slew of prideful guilds which stomp solo players who don't even have a server or any semblance of pride or identity. The experience will become hollow and I think it will ruin a lot of the motivation to play wvw.

> > >

> > > ah, no. What will happen is that alliances stacked with organized guilds will be paired with low play hour players and guilds to balance the total play hours for a world. The stacked alliances would be more likely to be NOT paired together because there wouldn't be a balance in play hours between worlds.

> > >

> > > The successful alliances will be the ones that work with their unaligned guilds and solo players. An exclusive alliance will soon find that they don't have enough players to compete with the alliances that are inclusive and either change their ways or drop in tiers. Once an exclusive alliance drops tiers they will break apart because of infighting and all you'd have left are alliances that are inclusive. Inclusive alliances will eventually reach max cap and break up into smaller alliances that can once again grow.

> >

> > I think so too. Successful alliances -- and worlds -- will be those where the big hardcore alliances also quickly establish rapport and communications with the smaller alliances/roamers/randoms and figure out how to work together, while the insular inflexible territorial alliances won't have the numbers to dominate a world the way they can now, and will suffer due to lack of cooperation from the rest of the world.

>

> The hope is that in the long run WvW will be more accessible to newer players and will not slowly die like the old system. The other thing I'm looking for is whether commanders/guilds that quit the game will come back.

 

I have already witnessed 3 guildies return to the game in anticipation of the changes. Those that want to claim wvw will die if servers are removed will I think find themselves seeing the opposite. For every "don't destroy BG, if you do I will /uninstall/take my toys and go home/find another game" I bet there are several who left long ago but are now looking to return to a newer, more balanced framework.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > It's pretty straightforward, the new system is going to stack zergs of organized guilds vs single players who are solo. The matchups will become lopsided because the first thing they will do is figure out how to get all organized alliances on the same server/team color. The system caters to guilds and not solo players, as in there are mechanics which are going to reserve spots for alliance members on teams, but not solo players. Wvw will now be a slew of prideful guilds which stomp solo players who don't even have a server or any semblance of pride or identity. The experience will become hollow and I think it will ruin a lot of the motivation to play wvw.

> > > >

> > > > ah, no. What will happen is that alliances stacked with organized guilds will be paired with low play hour players and guilds to balance the total play hours for a world. The stacked alliances would be more likely to be NOT paired together because there wouldn't be a balance in play hours between worlds.

> > > >

> > > > The successful alliances will be the ones that work with their unaligned guilds and solo players. An exclusive alliance will soon find that they don't have enough players to compete with the alliances that are inclusive and either change their ways or drop in tiers. Once an exclusive alliance drops tiers they will break apart because of infighting and all you'd have left are alliances that are inclusive. Inclusive alliances will eventually reach max cap and break up into smaller alliances that can once again grow.

> > >

> > > I think so too. Successful alliances -- and worlds -- will be those where the big hardcore alliances also quickly establish rapport and communications with the smaller alliances/roamers/randoms and figure out how to work together, while the insular inflexible territorial alliances won't have the numbers to dominate a world the way they can now, and will suffer due to lack of cooperation from the rest of the world.

> >

> > The hope is that in the long run WvW will be more accessible to newer players and will not slowly die like the old system. The other thing I'm looking for is whether commanders/guilds that quit the game will come back.

>

> I have already witnessed 3 guildies return to the game in anticipation of the changes. Those that want to claim wvw will die if servers are removed will I think find themselves seeing the opposite. For every "don't destroy BG, if you do I will /uninstall/take my toys and go home/find another game" I bet there are several who left long ago but are now looking to return to a newer, more balanced framework.

 

While I agree players will come back, there is no question many will leave. I tend to believe more will come back than will leave. At least in the beginning.

 

But to state it is 'Only BG' complaining....

 

Multiple servers have been represented in their complaints, with more than one thread started by EU players.

 

Your bias against BG doesn't help your argument, nor does it help in the discussion.

[Hackuuna.4085]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> The matchups will become lopsided because the first thing they will do is figure out how to get all organized alliances on the same server/team color.

 

One of the core design concepts of the new system is that the active population will not be able to fit everyone into one alliance and that alliances will be unable to guarantee placement on a single world.

 

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> Sounds like a lot of fun, conform to some guys made up rules or get trounced, exactly my point, not a very good update to wvw.

 

That's exactly what WvW is right now right. Commanders tell you what to do and if you don't do it they log off. How well does your server perform without a commander?

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

> @"Threather.9354" said:

> You already have people you like playing with which you can keep.

>

> By changing the people you dont like playing with, you can meet more people who you like playing with.

>

> Just make sure alliance leader/officers are reasonable when letting people in and not letting every "i wanna join but will quit game or turn salty after a week" in

>

yes, well, this is the prob. how do u "make sure alliance leaders r reasonable when letting peeps in." Cliques r already a huge prob in wvw. Mean spirited exclusion from zergs/squads is already a huge prob in wvw. this "solution" to dwindling population base, a very real prob, is only going to result in more arrogant, exclusionary play. u can't be in our alliance - ur not in ts, or we don't like u. u cant join. go run solo for 8 weeks. in 8 weeks u can try again or run solo again. sounds like the perfect recipe for game attrition.

 

I might point out that spvp was an abysmal failure in seas 2 & 3 cuz teams ganged up on solo pugs. ppl quit in droves. so now we have "team" "alliances" to beat up on solo pugs in wvw. y would anyone think this is a good solution, when it has a proven fail track record.

 

whats wrong w/ everyone joining a server as a pug. then if u see ur friends/guildies, u form ur own squad or u join the zerg. everyone welcome. everyone playing. rotate out in 8 weeks & rinse/repeat. wtf is wrong w/ that as a better solution.

 

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

> @"Hackuuna.4085" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > The matchups will become lopsided because the first thing they will do is figure out how to get all organized alliances on the same server/team color.

>

> One of the core design concepts of the new system is that the active population will not be able to fit everyone into one alliance and that alliances will be unable to guarantee placement on a single world.

>

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > Sounds like a lot of fun, conform to some guys made up rules or get trounced, exactly my point, not a very good update to wvw.

>

> That's exactly what WvW is right now right. Commanders tell you what to do and if you don't do it they log off. How well does your server perform without a commander?

 

 

actually, for years in wvw peeps/servers performed quite well in non organized zergs. also, now, absence or presence of commanders does not seem to be making a difference in the standings/wins/play/play style at all. so, um. I don't get it.

 

y support an exclusionary elitist platform. y not just everyone join who wants to join. when full, new server. when full again new server again. all pugs. u play w/ whoever is on. if ur friends happen to get in same server with u, u play w/ them/alongside them in zerg/in squad w/ them. if not, u play w/ everyone else/whoever is on. simple solution. friendly, challenging. constantly changing and not an exclusionary tool to pick on ppl and make them feel bad till they quit.

 

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > > > > It's pretty straightforward, the new system is going to stack zergs of organized guilds vs single players who are solo. The matchups will become lopsided because the first thing they will do is figure out how to get all organized alliances on the same server/team color. The system caters to guilds and not solo players, as in there are mechanics which are going to reserve spots for alliance members on teams, but not solo players. Wvw will now be a slew of prideful guilds which stomp solo players who don't even have a server or any semblance of pride or identity. The experience will become hollow and I think it will ruin a lot of the motivation to play wvw.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Solo players deserve to get stomped if they refuse to join guilds. If things happen as you predict then these solo players will presumably try to join guilds so they stop getting stomped.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Or solo players could quit, and then guilds will have no new members and nobody to really fight against.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sounds like a lot of fun, conform to some guys made up rules or get trounced, exactly my point, not a very good update to wvw.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Or they could join a guild. Not everyone quits when things get tough.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Either way solo players will now be at a huge disadvantage, as playing solo will now be penalized. Joining a guild isn't the answer as it defeats the purpose and agenda behind playing solo. Forcing solo players to group up in order to have some semblance of balance isn't a good idea.

> > > > >

> > > > > If they're too stubborn to join a guild then they get what they deserve. I don't actually think playing solo will be that bad tbh I think you're being overly dramatic as usual.

> > > >

> > > > Why are you equating playing solo as being stubborn and people in need of punishment and getting what they deserve?

> > >

> > > Because if, as you claim, it's not going to be possible to have a good time playing solo after the restructuring then people who continue to refuse to join a guild are either masochistic or just incredibly stubborn. In either case they get what they deserve.

> >

> > Wasn't aware that solo players needed to be punished lol. I think all guilds should be banned that would be my definition of getting what they deserve, why not make wvw 100% random with no guilds or alliance, failure to comply with that would be people being stubborn and if they are upset with that, then they are getting what they deserve.

>

> So campaign to have guilds banned. Doesn't look like Anet is going in that direction though so I guess people will just have to join guilds if playing solo is terrible or quit the game if they're too stubborn to join a guild. End of thread.

 

um actually, the thread appears to be thriving. how do u know what anet is doing? also, when more peeps quit cuz they don't want to be shamed or bullied into joining a guild, or worse, shamed or bullied cuz they cant get into a guild, what then? well I understand the game has been around a long time, and is a little stale, and this is a welcome effort to shake things up in the most unique, most fun aspect of the game play, surely there must be better ways to do so without excluding more peeps. while gw1 continues on, the population base could be boosted there with some relatively painless changes to everyone. ditto for gw2. why punish anyone at all. why give anyone a punitive "they get what they deserve if they don't conform" attitude. why not welcome everyone and revitalize in that manner. especially since guildies can still find each other and play with each other in a totally random server join up every 8 weeks.

[Roxanne.6140]

Solo play isn't that punishing as what you guys think. On the bright side, you get to meet new people every 8 weeks and spread your chances of finding the right guild for yourself. If anet manages to achieve balance, then you should still get a chance to blob or zerg along according to your preference, unless the guilds are exclusive that is.

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

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

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > It just means that people that aren't liked on their current server likely won't be a part of the alliances that are formed out of those servers.... Unless you are in a guild that is welcomed.

> > >

> > > Otherwise an individual player will have a likely different experience each 8 weeks.

> > >

> > > So.., let's say someone was on BG and followed the large Zergs but would not join the TS nor run a class that was welcome, that person would likely end up rotating worlds every 8 weeks. Good thing is that person will have fresh people to impress.

> >

> > So, um, how friendly. Nice a net is endorsing more mean spirited exclusionary play. People not liked don't get to be part of the alliances? Real nice. Doesn't anyone feel ashamed anymore?

>

> Not sure how that was mean. If someone doesn't run with people consistently, then the opportunity to run with new people every 8 weeks should be refreshing.

>

> If someone gets a rep in the first pairing, they likely would welcome an opportunity to work with different people in the next pairing.

>

> This gives some people a clean slate.

"It just means that people who aren't liked on their current server likely won't be a part of the alliances that are formed out of those servers..."

Um, how is that not mean? Sounds like the very definition of prejudicial mean spirited play that excludes people for no good reason. you will be playing with people you dont like, whether now or after the change. just like in real life. we all get along to play the game and win. but to add a vehicle which allows cliquish guildies/leaders to exclude people from guild/alliance play and to boot them to the curb (guild/game play shaming) cuz they don't like them just fosters bad interactions. and its mean. and it hurts people's feelings unnecessarily and causes game attrition. how is it nice?

 

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

I think if they are going to get rid of servers, there should be no special treatment for guilds/alliances. Make it truly random, otherwise people will use the mechanics set in place to favor guilds, to match manipulate. I guarantee this will happen in some form or another. Random is at least very hard to manipulate especially if its auto-assigned with no ability to choose where you are placed.

 

This will make it fair for everyone. Solo play is fine right now, but once its servers stacked with solo players vs zergs of guilds who used the system to there advantage, its going to be a sad day.

[Roxanne.6140]

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> > @"Roxanne.6140" said:

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

> > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

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

> > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > > It just means that people that aren't liked on their current server likely won't be a part of the alliances that are formed out of those servers.... Unless you are in a guild that is welcomed.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Otherwise an individual player will have a likely different experience each 8 weeks.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So.., let's say someone was on BG and followed the large Zergs but would not join the TS nor run a class that was welcome, that person would likely end up rotating worlds every 8 weeks. Good thing is that person will have fresh people to impress.

> > > > >

> > > > > So, um, how friendly. Nice a net is endorsing more mean spirited exclusionary play. People not liked don't get to be part of the alliances? Real nice. Doesn't anyone feel ashamed anymore?

> > > >

> > > > Not sure how that was mean. If someone doesn't run with people consistently, then the opportunity to run with new people every 8 weeks should be refreshing.

> > > >

> > > > If someone gets a rep in the first pairing, they likely would welcome an opportunity to work with different people in the next pairing.

> > > >

> > > > This gives some people a clean slate.

> > > "It just means that people who aren't liked on their current server likely won't be a part of the alliances that are formed out of those servers..."

> > > Um, how is that not mean? Sounds like the very definition of prejudicial mean spirited play that excludes people for no good reason. you will be playing with people you dont like, whether now or after the change. just like in real life. we all get along to play the game and win. but to add a vehicle which allows cliquish guildies/leaders to exclude people from guild/alliance play and to boot them to the curb (guild/game play shaming) cuz they don't like them just fosters bad interactions. and its mean. and it hurts people's feelings unnecessarily and causes game attrition. how is it nice?

> > >

> >

> > Well if your server decides they don't like your face ingame then you can go f u and meme them 24/7. Don't forget to burn their supplies, draw kitten symbols in the map with siege, go on enemy comms and divulge your server mate's whereabouts etc. Whatever makes you happy.

>

> sad

 

I'm sorry what's sad about that? That sounds like a happy thing to me. I am merely teaching you to be a happier person.

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > also Eater of Peeps is likely just another account this troll is using.

>

> Was just thinking the exact same thing.

>

>

 

well. um. anyone who has seen me playing simultaneously when op is playing in wvw knows we r not the same person/account. I also resent the personal attack - I am not a troll and have said nothing here that should make u mad or make u think I am a troll. I like the idea of having a totally random wvw server reassign every 8 weeks. I think its a good suggestion. I also don't like the suggestion that exclusionary guilds should be allowed/encouraged.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> I also don't like the suggestion that exclusionary guilds should be allowed/encouraged.

 

Well too bad excluding people is a big part of what guilds are for.

[intox.6347]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > It's pretty straightforward, the new system is going to stack zergs of organized guilds vs single players who are solo. The matchups will become lopsided because the first thing they will do is figure out how to get all organized alliances on the same server/team color. The system caters to guilds and not solo players, as in there are mechanics which are going to reserve spots for alliance members on teams, but not solo players. Wvw will now be a slew of prideful guilds which stomp solo players who don't even have a server or any semblance of pride or identity. The experience will become hollow and I think it will ruin a lot of the motivation to play wvw.

>

> Solo players deserve to get stomped if they refuse to join guilds. If things happen as you predict then these solo players will presumably try to join guilds so they stop getting stomped.

 

As a roamer these changes give me different thoughts what will happen. Played from start on same server, roaming and scouting, siege up stuff ... so options looks like i need to join guild and play in zerg or leave wvw.

[HazyDaisy.4107]

Still plan on roaming on my own whenever I feel like it, not more worried about guilds just as I have never been worried about map blobs. People will fight and muster however they need to for themselves, if they need a group of 50 to take an objective they will, if they need that same group of 50 to pick off 5 roamers...not worried in the slightest, people will do what they always do, nothing is going to change.

[Eramonster.2718]

Agree with HazyDaisy.4107 and as for,

 

> As a roamer these changes give me different thoughts what will happen. Played from start on same server, roaming and scouting, siege up stuff ... so options looks like i need to join guild and play in zerg or leave wvw.

 

I don't know how people come to this conclusion but I think there will still be roamers under the new system. Am one, not just for the sake of daily but it's how I play (take camps, takedown other roamers/ loose players etc) solo or with a guildie or two. My concern is more on how the system tracks solo player and place them into an alliance accordingly instead of randomly placing you in one for not being in a WvW guild.

 

Put it this way, if you have multiple roamers, small tactical groups splitting to cap stuff in WvW. The enemy will need to do the same to respond or fall behind. In fact I'm more than happy to keep an entire enemy mob entertained by chasing me around, knowing my team is doing damage elsewhere.

 

Edit:

 

> You would still get a world so you would correctly be assigned a color. If all you played was EofM you'd still be registered with the match maker and still get put on a world though your adjusted play hours would not really affect the population value of the world you were assigned.

 

Hmm match maker.