Post your ideas to improve World Restructuring.

[X T D.6458]

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > The guild reqs are unnecessarily complicated and there are a lot of small everyday details that will be more noticeable when the system goes live. It also promotes exclusionary behavior and can be easily manipulated as I already pointed out. If the point of this restructuring is to make it easier to promote population balance by lowering the player caps per server, it doesn't make sense to add in a bunch of reqs that deter people from being able to play where they want to.

>

> I don't see whats so complicated about them. there are a certain number of guilds per alliance, and there are a certain number of people per alliance so that scenario wouldn't happen that you pointed out. you rep your guild, and bam that's pretty much all there is to it. there is nothing about lowering player caps per server, and not much about exclusionary behavior unless you think 500-1000 people per alliance is too small, in which I would ask if you really think that there are that many people playing gw2 wvw. if you don't join an alliance, you get shuffled like a rag doll, so join an alliance.

>

 

Small guilds and militia are vital to any server and guild. Guilds rely on them for support and recruitment. Allowing a handful of guilds to artificially lock an alliance because of a low guild cap will simply exclude a lot of players. This will end up hurting those guilds in the long run. A server needs an active population and new blood to stay healthy, as well as people that engage in different playstyles like scouting, roaming, small team play etc.

 

You need to remember WvW is 24/7, it is not timed matches like PvP.

[Eramonster.2718]

I think you got confused with how the new system will work. It will be a three sided war between 3 alliances/guilds. Server will no longer play a role imo, an alliance/guild can recruit players from different servers.

 

The cap seems reasonable, since there's no point in having say 2000+ players to be locked behind que time. Too soon to make any judgement, but it is an improvement or at least an attempt to fix the current system's problem.

 

Instead of having X server and Y server is good in WvW. You will be seeing X alliance and Y alliance is good in WvW. And they can freely recruit players to join their ranks(within the cap) without server restrictions.

 

A good change since "Guilds" will be playing a major role in the new system. Currently, guilds are merely banks or collective of strangers(not even close to be called a community & you can see the solo playing mentality by now).

[X T D.6458]

> @"Eramonster.2718" said:

> I think you got confused with how the new system will work. It will be a three sided war between 3 alliances/guilds. Server will no longer play a role imo, an alliance/guild can recruit players from different servers.

>

> The cap seems reasonable, since there's no point in having say 2000+ players to be locked behind que time. Too soon to make any judgement, but it is an improvement or at least an attempt to fix the current system's problem.

>

> Instead of having X server and Y server is good in WvW. You will be seeing X alliance and Y alliance is good in WvW. And they can freely recruit players to join their ranks(within the cap) without server restrictions.

>

> A good change since "Guilds" will be playing a major role in the new system. Currently, guilds are merely banks or collective of strangers(not even close to be called a community & you can see the solo playing mentality by now).

 

I might have some things mixed up because like I said I did not read through that entire main thread, its over 1400 posts now. I did not really mention the server population cap as one of my main issues, although I believe it will not be positive for servers in the long run because it will make coverage very difficult. The main issue here that I was referring to in my reply is the guild cap for alliances, which really seems rather pointless when combined with the smaller population cap.

 

Hypothetically you can have 5 small guilds with a total of 25 players lock up an alliance with a 5 guild max if they should establish it and get on a server first. Same thing with 5 large guilds. It just seems like an unnecssary barrier that can be used to exclude people.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> Small guilds and militia are vital to any server and guild. Guilds rely on them for support and recruitment. Allowing a handful of guilds to artificially lock an alliance because of a low guild cap will simply exclude a lot of players. This will end up hurting those guilds in the long run. A server needs an active population and new blood to stay healthy, as well as people that engage in different playstyles like scouting, roaming, small team play etc.

>

> You need to remember WvW is 24/7, it is not timed matches like PvP.

 

where are you getting this guild cap from? I'm sure there is one but I didn't catch it anywhere. I'm guessing it will be big enough to accommodate even t1 servers. remember there can be several alliances per world. coverage will always be a problem, hopefully they take into account a players time zone when they put together worlds.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Eramonster.2718" said:

> I think you got confused with how the new system will work. It will be a three sided war between 3 alliances/guilds. Server will no longer play a role imo, an alliance/guild can recruit players from different servers.

>

> The cap seems reasonable, since there's no point in having say 2000+ players to be locked behind que time. Too soon to make any judgement, but it is an improvement or at least an attempt to fix the current system's problem.

>

> Instead of having X server and Y server is good in WvW. You will be seeing X alliance and Y alliance is good in WvW. And they can freely recruit players to join their ranks(within the cap) without server restrictions.

>

> A good change since "Guilds" will be playing a major role in the new system. Currently, guilds are merely banks or collective of strangers(not even close to be called a community & you can see the solo playing mentality by now).

People are confused across the board and trying to imagine alliances as something they are not. The number of 500-1000 Anet has spoken about is the *cap*, nothing else. Just like guilds have a cap of 500.

 

Its real simple: a server (current) = lots of random guilds + pugs = ~2-5 alliances (at 10-20%) + less random guilds +pugs = a world (new).

 

Its the same population as now. Its just cut into more manageable chunks that they can MMR. WvW from the ground perspective will look exactly the same under the new system. Server still play a role - they are just called worlds. Its the same thing.

[X T D.6458]

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > Small guilds and militia are vital to any server and guild. Guilds rely on them for support and recruitment. Allowing a handful of guilds to artificially lock an alliance because of a low guild cap will simply exclude a lot of players. This will end up hurting those guilds in the long run. A server needs an active population and new blood to stay healthy, as well as people that engage in different playstyles like scouting, roaming, small team play etc.

> >

> > You need to remember WvW is 24/7, it is not timed matches like PvP.

>

> where are you getting this guild cap from? I'm sure there is one but I didn't catch it anywhere. I'm guessing it will be big enough to accommodate even t1 servers. remember there can be several alliances per world. coverage will always be a problem, hopefully they take into account a players time zone when they put together worlds.

 

Q. Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance?

 

Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full.

 

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26877/world-restructuring-faq

[Eramonster.2718]

Base on my understanding of the new system.

 

> Hypothetically you can have 5 small guilds with a total of 25 players lock up an alliance with a 5 guild max if they should establish it and get on a server first. Same thing with 5 large guilds. It just seems like an unnecssary barrier that can be used to exclude people.

 

Was surprisingly mentioned by a few players too. But it's actually a misconception after some thinking. In the new system, you will be assigned to the alliance of the WvW guild you **choose to be on**. Players do not need to represent the WvW guild, the player however will be fighting under/alongside that guilds name in WvW. Example, in gw2 we can have 5 guilds :

 

1) Current guild : ERA (representing)

2) WvW guild : MnM (chosed to be part of their force this week)

3) My personal bank guild : MoNS

4) PvE guild : xxx

5) PvX guild : yyy

 

I will be fighting under the alliance MnM guild is in for the week even tho I'm representing ERA. Theoretically you can : represent you current guild, make/join a rally WvW guild (name of server) not sure if other server recruits will mind tho and fight under X alliance (2-5 guilds that covers each other dead time zones.)

 

Eg. XTD (Current guild) > under WvW Guild (Server name) > Alliance matchup.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

Remove any reserved spots for guilds/alliances so wvw is 100% random like one giant solo que.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Eramonster.2718" said:

> I think you got confused with how the new system will work. It will be a three sided war between 3 alliances/guilds. Server will no longer play a role imo, an alliance/guild can recruit players from different servers.

>

its not a fight between three alliances. It will still be worlds made up of alliances, guilds and individual players. Based on the initial image presented, a world can have two alliances. Along with non allied guilds.

>

> Instead of having X server and Y server is good in WvW. You will be seeing X alliance and Y alliance is good in WvW. And they can freely recruit players to join their ranks(within the cap) without server restrictions.

>

Servers will now be called worlds, with different restrictions. To a point, guilds will have more freedom to recruit. But if they are in an alliance that is full, they won't be able to play together until either they leave the alliance, or the alliance opens up a spot.

 

> A good change since "Guilds" will be playing a major role in the new system. Currently, guilds are merely banks or collective of strangers(not even close to be called a community & you can see the solo playing mentality by now).

 

to a point, yes. But it has been noted that the alliance leader will be able to kick guilds from the alliance. Of course, if that happens, I would imagine things progressed to the point of toxicity anyway so..

 

 

[Eramonster.2718]

@Stand The Wall.6987

Sorry, my bad forget to mention 2000+ is just a made up example for that point. The number anet gave was 500-1000(still in consideration I think?).

 

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> Remove any reserved spots for guilds/alliances so wvw is 100% random like one giant solo que.

 

Kinda, since an alliance free from server binds. An alliance is a substitude of what used to be server. Remove tier, and current system is 100% random like one giant solo que.

 

For the new system, a good coverage server is a full round cookie. Sadly, most of the cookies have missing sections and it's not wise to merge the servers together. The new system breaks the cookies into smaller portions/sections(guilds) and fit the pieces together to reform complete cookies. Its not a perfect system, there will be pieces left out(leftover guilds that lacks quota) and crumbs(daily/solo players) which will be randomly placed. But it will give more representable/complete coverage matchup.

 

@"Strider Pj.2193" ty for helping to make it clearer :smile:

 

> But it has been noted that the alliance leader will be able to kick guilds from the alliance. Of course, if that happens, I would imagine things progressed to the point of toxicity anyway so..

 

Thought about this too. But once the matchup starts, the alliance kinda sticks. Although im not sure how or if anyone can kick a guild out of the alliance (maybe with a vote from the guild leaders in the alliance?) No idea tbh. But the guild will remain to fight in the same world under the same "color" for the week. Just need to find and fit into another alliance for the next matchup(which is similar to a guild transfer).

[Stand The Wall.6987]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> Q. Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance?

>

> Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full.

>

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26877/world-restructuring-faq

 

oh alright thanks for that. yeah seems like they are aiming for a low number of guilds which would be a mistake, but as the example shows here the alliance cap is also determined by the number of players which is good.

[Mini Crinny.6190]

Instead allow players to mark a specific alliance as their favorite. What this does is allow anyone to join a server freely as long as it is open without having to go through the needlessly complicated process of having guild requirements.

 

This will just create the same problem with population as we do now, players who don’t choose any WvW guild will just be put into a world that the system thinks is good for him and his playtime. I don’t know by people are scared to meet new players playing the same game mode, for me I think it’ll be nice to see different faces every 8 weeks.

[Euryon.9248]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Eramonster.2718" said:

 

> >

> its not a fight between three alliances. It will still be worlds made up of alliances, guilds and individual players. Based on the initial image presented, a world can have two alliances. Along with non allied guilds.

 

I don't think there's anything special about the number 2 here, that was just the storyboard Anet drew up to illustrate the concept. A world may end up having 3 or more alliances, esp. if they are smaller alliances.

 

We don't yet know what kinds of pieces anet will be working with because no one has actually created alliances yet. Maybe people will tend to join max-cap alliances, which will create fewer discrete pieces to be sorted, or maybe there will only be a few of these very large alliances with a large number of smaller alliances, which gives Anet more pieces to distribute. Maybe there will be a lot of unaffiliated people not joining alliances, or maybe most of the playerbase will join a small or larger alliance in the end. We don't even really know how many worlds there will be total because we don't know exactly how big the playerbase is or will become both before implementation and during each season.

 

These are all variables that will affect the composition of a world. It may have 2 big alliances, a couple of small alliances, and randoms. It may have 1 big alliance, a bunch of smaller alliances, and randoms. It's going to be a lot harder to game/manipulate because of the continuing variation in number of alliances, sizes of the alliances, and number of free players, not to mention that no matter how 'stacked' people try to make any single alliance, that alliance will only be a fraction of the world size and that alliance cannot control the remainder of the people who are fighting with them that week. People may try to transfer mid-season to a world that is doing well, assuming it isn't already full -- but they won't be grouped with those people come next season, so the motivation to do so is greatly reduced compared to what it currently is to transfer to a top-level server.

 

 

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Eramonster.2718" said:

>

> > >

> > its not a fight between three alliances. It will still be worlds made up of alliances, guilds and individual players. Based on the initial image presented, a world can have two alliances. Along with non allied guilds.

>

> I don't think there's anything special about the number 2 here, that was just the storyboard Anet drew up to illustrate the concept. A world may end up having 3 or more alliances, esp. if they are smaller alliances.

>

> We don't yet know what kinds of pieces anet will be working with because no one has actually created alliances yet. Maybe people will tend to join max-cap alliances, which will create fewer discrete pieces to be sorted, or maybe there will only be a few of these very large alliances with a large number of smaller alliances, which gives Anet more pieces to distribute. Maybe there will be a lot of unaffiliated people not joining alliances, or maybe most of the playerbase will join a small or larger alliance in the end. We don't even really know how many worlds there will be total because we don't know exactly how big the playerbase is or will become both before implementation and during each season.

>

> These are all variables that will affect the composition of a world. It may have 2 big alliances, a couple of small alliances, and randoms. It may have 1 big alliance, a bunch of smaller alliances, and randoms. It's going to be a lot harder to game/manipulate because of the continuing variation in number of alliances, sizes of the alliances, and number of free players, not to mention that no matter how 'stacked' people try to make any single alliance, that alliance will only be a fraction of the world size and that alliance cannot control the remainder of the people who are fighting with them that week. People may try to transfer mid-season to a world that is doing well, assuming it isn't already full -- but they won't be grouped with those people come next season, so the motivation to do so is greatly reduced compared to what it currently is to transfer to a top-level server.

>

>

>

 

Not going to disagree with this. Just noted that it isn't Just an alliance vs an alliance, and that worlds were made up of alliances and guilds. I used the term 'can' for that reason meaning it was possible, not that it was exclusionary.

 

It's not a war of three alliances. It's a war or three worlds still.