X T D.6458 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > @"Waffle.3748" said: > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > > Worse or different? > > > > > > > > > > > > Both > > > > > > > > > > I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win. > > > > > > > > Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits. > > > > > > > > Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits. > > > > > > The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post). > > > > This is from the original post on restructuring: > > "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon." > > > > The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap. > > That is true to a point. But if an alliance number has a hard cap of let's say 500, and a 501st player tries to join, i would imagine (though I don't know) it will likely lead to a choice: the guild leaves the alliance, or that player would not be in the alliance OR guaranteed to run with their WvW guild until matchups change and people leave the guild/alliance. > > One thing is much more likely; alliance leaders will wield a large amount of 'power' and guild leaders may use repping as a larger indicator of who stays in the guild. > > If the 'alliance cap' isn't a hard cap, then they are wasting their time. Well thats another issue, people being able to exclude others from being able to play on an alliance/server. One thing I have always loved about WvW is the freedom of choice you have as a player, jump in jump out and do whatever you want, whenever you want. So we now we would have an alliance cap, smaller population cap, and guild cap per alliance. Honestly seems like overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waffle.3748 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 > @"X T D.6458" said: > > @"Waffle.3748" said: > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > @"Waffle.3748" said: > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > > > Worse or different? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both > > > > > > > > > > > > I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win. > > > > > > > > > > Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits. > > > > > > > > > > Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits. > > > > > > > > The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post). > > > > > > This is from the original post on restructuring: > > > "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon." > > > > > > The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap. > > > > Right, so you would still be limited by the number of players in the alliance and the alliance is not the whole world that will be created. I think the big guild thing is what many servers will be doing, nothing new there. > > Its more of an organizational issue. And the population caps might not be an issue at all, or it could we will see. Personally I don't see like the guild cap, I am fine with the population cap, but the issue with having to mark a guild as your wvw guild and have a small cap per alliance really bugs me. The guild marking I can see will bother some people that raid with several guilds. As for organization I think the first go-round will probably be a bit of a mess for a week or two, but will be much better the second time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogbyrn.7283 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 The best ANet can probably do is trying to balance coverage and general populations. Part of a RvR system is going to rely on the community, and by and large, the community can't be relied on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X T D.6458 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 > @"Waffle.3748" said: > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > @"Waffle.3748" said: > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > @"Waffle.3748" said: > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > > > > Worse or different? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits. > > > > > > > > > > The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post). > > > > > > > > This is from the original post on restructuring: > > > > "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon." > > > > > > > > The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap. > > > > > > Right, so you would still be limited by the number of players in the alliance and the alliance is not the whole world that will be created. I think the big guild thing is what many servers will be doing, nothing new there. > > > > Its more of an organizational issue. And the population caps might not be an issue at all, or it could we will see. Personally I don't see like the guild cap, I am fine with the population cap, but the issue with having to mark a guild as your wvw guild and have a small cap per alliance really bugs me. > > The guild marking I can see will bother some people that raid with several guilds. As for organization I think the first go-round will probably be a bit of a mess for a week or two, but will be much better the second time. Oh I agree it will definitely be a mess while people still try to sort out and understand the mechanics. Considering that this is changing the mechanics of a game mode in such a massive way, it will be some time before things settle into place. I am afraid though that this chaotic period will just drive away a lot of players. Increasing the size of guild slots would help, but even still making players feel as though they are required to be part of a guild will limit a players choice and lead to exclusionary behavior as alliance leaders can simply pick and choose who can belong to a mega guild/alliance. This will alienate a lot of players and keep them away from WvW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 > @"X T D.6458" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > @"Waffle.3748" said: > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > > > Worse or different? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both > > > > > > > > > > > > I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win. > > > > > > > > > > Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits. > > > > > > > > > > Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits. > > > > > > > > The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post). > > > > > > This is from the original post on restructuring: > > > "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon." > > > > > > The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap. > > > > That is true to a point. But if an alliance number has a hard cap of let's say 500, and a 501st player tries to join, i would imagine (though I don't know) it will likely lead to a choice: the guild leaves the alliance, or that player would not be in the alliance OR guaranteed to run with their WvW guild until matchups change and people leave the guild/alliance. > > > > One thing is much more likely; alliance leaders will wield a large amount of 'power' and guild leaders may use repping as a larger indicator of who stays in the guild. > > > > If the 'alliance cap' isn't a hard cap, then they are wasting their time. > > Well thats another issue, people being able to exclude others from being able to play on an alliance/server. One thing I have always loved about WvW is the freedom of choice you have as a player, jump in jump out and do whatever you want, whenever you want. > > So we now we would have an alliance cap, smaller population cap, and guild cap per alliance. Honestly seems like overkill. I don't think the population cap will be different than the current 'full' level of servers. Of course, for those full servers without links (NA currently MAG and BG) I expect the numbers would be less, though I think it will likely be more Mags numbers. Gaming will come more from the timezones IF the rewards are big enough. On NA worlds, one alliance full of OCX or SEA peeps could ensure whatever world they were on would win. And to some extent, a large enough alliance of NA players on an EU world could possibly swing matchups as well. It would be Mostly PvD but if the rewards were attractive enough.,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euryon.9248 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 > @"X T D.6458" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > @"Waffle.3748" said: > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > > > Worse or different? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both > > > > > > > > > > > > I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win. > > > > > > > > > > Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits. > > > > > > > > > > Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits. > > > > > > > > The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post). > > > > > > This is from the original post on restructuring: > > > "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon." > > > > > > The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap. > > > > That is true to a point. But if an alliance number has a hard cap of let's say 500, and a 501st player tries to join, i would imagine (though I don't know) it will likely lead to a choice: the guild leaves the alliance, or that player would not be in the alliance OR guaranteed to run with their WvW guild until matchups change and people leave the guild/alliance. > > > > One thing is much more likely; alliance leaders will wield a large amount of 'power' and guild leaders may use repping as a larger indicator of who stays in the guild. > > > > If the 'alliance cap' isn't a hard cap, then they are wasting their time. > > Well thats another issue, people being able to exclude others from being able to play on an alliance/server. One thing I have always loved about WvW is the freedom of choice you have as a player, jump in jump out and do whatever you want, whenever you want. > > So we now we would have an alliance cap, smaller population cap, and guild cap per alliance. Honestly seems like overkill. You can't exclude people from playing on a world. Maybe from being in a particular alliance, but not from being able to play in the world. The alliance <> server, and there is no mechanic in the proposed system that will prevent people from the same "jump in jump out and do whatever you want, whenever you want.". You can still do that. If a particular guild doesn't like that behavior, don't join that guild. Nothing different from the current system. The alliance pop cap and guild cap per alliance are a single item. Only one of those 2 will apply, depending on whether the alliance has a few large guilds or more smaller guilds. There is no "smaller pop cap" for the world, unless you possibly mean in relation to BG currently. Most worlds will be about the same size as current servers+links are now, or possibly slightly larger (if they only have 9 instead of 12 worlds). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X T D.6458 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 > @"Euryon.9248" said: > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > @"Waffle.3748" said: > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > > > > Worse or different? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits. > > > > > > > > > > The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post). > > > > > > > > This is from the original post on restructuring: > > > > "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon." > > > > > > > > The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap. > > > > > > That is true to a point. But if an alliance number has a hard cap of let's say 500, and a 501st player tries to join, i would imagine (though I don't know) it will likely lead to a choice: the guild leaves the alliance, or that player would not be in the alliance OR guaranteed to run with their WvW guild until matchups change and people leave the guild/alliance. > > > > > > One thing is much more likely; alliance leaders will wield a large amount of 'power' and guild leaders may use repping as a larger indicator of who stays in the guild. > > > > > > If the 'alliance cap' isn't a hard cap, then they are wasting their time. > > > > Well thats another issue, people being able to exclude others from being able to play on an alliance/server. One thing I have always loved about WvW is the freedom of choice you have as a player, jump in jump out and do whatever you want, whenever you want. > > > > So we now we would have an alliance cap, smaller population cap, and guild cap per alliance. Honestly seems like overkill. > > You can't exclude people from playing on a world. Maybe from being in a particular alliance, but not from being able to play in the world. The alliance <> server, and there is no mechanic in the proposed system that will prevent people from the same "jump in jump out and do whatever you want, whenever you want.". You can still do that. If a particular guild doesn't like that behavior, don't join that guild. Nothing different from the current system. > > The alliance pop cap and guild cap per alliance are a single item. Only one of those 2 will apply, depending on whether the alliance has a few large guilds or more smaller guilds. > > There is no "smaller pop cap" for the world, unless you possibly mean in relation to BG currently. Most worlds will be about the same size as current servers+links are now, or possibly slightly larger (if they only have 9 instead of 12 worlds). With the start of each season, a player that has not marked a wvw guild will be automatically sorted based on specific data. If they want to play with a group of people they will have to transfer every 8 weeks. This is radically different than the current system where you can play without any guild affiliation and do not get reshuffled. So technically yes you can be excluded from an alliance and a server unless you choose to transfer to it every new seasons which lasts 8 weeks. Population caps, and guild caps are not a single thing, they are separate limits. If a guild cap is set at 5 per alliance, you can technically have an alliance that has 5 guilds and 10 people in each guild. But it does not mean the overall population cap is reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 > @"Cogbyrn.7283" said: > The best ANet can probably do is trying to balance coverage and general populations. Part of a RvR system is going to rely on the community, and by and large, the community can't be relied on. Lol. This is so true. Gw2 players are too casual, stacking is the only answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 for the swarm. =p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > Btw, a side note, it isn't the vocal minority ruining WvW, it is the majority that is ruining WvW. > > > > The minority got ignored for years, their warnings and complains fall on deaf ears. It is only when WvW obviously become dead enough, their feedbacks suddenly become insightful. > > > > > > > > Bandwagoning and stacking alike are caused by the majority. Majority like big fights and easy wins. I must emphasis, easy wins. > > > > > > Many of us have always been more interested in fights as opposed to ktraining or steamrolling our opponents with superior numbers. > > > > Ironically, that what's happen when you stack servers, Stacked servers steam roll non-stacked servers or servers with lesser coverage. Furthermore, stacked servers have way more experienced players compare to other servers. By stacking server, one is accelerating the depopulation of the game. > > I agree, what happened in T1 was pretty bad. Just saying a lot of people also transferred out of T1 and think have been enjoying the fights in T2-3. The thing is all these people contributed to the problems, just because they realise it later (and is much later) doesn't mean anything. Damage is already done. Many servers got burnt, depopulation already accelerated. Furthermore, nowadays, still got people continue stacking while trying hard to justify their actions. Oh well, that's what happen when a group of casuals got drunk with power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aiinseinn.5914 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 because of > @"aiinseinn.5914" said: > [https://yadi.sk/i/SHvFRIxl3VCNmq](https://yadi.sk/i/SHvFRIxl3VCNmq "https://yadi.sk/i/SHvFRIxl3VCNmq") > no more fun .. Anet, get rid of serverlinking, it hurts our souls and drives our brain to death (sry 4 my bad english) Euer Buhhbuh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 > @"aiinseinn.5914" said: > because of > > @"aiinseinn.5914" said: > > [https://yadi.sk/i/SHvFRIxl3VCNmq](https://yadi.sk/i/SHvFRIxl3VCNmq "https://yadi.sk/i/SHvFRIxl3VCNmq") > > > no more fun .. Anet, get rid of serverlinking, it hurts our souls and drives our brain to death (sry 4 my bad english) > Euer Buhhbuh > You are in a tier 5 matchup, the first week after a relink with a server that WAS last place last week. How do expect them to balance it with one up one down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 merge existing links with mainbserver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dralor.3701 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > Btw, a side note, it isn't the vocal minority ruining WvW, it is the majority that is ruining WvW. > > > > > The minority got ignored for years, their warnings and complains fall on deaf ears. It is only when WvW obviously become dead enough, their feedbacks suddenly become insightful. > > > > > > > > > > Bandwagoning and stacking alike are caused by the majority. Majority like big fights and easy wins. I must emphasis, easy wins. > > > > > > > > Many of us have always been more interested in fights as opposed to ktraining or steamrolling our opponents with superior numbers. > > > > > > Ironically, that what's happen when you stack servers, Stacked servers steam roll non-stacked servers or servers with lesser coverage. Furthermore, stacked servers have way more experienced players compare to other servers. By stacking server, one is accelerating the depopulation of the game. > > > > I agree, what happened in T1 was pretty bad. Just saying a lot of people also transferred out of T1 and think have been enjoying the fights in T2-3. > > The thing is all these people contributed to the problems, just because they realise it later (and is much later) doesn't mean anything. Damage is already done. Many servers got burnt, depopulation already accelerated. Furthermore, nowadays, still got people continue stacking while trying hard to justify their actions. > > Oh well, that's what happen when a group of casuals got drunk with power. Well I blame the devs more than the players, they were warned about it and did nothing. I’m sure it was ultimately because they didn’t want to take An extremely heavy handed approach (or xfers are good $) but like you said in the end it has been worse for the game mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > @"Waffle.3748" said: > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > > > @"X T D.6458" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dralor.3701" said: > > > > > > > > > Worse or different? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will miss Mag. At the same time if they manage to do a better job of balancing all populations and creating competitive matches I think that is a win. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well look at it this way, if you lower the population caps to 20% of the current thresholds which means less people playing which means less coverage and will result in less fights. Reshuffle players every 2 months which means players have no server pride. Require players to have to mark a guild specifically for wvw so they can play together, which means this will separate guilds from militia and access to a potential recruiting pool. Put a small cap on the number of guilds allowed into an alliance. Auto assign players to worlds based on their activity level, which means separating new players from experienced players and guilds from even more potential recruits. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lol what could possibly go wrong. Eventually it will devolve into an EoTM style ktrain because there will be no point to WvW. And all the people blindly supporting it will be back here complaining about the lack of fights, lack of coverage, and everyone just pvd'ing all day. Those same guilds will die off one by one because of lack of fights and recruits. > > > > > > > > > > The 20% cap is the amount an alliance will contribute to a world. They're unlikely to reduce population numbers so low, that would be ridiculous (unless I've misread your post). > > > > > > > > This is from the original post on restructuring: > > > > "Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon." > > > > > > > > The problem is that each alliance is supposed to have a small cap on the number of guilds allowed in it. And you would need to mark one as your wvw guild. So basically one way around it is to have a bunch of people join one big guild, mark it as your wvw guild to get everyone on the same alliance/server and then play with your normal guild to get around this cap. > > > > > > That is true to a point. But if an alliance number has a hard cap of let's say 500, and a 501st player tries to join, i would imagine (though I don't know) it will likely lead to a choice: the guild leaves the alliance, or that player would not be in the alliance OR guaranteed to run with their WvW guild until matchups change and people leave the guild/alliance. > > > > > > One thing is much more likely; alliance leaders will wield a large amount of 'power' and guild leaders may use repping as a larger indicator of who stays in the guild. > > > > > > If the 'alliance cap' isn't a hard cap, then they are wasting their time. > > > > Well thats another issue, people being able to exclude others from being able to play on an alliance/server. One thing I have always loved about WvW is the freedom of choice you have as a player, jump in jump out and do whatever you want, whenever you want. > > > > So we now we would have an alliance cap, smaller population cap, and guild cap per alliance. Honestly seems like overkill. > > I don't think the population cap will be different than the current 'full' level of servers. Of course, for those full servers without links (NA currently MAG and BG) I expect the numbers would be less, though I think it will likely be more Mags numbers. > > Gaming will come more from the timezones IF the rewards are big enough. > > On NA worlds, one alliance full of OCX or SEA peeps could ensure whatever world they were on would win. And to some extent, a large enough alliance of NA players on an EU world could possibly swing matchups as well. > > It would be Mostly PvD but if the rewards were attractive enough.,,, Rewards weren't required for our current debacle. People will be Petty for it's own sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > merge existing links with mainbserver Why would they do that when this is coming? https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > merge existing links with mainbserver > > Why would they do that when this is coming? > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring because they can. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > merge existing links with mainbserver > > Why would they do that when this is coming? > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring Because, if you read the first post, no where does it say it's definately happening. I would bet on it happening soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blocki.4931 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 The only issue I have is that sometimes you're stuck with a terrible server as your link. The last 2 months were absolutely horrible since the server we were linked with exclusively played EB with a permanent queue of 30+ and sometimes even resorted to artificially creating a queue on other maps just to troll. They called anybody who didn't play EB a "PvE retard" and team chat was worse than usual as well, no way of asking for help because nobody would ever try to help you defend a tier 3 keep because it's on the wrong map. I really don't mind the linking to cause a bit of a balance shake up and create more balanced population. Just the case I previously mentioned might be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neven.3785 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 I for one am looking forward to the new system. Despite being old school mag, the guild i am with is likely not going to be aligned with the main alliance guild. While many of us have friends and old guildmates in the community guild, we currently play with one group with a few sister guilds of casuals, likely the alliance we are in will consist of people we actually play with. Besides, Mags community guild is half full of kiddies with ego issues who only recently transferred to the server to join the real trolls. RIP mag team chat :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage.7145 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"neven.3785" said: > I for one am looking forward to the new system. Despite being old school mag, the guild i am with is likely not going to be aligned with the main alliance guild. While many of us have friends and old guildmates in the community guild, we currently play with one group with a few sister guilds of casuals, likely the alliance we are in will consist of people we actually play with. Besides, Mags community guild is half full of kiddies with ego issues who only recently transferred to the server to join the real trolls. RIP mag team chat :( It's ok neven, alliances will be here in 2030 your grandsons will be leading TTD then, it is all good bud, GW5 hype, aliances soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neven.3785 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 Lol gw5 can't wait, where is the preorder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim West.3194 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 There are two main problems in WvW. Coverage and server transfers. The basic design flaw of WvW is that **coverage is all important**. All that matters in WvW is which server has the best coverage. Coverage invalidates tactics, skill, and everything else that should be important in an RvR game. SKILL DOES NOT MATTER. Only coverage. BandwagonGate is perfect proof of this fact. No skill and tons of coverage. The lemming tide. Server links were an attempt to fix coverage issues. Some servers have better coverage in different time zones. It makes sense but it was doomed to fail because ANET has never had the courage to address the **other main problem in WvW and that is server transfers**. The coverage issues might have been dealt with but ANET made server transfers too easy and it ruined any chance at dealing with population imbalances. Top that with ANET's total inability to keep BlackGate from cheating their way into having 10 times the players of any other server and you have a perfect storm turning a fun game mode into garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiri.4257 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 coverage can be minimized with cutting back on the 24/7 game mode with like 1-2hour black outs. like 4hr on 2 hr off or 5 hr on and 1hr off with a full structure t0 reset. or just give T3 garrison per reset with full supplies. it doesn't sideline any time zone in particular or force people to play at a specific time. it just minimizes a runaway dead zones. 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