Guild Wars 2

Population is becoming an issue even on T2 servers (I’m on FA and anything but EBG is routinely empty).

How do you guys feel about:
1) Remove concept of servers (we already have megaserver PVE)
2) Add concept of “Alliance”
3) Alliance is account bound, costs gems to transfer just like server transfers
4) Reduced number of alliances (about half as many as there are servers, or maybe even less)
5) Do not need to choose an alliance until when trying to go to WvW for the first time. This will help new players who don’t understand that servers only matter for WvW.

The difference between a “server” and “alliance” is pretty small. Basically, there are far less alliances than servers and they do not need to be chosen until trying to enter WvW. In a perfect world, every alliance is “full” all the time so that every tier would be fully populated and only skill would separate them.

Bonus: other ideas
1) Alliances can be guild-based instead of account-based (although this has the makings of server/alliance hoping)
2) Alliances expire after every WvW tournament season and every account must select a new one upon entering WvW for the first time after every season

Its not a new idea. A lot of games already do this. In a sense, EotM is pushing this boundary also. But combining 3 servers into one alliance might help fill those new BL’s.

I always figured ANet would move towards Alliance style play eventually.

The idea of a Guild Alliance system has been around since release and IMO the best option they have to solve coverage/population issues in WvW.

Nope. Hate it.

It would mean that new people coming into the map are left out. It would force people to join guilds if you want to compete. Some of us enjoy our solo gigs and are still helpful to a map.

Alliances would also lead to fights between guilds as one group shuns another. It just means more drama.

If WvW went EoTM (as an alliance form), it would mean overflow maps and difficulty getting your guild/regular defense team onto the same map every day — at the very least it would be a pain in the butt.

So nope. No thank you.

I’m a fan of having a server identity, creating a functioning team that you can rely on, and not having to be guilded to do it. If you enjoy guilds as a playstyle, you already have the extra benefit of a hall that is out of reach of the smaller guilds.

The CDI thread had quite a bit of ideas around Alliance systems, and even one of the ANet reps was talking specifically about it.

I strongly suspect we are going to see something like this in the future, when they have had time to develop on it, and it is finished enough that they will present it. Which also means it will be finished enough that they won’t listen to player input about it, unfortunately.

Jayne.9251:

It would mean that new people coming into the map are left out. It would force people to join guilds if you want to compete. Some of us enjoy our solo gigs and are still helpful to a map.

In this system, players that are guild-less would be slotted into a matchup that could most use their support. Unaligned guilds and players would be the mortar in the foundation of balanced play.

Jayne.9251:

Alliances would also lead to fights between guilds as one group shuns another. It just means more drama.

Which is a form of play that many players enjoy. The lack of any political maneuvering has really hurt this portion of the game. There is a reason that EVE Online is one of the most engaging MMOs out there and it is because of this higher level faction play.

Jayne.9251:

If WvW went EoTM (as an alliance form), it would mean overflow maps and difficulty getting your guild/regular defense team onto the same map every day — at the very least it would be a pain in the butt.

Depends on the system. The one most proposed would still have matchups like today but they would be assembled each week between various guild alliances. If a guild is aligned with another guild, it would likely be put in a match together. If a guild is at war with another guild, the system would weigh that and put them on an opposing alliance. Roamers and unaligned guilds would balance out the populations and the system would value balance and diversity over stability (i.e. staleness).

Jayne.9251:

I’m a fan of having a server identity, creating a functioning team that you can rely on, and not having to be guilded to do it. If you enjoy guilds as a playstyle, you already have the extra benefit of a hall that is out of reach of the smaller guilds.

A “server” is a guild alliance and one that is completely arbitrary. There is virtually no difference between a guild alliance and a server system other than scale and the ability for ANet to balance the matches.

There’s no if or buts about it, they’re going to have to go with these “alliance” or also known as “battlegroup” setup that other games utilize. There’s just not enough population to support all these servers for WvW, no matter the tier. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are already working on it in the background. Because they should see the decline in WvW over the years, and the continuous population imbalance issues.

It’s like having spvp tournaments play 5 v 3 or 5 v 1 every week, or in lower tier cases, 1 v 1 due to lack of WvW population. It just doesn’t work and can’t sustain.

There’s a lot of designing and iterations to do until something like this can be done, but I really hope it’s eventually done.

The main problem with alliances is people jumping ship to the ones doing better. Meaning there would have to be very good reasons for players with more experience and skill to go to ‘underdog’ alliances, evening things out until all alliances have more or less similar power.

MithranArkanere.8957:

There’s a lot of designing and iterations to do until something like this can be done, but I really hope it’s eventually done.

The main problem with alliances is people jumping ship to the ones doing better. Meaning there would have to be very good reasons for players with more experience and skill to go to ‘underdog’ alliances, evening things out until all alliances have more or less similar power.

I agree, but this problem isn’t unlike what we already have with stacked servers now.

A lot of people in WvW are pretty attached to their servers.

MithranArkanere.8957:

The main problem with alliances is people jumping ship to the ones doing better. Meaning there would have to be very good reasons for players with more experience and skill to go to ‘underdog’ alliances, evening things out until all alliances have more or less similar power.

The advantage of a Guild Alliance system is that it can work inside the existing framework of multiple matches. Users can pick which guild they associate with for each match and the matchup system would distribute guilds into factions (red, blue, green) based on those guild’s alliances and guild’s enemies.

This system allows for political maneuvering, keeps the matches fresh, will do a better job balancing populations each week, will reduce coverage issues and will not require a huge investment rewriting the current system.

You gotta wonder how Alliances would work with regards to the casual and solo player who remains on the server they are on because they enjoy the community of that server and has a reasonable expectation that they will always be a member of that community without having to join WvW all the time.

Chaba.5410:

You gotta wonder how Alliances would work with regards to the casual and solo player who remains on the server they are on because they enjoy the community of that server and has a reasonable expectation that they will always be a member of that community without having to join WvW all the time.

In a true Guild Alliance system, they would ally themselves with guilds they enjoy playing with. Each week when the guilds are shuffled into factions for a matchup, players/guilds that are allies will likely be sorted together.

Straegen.2938:

Chaba.5410:

You gotta wonder how Alliances would work with regards to the casual and solo player who remains on the server they are on because they enjoy the community of that server and has a reasonable expectation that they will always be a member of that community without having to join WvW all the time.

In a true Guild Alliance system, they would ally themselves with guilds they enjoy playing with. Each week when the guilds are shuffled into factions for a matchup, players/guilds that are allies will likely be sorted together.

Ah being realistic, you know that wouldn’t entirely happen. One only has to read the posts on this forum from players returning to the game and asking about how to get into a Full server because their guild had moved there to know there’s some practicality being lost in the idea.

Chaba.5410:

Ah being realistic, you know that wouldn’t entirely happen. One only has to read the posts on this forum from players returning to the game and asking about how to get into a Full server because their guild had moved there to know there’s some practicality being lost in the idea.

Not sure what you mean. In a Guild Alliance system there would be no full servers or matches. The matching system will prioritize allied guilds/players into the same faction in a match. Players that have no alliances or enemies will be put into factions/matches that most need them for population/coverage balance.

Straegen.2938:

Chaba.5410:

Ah being realistic, you know that wouldn’t entirely happen. One only has to read the posts on this forum from players returning to the game and asking about how to get into a Full server because their guild had moved there to know there’s some practicality being lost in the idea.

Not sure what you mean. In a Guild Alliance system there would be no full servers or matches. The matching system will prioritize allied guilds/players into the same faction in a match. Players that have no alliances or enemies will be put into factions/matches that most need them for population/coverage balance.

OP mentioned alliances being Full and there being a smaller number of alliances than servers. Basically a server merge idea floated under a different name.

Chaba.5410:

OP mentioned alliances being Full and there being a smaller number of alliances than servers. Basically a server merge idea floated under a different name.

The OP post is about Alliances which I would call Factions or Realms. I was referencing Guild Alliances instead of another fixed server based system.

Probably they would just start of with the servers as an "Alliance" and then shuffle random of these together into a "battlegroup" or something. So the server community remains, but with the randomizing the battlegroups they can ensure some way of avoiding large parts of the stacking problems we currently have with servers.

And by setting a certain "size" to it, they can fuse together servers until they reach that "size", thus a single server can’t make or break a battlegroup alone.

The main advantage is that it would be dynamic, it can change and adopt itself to the number of players. So in worst case it could group down to a single match-up if there was next to no one left.

Also, it retains as much server identity as they can manage and still do something about this.

If this happens, I’m going to actually like the new Desert BL, since it’s large enough that it will *feel* less populated when I want to small-server-roam again.

Straegen.2938:

Jayne.9251:

It would mean that new people coming into the map are left out. It would force people to join guilds if you want to compete. Some of us enjoy our solo gigs and are still helpful to a map.

In this system, players that are guild-less would be slotted into a matchup that could most use their support. Unaligned guilds and players would be the mortar in the foundation of balanced play.

lol. worse.

So the people who are the backbone of the server, the ones that usually keep up the scouting and sieging (and in the past upgrades) would arbitrarily be placed into a map “where needed”?

I’m guessing you don’t do a lot of defense. There’s a network of solo or small guild players that basically shore up defense for a server … at least that’s how it’s been for most servers I’ve been on in NA and EU.

You’re basically saying their job is to fill in the holes.

That’s not a good thing.

That means that the defense team that’s used to playing together and working together as a team would be split up wherever they “fit”.

Yes ofc they could make a guild, but most people who play solo don’t want to be in a guild in the first place.

Your idea would completely eliminate your defense team.

Jayne.9251:

Nope. Hate it.

It would mean that new people coming into the map are left out. It would force people to join guilds if you want to compete.

No it doesn’t. There are proposals around that deal with this issue.

morrolan.9608:

Jayne.9251:

Nope. Hate it.

It would mean that new people coming into the map are left out. It would force people to join guilds if you want to compete.

No it doesn’t. There are proposals around that deal with this issue.

Care to outline them then?

Jayne.9251:

So the people who are the backbone of the server, the ones that usually keep up the scouting and sieging (and in the past upgrades) would arbitrarily be placed into a map “where needed”?

Only if the player chooses to remain unaligned. Most likely, defensive minded players would be highly sought after by guild alliances to join them. I would expect some guild alliances paying defensive guilds/players to join them. Nothing about a guild alliance system prevents players from doing what they like to do.

Not sure what is funny about that but whatever floats your boat.

Jayne.9251:

You’re basically saying their job is to fill in the holes. That’s not a good thing.

Players that choose to remain unaligned will be slotted into whichever matchups need them. These players would effectively be mercenaries and most likely players just looking for a good fight but again that is a choice. Players that want to defend an alliance would join one.

Jayne.9251:

morrolan.9608:

Jayne.9251:

Nope. Hate it.

It would mean that new people coming into the map are left out. It would force people to join guilds if you want to compete.

No it doesn’t. There are proposals around that deal with this issue.

Care to outline them then?

https://toughlovecritic.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/putting-guilds-back-into-guild-wars-wvw-alliances-part-1/

morrolan.9608:

https://toughlovecritic.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/putting-guilds-back-into-guild-wars-wvw-alliances-part-1/

Thanks for that link. I had never read this post and found it to have a very similar analysis to my own. I would make guild alliance matchups a bit more free flowing but their system would be a monumental improvement over what we have today.

Saying servers have no identity is twiting the reality to make it fit the concept.
Vizunah went down when it’s leader stepped down and went back up when he came back. Jade Sea was below AR and did manage to reach out to it’s populaiton despite the megaservers, to enroll them and to get them fighting around the clock.
My server, AR, has for a long time been around 9th position. We lost people because we were not able to motivate our troops – because we arean individualist bunch.

3 servers, 3 identities. 3 national servers, should I add.
Those alliances do not consider langage. They take for granted that everyone can and want to play in one langage.

And languages often mean timezone. French would play from 9-11, spanish are more active 11-1, Deutches are earlier, and so on.
On EU, server identity is not just pride, it’s also the ability to choose to speak in your prefferred language with the insurrance that everyone will understand you.

I’ve seen french writing on megaserver map, being told to go english please.
Alliances… We would need to make alliance with foreign speaking people to get a working alliance? Because our guilds are not playing around the clock. They play at prime time. Most don’t accept pugs when they raid. Most guild commanders hardly command in pugs. Pugs are the ones making the MU, they are the ones getting together to get things done, they are the ones creating the spirit that makes people stick for a little longer, out of prime time.

Leadership of the community, that is what keeps people on a server – Few of our servermates went to winning free server. The community kept us together.

Alliances is not going to solve anything. It would only stop people from playing together.

I raid with my WvW guild once a week. Almost all night I pug for a few hours. My mates are more my fellow night’s group than my guild, but I wouldn’t want to give up my weekly outings with them.

The new map should not be a reason to ask for a change in how things work.
It is unlikely that they would increase the population, given the server load.

I believe how they are doing it is good. It might take time, but eventually it will trickle down – just give it the needed time.

Jocksy.3415:

I believe how they are doing it is good. It might take time, but eventually it will trickle down – just give it the needed time.

They say that crap in rl and it never works that way, rich gets richer. What they’re doing right now is slowly killing higher pop servers, while lower pop servers get more and more empty. Why? Because when people are bored, can’t find action, or find the gameplay boring/badly designed, people quit. They don’t trickle down, they quit and play something else, or play another mode completely. How Anet’s doing it is what got us here in the first place.

There are not enough new players coming in to WvW to replace those leaving. This is why lower pop servers are staying low pop. Not to mention they’ve locked many servers that could use more players because of their whacked population count system. So even if people want to join their friends or see what it’s like to mega blob, they can’t.

Bottom line is there are too many servers, not enough players, and Anet developers are not making the necessary changes to WvW to improve player experiences. Nor are they adding new incentives to draw people out there, not in the same way they’ve treated PvE and PvP. Combine it all together, you have what we see today. Some zerging during NA, lack of action most other timezones, lots of cat & mouse chase in these new large empty maps, and people growing more and more tired & bored of this game mode.

Something’s gotta change. And people gotta stop saying give it time. We were supposed to wait until HoT for all these crazy flood of returning players, but we just aren’t seeing them. Some people are coming back for PvE sure, but most that have read about the new desert borderlands are just laughing and staying away.

I get that some people are attached to their server. But it’s time for the greater good, there are things Anet needs to change in order to save this game mode…for the whole game.

Jocksy.3415:

Saying servers have no identity is twiting the reality to make it fit the concept.
Vizunah went down when it’s leader stepped down and went back up when he came back. Jade Sea was below AR and did manage to reach out to it’s populaiton despite the megaservers, to enroll them and to get them fighting around the clock.
My server, AR, has for a long time been around 9th position. We lost people because we were not able to motivate our troops – because we arean individualist bunch.

3 servers, 3 identities. 3 national servers, should I add.

I wouldn’t say Vizunah has much of a server identity from that. It just has a leader that can rally people.

Hey All, I think there were misconceptions about my idea. It isn’t so much guild-focused (although that was one of the possibilities) but rather rebranded servers… but far less and focused only on those who WANT to be in WvW.

This also has the perk of more accurately tracking ACTIVE wvw player and ACTIVE wvw population!

Straegen.2938:

Jayne.9251:

So the people who are the backbone of the server, the ones that usually keep up the scouting and sieging (and in the past upgrades) would arbitrarily be placed into a map “where needed”?

Only if the player chooses to remain unaligned. Most likely, defensive minded players would be highly sought after by guild alliances to join them. I would expect some guild alliances paying defensive guilds/players to join them. Nothing about a guild alliance system prevents players from doing what they like to do.

Not sure what is funny about that but whatever floats your boat.

Jayne.9251:

You’re basically saying their job is to fill in the holes. That’s not a good thing.

Players that choose to remain unaligned will be slotted into whichever matchups need them. These players would effectively be mercenaries and most likely players just looking for a good fight but again that is a choice. Players that want to defend an alliance would join one.

Here’s why I don’t join guilds: universal cooperation.

I like running independently of all guilds, so, in effect, I can help ALL guilds. Without any so-called “political” alignment, I am able to talk with every guild on server, not get caught up in the drama, and maximize my usefulness to all involved.

The alliance system, even though you may enjoy it, will cause nothing but drama. We’ve seen in the past that anything put into the hands of players will be gamed or twisted for someone’s personal agenda or enjoyment. Imagine wanting to play in a certain alliance, and being told “sorry, full” after you’ve had some stupid fight. So you either sit out a week, or you make nice. Meh. That leads to all kinds of ridiculous online megalomania. We’ve seen some prime examples of that without the alliance system. It’s just harder to game with a server system vs alliance system.

There will be a million threads similar to “he won’t let me play with them” on the forum and I hate seeing anyone left out. It’s a game. We all paid for it. We all deserve to play how we want.

The server system is pragmatic. And objective. The alliance system would be completely subjective.

I realize the alliance system would be more like a fantasy football league thing, but I do feel it has the very real ability to leave large (independent) sections of loyal WvWers out in the cold.

Straegen.2938:

Chaba.5410:

You gotta wonder how Alliances would work with regards to the casual and solo player who remains on the server they are on because they enjoy the community of that server and has a reasonable expectation that they will always be a member of that community without having to join WvW all the time.

In a true Guild Alliance system, they would ally themselves with guilds they enjoy playing with. Each week when the guilds are shuffled into factions for a matchup, players/guilds that are allies will likely be sorted together.

Anything that, at best “will likely” put me with my friends acquaintances I have played with for 3 years is garbage. Unless you can suggest a system that “will certainly”, I will argue against it. But “will certainly” would more likely get my vote.

Straegen.2938:

Players that choose to remain unaligned will be slotted into whichever matchups need them. These players would effectively be mercenaries and most likely players just looking for a good fight but again that is a choice. Players that want to defend an alliance would join one.

Thus destroying all the relationships they have had for 3 years. In essence, punishing them for not being in a large guild. Major strike 2 in this bad idea.

It’s not going to be a choice for Anet. WvW maps are just empty and the old maps were empty too. Too many people stopped playing since EotM.

There isn’t even 100 players per server playing [even at peak times] beside in the top tiers. Meanwhile the new map alone could hold over 250 people if the network code/server didn’t choke when a map is full.

coglin.1867:

Anything that, at best “will likely” put me with my friends acquaintances I have played with for 3 years is garbage. Unless you can suggest a system that “will certainly”, I will argue against it. But “will certainly” would more likely get my vote.

If a player belongs to the same guild or guild alliance as their friends, that player will always be in the same match with those friends. A match would be a collection of guild alliances assigned to a faction (red, green, blue) each week. The system would generate as many matches as needed based on population/coverage numbers.

So a player that is in a four man guild allied with a 100 man guild will always play with the 100 man guild in that alliance. The “will likely” part of this is that guilds would only be allowed a certain number of alliances so you may not be able to play with all your acquaintances every week.

Jayne.9251:

Here’s why I don’t join guilds: universal cooperation.

I like running independently of all guilds, so, in effect, I can help ALL guilds. Without any so-called “political” alignment, I am able to talk with every guild on server, not get caught up in the drama, and maximize my usefulness to all involved

<snip>

The current system is a crap-hole of coverage and population issues. Off hours PvD, players logging in and being constantly out-manned on some servers, matchups with the same opponents week in and week out for months and guild transfers that gut a server are killing this portion of the game.

You are obviously welcome to cling to the old structure that is sucking the life out of WvW. For the vast majority of players, a Guild Alliance system will be better and I truly believe if implemented 99.9% of the players will like it far better. Is it perfect? No. Is it better? Yes, in almost every way I can see.

coglin.1867:

Thus destroying all the relationships they have had for 3 years. In essence, punishing them for not being in a large guild. Major strike 2 in this bad idea.

1.) His proposal said nothing about Large vs Small Guilds. Alliances would more than likely have a “cap”. Several smaller guilds (20-30) vs a powerhouse 500 man guild would be pretty sweet in my opinion. So the comment on “large guild” is null/void.

2.) What is the title of this game series? Oh that’s right, GUILD WARS. And this is GUILD WARS 2.

As far as your arguement for punishing those who don’t want to be in a guild, they are really punishing themselves. You can still be in a guild, but do the exact same thing you were doing prior with his proposal.

tluv.5821:

1.) His proposal said nothing about Large vs Small Guilds. Alliances would more than likely have a “cap”. Several smaller guilds (20-30) vs a powerhouse 500 man guild would be pretty sweet in my opinion. So the comment on “large guild” is null/void.

ANet is not very likely to ever add a system that lets players make own alliances by guilds (drama). Much more likely to just convert a server → alliance, and tumble together a random bunch of alliances into a battlegroup. Remove player manipulation, lets everyone play (as is).

tluv.5821:

2.) What is the title of this game series? Oh that’s right, GUILD WARS. And this is GUILD WARS 2.

And I absolutely hate this “argument”, simply because the name of the series has to do with lore/background. The Name Guild Wars has to do with an event leading up to Guild Wars 1, so beating on it for not having stuffed enough guilds stuff in it is just silly.

It’s like beating on WoW because it only has one World, when the title make it sound like there should be multiple. Or that it should be Strategical because it name implies it from the previous games.

joneirikb.7506:

tluv.5821:

1.) His proposal said nothing about Large vs Small Guilds. Alliances would more than likely have a “cap”. Several smaller guilds (20-30) vs a powerhouse 500 man guild would be pretty sweet in my opinion. So the comment on “large guild” is null/void.

ANet is not very likely to ever add a system that lets players make own alliances by guilds (drama). Much more likely to just convert a server -> alliance, and tumble together a random bunch of alliances into a battlegroup. Remove player manipulation, lets everyone play (as is).

tluv.5821:

2.) What is the title of this game series? Oh that’s right, GUILD WARS. And this is GUILD WARS 2.

And I absolutely hate this “argument”, simply because the name of the series has to do with lore/background. The Name Guild Wars has to do with an event leading up to Guild Wars 1, so beating on it for not having stuffed enough guilds stuff in it is just silly.

It’s like beating on WoW because it only has one World, when the title make it sound like there should be multiple. Or that it should be Strategical because it name implies it from the previous games.

Response to Point 1.) I’m sorry, have you ever been in the higher tiers of WvW. You know, Tier one or two of NA? There’s so much kittening drama on within their own servers. The Political moves are amazing. That’s what creates the passion, is the drama. There wouldn’t be “player manipulation”. There’d be a “cap” on how many players would be involved in said alliance. For example: 500 members. 1 Maxed cap powerhouse guild vs several smaller extremely skill guilds.. One of the best parts of Player vs Player combat, the politics and intrique that goes along with it. More drama happens when players CAN’T move because of real world funds (Aka xfer)

Respone to point 2.) I’m saying the actual fight between guilds, perhaps it was wrong to cap both those words. Does this make it better. It is called GUILD wars 2. Guilds are a prominant thing in the lore and the gameplay itself. Why WOULD you punish yourself currently for not joining a guild?

Why would you punish your self by joining one? Most guilds have guilds they like / dislike /hate and take it bad if their players play with the ennemy. In pretty much every guild there are clusters of players badmouthing other clusters. It eventually make drama and the guild implode.
Any WvW guild around for some time has those little problems of part pushing for optimusation, part not wanting to change, part wanting to help server and part wanting nothing to do with it.

Even with same-minded individuals, dramad lurk in the backgroung. Some may like it, some don’t. I know I don’t.
I enjoy playing with who I want, when I want, not to feel guilty because I play with soneone my guild does not like because he is part of x guild we should make fun of.

Okay, then lets say this “Alliance” system was in place instead of the Server system since the beginning. What would you do then? You never would have had the opportunity to do what you are doing. But, you probably would have joined a guild, and had fun.

There’s a simple reason I’m not a member of any major wvw guild, and that’s because my RL commitments mean that for 1. I can’t use TS and 2. I can’t guarantee to stick around for any raid. In fact, I can’t even say if I will be on at any particular time. So rather than imposing on a guild which may have it’s own rules (or proscribed builds), I’ll stick to my 2 man guild.

Also, politics and egos. Not really my thing at my age, I’d rather play in peace than listen to some 20 or 30 something spout forth like they know it all about everything and tell everyone how they should play and who they should play with, etc.

As to fixing server imbalance, this would be a lot easier on NA servers than EU ones where language differences mean just making megaservers or combining servers isn’t quite so straight forward.

At the moment though, no amount of tinkering is going to help if their idea of a wvw battlefield is Deserted BL.

Why not a simple “server alliance” system, wherein servers retain their current identity and separation, but are paired/grouped with other servers based on some formula or algorithm?

The problem on one side seems to be that some people (myself included) feel that there are not enough people to fight in any given matchup, while others want to maintain their sense of server identity. This would pretty much solve the problem of declining population, would not be presented as a “server merge” becuase the server structure is intact, and give players the chance to fight against and alongside a variety of different opponents without generating massively imbalanced matches.

As an example (I’ll use NA because the Tiers are more consistent right now), each week you get one or two allied servers based on their standing on the overall rankings, the number of man hours they actually put into WvW as a server, and some other factors, so you end up with:

T1:
Green Alliance = Yak’s Bend + Isle of Janthir + Eredon Terrace
Blue Alliance = Blackgate + Dragonbrand + Devona’s Rest
Red Alliance = Jade Quarry + Borlis Pass + Kaineng

(I just randomly grabbed 3 servers, 1 from the top, middle and bottom of the leaderboards, so these might not be balanced groups at all, but you get the point)

This division works well in EU where there are 27 servers (so 3 matches with 3 alliances of 3 servers each) however in NA, things get a bit messy. I think that it would be possible to conceivably match servers together in a balanced way based on manpower and coverage.

Yeah that’s a battlegroup setup that other games use, similar to what EotM has as well. I honestly don’t know why Anet hasn’t gone forward with this. Many had thought they would’ve done it with HoT expansion because it’d be the perfect time to change things up. The only logical reason they haven’t done it is because they want to continue milking the transfer revenue.

Which is sad if true because they’re losing players and full guilds of people due to their lack of attention to WvW. I would argue people would continue to transfer servers just to join established guilds and roll with like minded people. And it’d be harder to game the system when you involve multiple servers. Right now with WvWvW people can game the system with blackouts and mass purchase of guilds. It’d be quite pointless to do blackouts & buy guilds when you have 3-4 servers in the same battlegroup.

I really don’t understand why Anet hasn’t gone forward with the battlegroup system. This system would allow them to move servers around based on weekly performance. It’s something Blizzard does as they monitor each battlegroup’s performance to see if one needs more help than the others. You would still have your server pride as your server name still shows up. All servers would open up for transfers so people can be with their friends and can join whichever guilds/servers they want to join.

The way things are done right now is so restrictive, it’s counter-productive, and the system can be gamed by players who continue to outsmart Anet programmer’s codes.

Many had thought they would’ve done it? I don’t think so. It was clear from Corpening’s statement months ago that some crucial development for WvW with regards to population issues wasn’t going to be worked on until after HoT. I had no such expectation of “battlegroups” for HoT. I seen the idea passed around before though. It could be a good start.

Jayne.9251:

Straegen.2938:

Jayne.9251:

It would mean that new people coming into the map are left out. It would force people to join guilds if you want to compete. Some of us enjoy our solo gigs and are still helpful to a map.

In this system, players that are guild-less would be slotted into a matchup that could most use their support. Unaligned guilds and players would be the mortar in the foundation of balanced play.

lol. worse.

So the people who are the backbone of the server, the ones that usually keep up the scouting and sieging (and in the past upgrades) would arbitrarily be placed into a map “where needed”?

I’m guessing you don’t do a lot of defense. There’s a network of solo or small guild players that basically shore up defense for a server … at least that’s how it’s been for most servers I’ve been on in NA and EU.

You’re basically saying their job is to fill in the holes.

That’s not a good thing.

That means that the defense team that’s used to playing together and working together as a team would be split up wherever they “fit”.

Yes ofc they could make a guild, but most people who play solo don’t want to be in a guild in the first place.

Your idea would completely eliminate your defense team.

Or they could individually align their small/personal bank guild with all these other people they claim to enjoy playing with and still do the exact same things instead of jumping in and getting a random assignment and being upset about that? Large team conquest being fitted around people who want to play alone seems counterproductive.

Then there will be even less players because, hell no I’d quit playing

gennyt.3428:

Or they could individually align their small/personal bank guild with all these other people they claim to enjoy playing with and still do the exact same things instead of jumping in and getting a random assignment and being upset about that? Large team conquest being fitted around people who want to play alone seems counterproductive.

Those lone players tend to be your server’s backbone. And they’re not playing alone, they’re working as part of a team, without the guild tag. Most who do defense know this. It isn’t the guilds defending — and the guilds that do are very rare.

Straegen.2938:

You are obviously welcome to cling to the old structure that is sucking the life out of WvW. For the vast majority of players, a Guild Alliance system will be better

And you are welcome to argue (on behalf of the “vast majority”) with the multiple people in this thread, besides me, who have pointed out problems with this plan.

Jayne.9251:

gennyt.3428:

Or they could individually align their small/personal bank guild with all these other people they claim to enjoy playing with and still do the exact same things instead of jumping in and getting a random assignment and being upset about that? Large team conquest being fitted around people who want to play alone seems counterproductive.

Those lone players tend to be your server’s backbone. And they’re not playing alone, they’re working as part of a team, without the guild tag. Most who do defense know this. It isn’t the guilds defending — and the guilds that do are very rare.

…

Of all the servers I’ve played on, I’ve seen very few tagless players in WvWvW, friend or foe, much less actual scouts/defenders. Those guys were not popping +5 supply buffs out of thin air.

Every blob busting guild I know of, will come defend if there is a fight to be had (including the one I’m in) and then there are the PPT guilds who do build defensive siege and do their thing. Solo PPT players are part of a team, sure, but saying the lone wolf types who aren’t in any guild whatsoever are somehow the backbone of a server is a bit of a stretch, if not a bit disingenuous.

gennyt.3428:

Jayne.9251:

gennyt.3428:

Or they could individually align their small/personal bank guild with all these other people they claim to enjoy playing with and still do the exact same things instead of jumping in and getting a random assignment and being upset about that? Large team conquest being fitted around people who want to play alone seems counterproductive.

Those lone players tend to be your server’s backbone. And they’re not playing alone, they’re working as part of a team, without the guild tag. Most who do defense know this. It isn’t the guilds defending — and the guilds that do are very rare.

…

Of all the servers I’ve played on, I’ve seen very few tagless players in WvWvW, friend or foe, much less actual scouts/defenders. Those guys were not popping +5 supply buffs out of thin air.

Every blob busting guild I know of, will come defend if there is a fight to be had (including the one I’m in) and then there are the PPT guilds who do build defensive siege and do their thing. Solo PPT players are part of a team, sure, but saying the lone wolf types who aren’t in any guild whatsoever are somehow the backbone of a server is a bit of a stretch, if not a bit disingenuous.

Not at all. Who are the ones calling out the attacks so that the guilds can respond.

They may have a guild tag, but usually they’re in a solo or two-person guild. This is the same in NA as it is in EU.

Jayne.9251:

And you are welcome to argue (on behalf of the “vast majority”) with the multiple people in this thread, besides me, who have pointed out problems with this plan.

Every issue brought up has been addressed save one… players that don’t want to align to a guild alliance. Oddly in the current server system those players are aligned… to a server instead of an alliance. I cannot understand why this particular point is a sticking point. Logically it makes no sense.

There are reams of posts addressing the many flaws with a server v server system here and on other forums. The server system is a massively flawed design that has outlived its usefulness. That said if you have a better idea, I am listening.

Straegen.2938:

Jayne.9251:

And you are welcome to argue (on behalf of the “vast majority”) with the multiple people in this thread, besides me, who have pointed out problems with this plan.

Every issue brought up has been addressed save one… players that don’t want to align to a guild alliance. Oddly in the current server system those players are aligned… to a server instead of an alliance. I cannot understand why this particular point is a sticking point. Logically it makes no sense.

There are reams of posts addressing the many flaws with a server v server system here and on other forums. The server system is a massively flawed design that has outlived its usefulness. That said if you have a better idea, I am listening.

The sticking point is that there is little fundamental difference between servers and alliances. For every criticism of servers, there’s an associated criticism of alliances since servers are functionally alliances. You’re looking through the lens of hindsight where after three years there’s established guilds and alliances. If alliances existed at the very beginning of the game, it would still be the same with players randomly picking an alliance just as they randomly picked a server and changing alliances to stack them.

The real flaw isn’t whether players are organized by server or alliance. It is that the game doesn’t “fill in the spaces” in matches.

Straegen.2938:

Jayne.9251:

And you are welcome to argue (on behalf of the “vast majority”) with the multiple people in this thread, besides me, who have pointed out problems with this plan.

Every issue brought up has been addressed save one… players that don’t want to align to a guild alliance. Oddly in the current server system those players are aligned… to a server instead of an alliance. I cannot understand why this particular point is a sticking point. Logically it makes no sense.

There are reams of posts addressing the many flaws with a server v server system here and on other forums. The server system is a massively flawed design that has outlived its usefulness. That said if you have a better idea, I am listening.

This will be my last post, because it’s clear we both have very different viewpoints on how systems should work, and that’s fine. It’s part of dialogue.

The issue I have with alliances is that it allows players to decide.

Players, historically in this game, have not exactly been responsible when it comes to gameplay.

Historically anything that can be gamed, will be gamed. Alliances would be a game-feast for such types. There would be groups purposefully keeping others out. There would be groups who band together to just stomp anything weaker.

You talk about server stacking? Alliances would basically create an a la carte menu for this.

And people would just stop playing if they couldn’t get into the “right” alliance. So even the stronger alliances would get bored and stop playing too.

The server method at least makes gamers jump through hoops to manipulate.

So yes, it’s fine if we don’t agree. I am just not a fan of the alliance system because of the potential to create a bad playscape for people.