Guild Wars 2

Let players select a “WvW guild” for some period of time and then put guilds onto realms to play unitl the realms are full. Let this happen without gem cost and rotate it often.

Linking was a nice idea but currently the “population balance” that is happening on DH results in being outnumbered 10v1. This isn’t fun, it’s not competitive. It really serves no purpose and is a terrible experience.

If guilds want to stack that’s fine but just make the chance of a guild getting onto a realm based on how many guilds/players want onto that server and randomize it.

Linking sucks, gg.

phantom.1675:

Linking was a nice idea but currently the “population balance” that is happening on DH results in being outnumbered 10v1. This isn’t fun, it’s not competitive. It really serves no purpose and is a terrible experience.

Agreed.

Transfer and make it 11v0 so that one server dies and Anet realize they should do what should have done earlier. Merge, dont link.

Why are you tormenting yourself? You are clearly the last person on the server. Otherwise it wouldnt be 10v1.

No thanks.

I realize that this is Guild Wars and all, but many of us aren’t in guilds or aren’t in WvW active guilds.

I agree that the linking failed and I agree that servers need to be balanced better but this isn’t strictly a GW2 problem. It happens in other games with similar systems and much of the fault is placed squarely on us, the players, for manipulating that system.

I can’t think of a proper solution but I do know that making it guild based wouldn’t be the right answer.

phantom.1675:

Let players select a “WvW guild”

Find a WvW guild on your server, it’s truly not that hard. If my WvW guild should decide to swap servers, I would swap with them. But that’s just because I enjoy the guild.
If a WvW guild swaps, but you want to stay loyal to your original server, find another guild.

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

I agree that the linking failed and I agree that servers need to be balanced better

I wouldn’t say all linking failed. Some servers are just toxic to one another, they don’t mesh very well. Some servers do great together. Personally I love the SBI/HoD matchup. In the month or so of being together, I haven’t noticed too much toxicity. You’re always going to have trolls, and individuals who are not good; but as a whole, we work pretty good together.

Guild-based, or rather alliance (3 guilds each side) based WvW was already worked on by Anet and was known as The WvW Overhaul. It was later dismissed in favor of these polls and minor updates we have now.

And in any way, it’s a terrible idea. Outside of primetime WvW is held together purely by pugs, not guilds. Many just won’t bother to join a guild and switch to EOTM instead.

JFFcrazyhorse.6352:

phantom.1675:

Let players select a “WvW guild”

Find a WvW guild on your server, it’s truly not that hard. If my WvW guild should decide to swap servers, I would swap with them. But that’s just because I enjoy the guild.
If a WvW guild swaps, but you want to stay loyal to your original server, find another guild.

How about no? I move 1 account around with my guild and I prefer solo roaming on my other account. Why the hell should I have to join a guild to play WvW?

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

I agree that the linking failed and I agree that servers need to be balanced better but this isn’t strictly a GW2 problem. It happens in other games with similar systems and much of the fault is placed squarely on us, the players, for manipulating that system.

Server based systems fail in every game, they always become imbalanced, it is literally the worst option for an RvR type game, alliances are better like in EVE Online, even a faction system like in ESO is much better as even when factions get imbalanced, the weakest faction can still stack a campaign have fun it that, you also get the benefits that you can play campaigns suited to how each player wants to play – e.g one campaign is often stacked with guilds, another zergs, etc.

One of the “problems” I’ve encountered with Guilds is that they are not all the same. This is also their beauty too.

There are PvX guilds who do some WvW – how would they fit into this proposed system? Would you say they are irrelevant because they also do PvE and PvP? Or would you include them , in which case you might have a 500 member guild with about 10 frequent WvW players. How would you allow for this in your suggested system?

I’ve met and played with several pure WvW guilds. Some are friendly towards new and casual players and allow players to join in as they wish, other guilds require TS and specific builds because that suits how they work. Both have their place but a new payer would probably need to join the first type guild before gaining enough experience to function well in the latter. How does saying “you must join a WvW guild to play WvW” allow for the different play styles and transitions between guild types?

I also believe that there are players who prefer not to run in a guild who are active and experienced in WvW. They are often the scouts and roamers who maintain a home BL or run havoc while guilds run closed sessions. I would hate to turn away these invaluable players simply because they don’t want to be stuck with a guild tag.

Finally, and on a personal note, I’m a member of three guilds – all great people – and they all have all the WvW buffs. It’s sooo useful being able to claim a tower AND the camp that supplies it. I know many players prefer to dedicate their work within one guild and that’s good too, it’s just not the answer for everyone. How would multi guild membership work under the proposed system?

This is what i propose:
No more servers since they favour only bandwagons at tier 1, resulting in the death of middle/low tier. I have met lot of new players, from hot, and everyone of those who i tell i’m a wvw player, they anser “omg wvw is horrible, how can you play that?”, and they are all right: wvw was amazing at releasem WvW was the reason i chosed this MMO instead of many others, anet never understood the great combat system they created in large scale and the great potential they had in theyr hands to create a solid guild vs guild mode that could last for years, so unfortunately they never listened to people who enjoy this gamemode, resulting in lose playerbase, and even now we are loosing players everyday and not gaining new ones, cuz they keep leaving WvW as casual as it is. But they don’t understand WvW isnt for casuals, a casual will try it, and eventualy go back to PvE answering the same thing i wrote up. Funny is, that the highest income of gems is from the people who love wvw, since they are constantly forced to transfer to “try” to play the gamemode that bringed them into gw2. So first thing, REMOVE servers.

Instead, create instances where you can join as a guild member, and you are against anyone who isn’t in your guild. You can create alliance with other guilds, but the keep or the objectives you capture, or the kills you get, give points only to your guild and not anymore to the server. Off course the maps would have to be redesigned in smaller and with more objective, but i would keep the cap players for each map still to 150-200 people. The result will be in having always full maps, cuz you have instances system now and not servers, wich instead result in or empty or full. Doesnt matter anymore if your guild play on morning or in evening, cuz they will not be linked anymore to a server and dependant on that server lifetime, if your guild plays on the morning, when you join you will be directed into an instance where there’s players of other guild playing in the morning. The “problem” of having 3 guilds doesnt exist, you will join the instance of the guild you representing. If no more players of your guild are on the map, your guild will be removed from the instance and be substitute by the next guild joining. At the end of the week, the guild who scored more by capturing, defending objectives or killing opponents will get points to create a ranking ladder guild based. They will now use that ladder to associate every guild in the next week, and so on.

Rlly anet plz wake up, stop thinking wvw for casuals, it drives to death of the gamemode. And even so, with this system it can be still for casuals too. Cuz you can join with your roamers guild of 10-11 people and still do your things, cuz you will still be associated with others guild of the same number on the long run. RLLY WAKE UP! You have the best combat system, is dynamic and group friendly, time to favour those groups instead of the casuals. Casuals as i said wont be there forevere without a comunity, and the comunity will die if you keep creating your wvw around casuals.
Don’t let Gw2 die already after 3 -4 years only.

Dawdler.8521:

Transfer and make it 11v0 so that one server dies and Anet realize they should do what should have done earlier. Merge, dont link.

Merging won’t help

I’d suggest that ANet Break down the Tiers & Data Centers.

Yes…let players fight on the Data Center that is 1/2 way around the world from their location, but players better expect slow performance…so play at your own risk.

Also, Convert the Fixed 3 Way Fight Model into a Total King of the Hill Fight Model.

Then…let players pick who they want to fight (World Server), but limit how many enemies (World Server) that they can visit weekly.

Also, let players figure out for themselves how to create International Alliances between each other to cover their Night Capping problems…since players aren’t locked into fighting the same servers…they’re freed to pick who they want to fight, but limited to ANet’s setting that controls how many enemies (World Server) that they can visit weekly.

Merging Servers won’t accomplish anything in the Long Term because everything will still revert back to an imbalance after players figure out how to re-stack themselves on the server that they think is number 1.

Instead…make everybody go after the King of the Hill (both NA & EU have separate King of the Hill).

Cycle can repeat weekly, but everybody’s aim is to pull the King Off the Hill.

Nobody is screwed & in the dog house because everybody is scrambling to improve their WvW Rank.

WvW Rank is used to show who the King of the Hill is.

The one who’s screwed is the King of the Hill.

Long Term Solution needs to be Player Driven…yet…ANet Controlled.

Yours truly,
Diku

For a Better Long Term Solution to WvW – Google Search – wvg world vs globes

kroter.1326:

Outside of primetime WvW is held together purely by pugs, not guilds. Many just won’t bother to join a guild and switch to EOTM instead.

This is a fantastic idea!

Frankly, I don’t see any difference between pug WvW and EotM. It’s the same disorganized mess of poor quality play.

Please, let’s merge pug wvw and eotm and create a new guild based competitive WvW. No point in having 2 nearly identical casual mode like eotm and the current pug based WvW

Jim Hunter.6821:

Why the hell should I have to join a guild to play WvW?

/This

Sagramor.7395:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Why the hell should I have to join a guild to play WvW?

/This

^
I find the anti-non-guildie mentality pretty hilariously narcissistic.

ArchonWing.9480:

Sagramor.7395:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Why the hell should I have to join a guild to play WvW?

/This

^
I find the anti-non-guildie mentality pretty hilariously narcissistic.

Not really. It’s more to avoid inevitable drama when you group a bunch of people online with a self-appointed leader.

Jayne.9251:

ArchonWing.9480:

Sagramor.7395:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Why the hell should I have to join a guild to play WvW?

/This

^
I find the anti-non-guildie mentality pretty hilariously narcissistic.

Not really. It’s more to avoid inevitable drama when you group a bunch of people online with a self-appointed leader.

More referring to the whole concept of having to wvw with a “wvw guild”.

ArchonWing.9480:

Jayne.9251:

ArchonWing.9480:

Sagramor.7395:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Why the hell should I have to join a guild to play WvW?

/This

^
I find the anti-non-guildie mentality pretty hilariously narcissistic.

Not really. It’s more to avoid inevitable drama when you group a bunch of people online with a self-appointed leader.

More referring to the whole concept of having to wvw with a “wvw guild”.

Your double negatives confuzzled me

Jayne.9251:

ArchonWing.9480:

Jayne.9251:

ArchonWing.9480:

Sagramor.7395:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Why the hell should I have to join a guild to play WvW?

/This

^
I find the anti-non-guildie mentality pretty hilariously narcissistic.

Not really. It’s more to avoid inevitable drama when you group a bunch of people online with a self-appointed leader.

More referring to the whole concept of having to wvw with a “wvw guild”.

Your double negatives confuzzled me

That is true, but it is funnier that way I feel.

I was gonna say Anti-pug but I hear that word is triggerish these days.

Jayne.9251:

ArchonWing.9480:

Sagramor.7395:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Why the hell should I have to join a guild to play WvW?

/This

^
I find the anti-non-guildie mentality pretty hilariously narcissistic.

Not really. It’s more to avoid inevitable drama when you group a bunch of people online with a self-appointed leader.

I agree that entry into WvW should not be gated by players. Having to join a player owned Guild is exactly that kind of gating. If these Guilds were owned by Anet, then what is the difference when Worlds are owned by Anet now? The only difference would be the lack of transfer fee’s to join.