Guild Wars 2

EU GvG is the best RP!

Now go let my dog out Roy.

If there’s a volatile history, people will automatically brand the proposed changes with the individual, rather than the idea. Continuing to argue it will only cement that branding.

We don’t have these issues in EU. Well maybe one or two, but those servers have dropped.

NA is the new Cold War. Always has been. And it’s only hurting those who play there.

Frankly, put EU back the way it was and let the NA kids escalate the “grand detente”.

Crapgame.6519:

Is this game called Server Wars or Guild Wars 2?

Just wondering because, well, I get server linking and WvW (world = server somewhat I guess even though we are merging some). But all of this fuss, wasted energy, manual adjustments to scores, just to try and shuffle a server around.

Remove the server already and focus on Guilds and Alliances. What the people are actually a part of. You won’t be able to fix the population and especially once you opened the doors to transfers. Now add merging of servers, well, it is a train wreck and almost dead format. Personally I’d just remove it and focus my R & D dollar on a larger map and client technology to support Guilds and Alliances.

Id like to know the actual percent of people in organized guilds in wvw. I’d peg it about 35%. It could be less.

Why focus on the minority?

apharma.3741:

Jayne.9251:

Ben K.6238:

The downside is we’d need to get our own voice comms server. But I can arrange that.

And create a greater gulf/insulation between guilds and the rest of the population.

Next up: You can’t play with us unless you have <insert FOTM here>

Next up?

It’s already like this if you want to play with the “best” guilds. WSR has a free open welcoming TS for all those playing with us whether it be PvE, PvP or WvW. One commonality is that whenever a guild goes try hard they stop using our TS and start being super selective of who they will accept.

Also stop lerking around your north towers and come to the south of the maps!

Lol I’ve been doing freelance work on top of full time job. No tower hugging for me We do need to connect again, I need to brush the rust off.

As for guilds, really? It’s like that on WSR? That’s a bit silly. Mind you, I don’t blob, so I suppose I never noticed. When I do join in, folks are fine with it.

Ben K.6238:

The downside is we’d need to get our own voice comms server. But I can arrange that.

And create a greater gulf/insulation between guilds and the rest of the population.

Next up: You can’t play with us unless you have <insert FOTM here>

Stop calling me names Dawdler.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

We wanted to clear up some of the information in this thread.

The Battlegroup system mentioned in a previous post in this thread was part of an old discussion with alpha testers which then was leaked by someone who no longer is in the program. In the past, we would propose systems/ideas to our alpha testers to help gauge player opinion. However, as you know, the WvW Team since has moved to posting these discussions on the official forums.

For further information, the response of the alpha testers to the Battlegroup concept was very mixed, similar to the responses in this thread. Additionally, it would also have been a huge undertaking to build that system, and we ultimately decided it wasn’t the correct route to go.

In contrast, World Linking utilized a lot of existing tech and required considerably less time to construct, meaning we could move on to addressing other core issues in WvW much more quickly. Even though there is a lot of debate around World Linking, it is “easier” to change and adjust unlike other systems that have been discussed. With all that being said, the team does appreciate the feedback and discussion happening in this thread and will continue to evaluate World Linking feedback and make adjustments as necessary.

Ok. I shall exhale now

Thank you very much for stepping in and not letting speculation fester as is wont on MMO forums.

Xox.

The alliance system would absolutely delight organized guilds, give them their GvGs (which I am not against), but it does very little for everyone else. And given how many guilds have folded and how frequently they fold, it’s a minority of the entire playerbase.

Do you think it’s fair to rework a beloved game mode for a minority of players?

Grim West.3194:

Jayne.9251:

Grim West.3194:

X T D.6458:

Here is what I concluded from reading this nonsense about battlegroups….A bunch of elitists want to exclude the rest of the community. Yea…no thanks, how about we let people play how, when, where they want.

Lol.

First:
WvW is a failure in it’s current form.
Changes have to be made or it will continue to suffer the agonizingly slow death march it is currently in: Less players, less fun and most importantly – less revenue for the company that maintains it.

And the alliance business model outlined in this thread is terrible. The minute you narrow your focus, you eliminate groups, and lose players.

What do you propose they do to fix the fubar system they have now?

I meant to post more before hitting reply as you can see in my edit. I’m not sold on the battlegroup system either. But it could work with the right setup.

But one thing I don’t like about the replies so far is the constant whining without any possible solutions. We already know the current system sucks. Offer a fix to what we have now or come up with something better.

The Devs are just as desperate as we are for a solution.

I’ve suggested that you cap existing servers like the battle group suggestion and keep them locked, no matter what, with spaces only opening through attrition.

Overcrowded existing servers would evict accounts based on seniority, until parity is reached.

The alliance system locks people into a group for 14 weeks. You don’t think that will annoy people?

Couple that with a doubling transfer cost each time you jump, and I think you’d begin to see stability, cater to ALL players who all paid the same cost of the game, and keep everyone happy, rather than the select few who have clearly outlined their agenda in the past couple of pages of this thread.

Most games are scrambling to create community, because they know that equates to player attachment and longevity of the game.

Blow that up and it will be a steady slip into obscurity.

Grim West.3194:

X T D.6458:

Here is what I concluded from reading this nonsense about battlegroups….A bunch of elitists want to exclude the rest of the community. Yea…no thanks, how about we let people play how, when, where they want.

Lol.

First:
WvW is a failure in it’s current form.
Changes have to be made or it will continue to suffer the agonizingly slow death march it is currently in: Less players, less fun and most importantly – less revenue for the company that maintains it.

And the alliance business model outlined in this thread is terrible. The minute you narrow your focus, you eliminate groups, and lose players.

X T D.6458:

Here is what I concluded from reading this nonsense about battlegroups….A bunch of elitists want to exclude the rest of the community. Yea…no thanks, how about we let people play how, when, where they want.

Yup. Particularly when they downplay polling as being “harmful to the community” (they’re looking to destroy.).

Only if they have a poll with a super majority.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped you’d see that’s not the case. I made my point clear and I can’t tell anymore if you’re just trying to argue for no reasons. I brought it up because I believe as though it’s a better design then Server Links no matter if it took 6 months to make.

Not trying to argue. It’s just that you seem to contradict yourself with your words.

For example, the above is unclear.

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped

Yes. I bolded that part, which lead me to my question.

And here’s where it gets confusing:

you’d see that’s not the case.

.

What isn’t the case?

So are you saying this alliance idea is on the horizon, that it’s been newly reintroduced based on your “Insider” information? Or are you simply trying to push forward again an idea that was considered, then scrapped, for whatever reason?

Because the difference is important.

My post in which I quoted the the Tyler saying why the overhaul was canceled. It didn’t have to do with what you’re saying. But in fact that’s not even the point. The point is Server Links did not work, and Battlegroups were not heard of as a possible fix to our solutions. Thus, I brought it up because I wanted discussion about it because I think it’s better. I made my point very very clear multiple times. It’s how you choose to pick apart my words for these said contradictions.

Ok that’s a huge difference. Thank you.

When you first introduced the “leak” into this thread, it seemed like this was something currently being considered or new.

I like Tyler. I think he has some great ideas. I think, given wvw’s history, he’s been very engaged. But for the multiple reasons I’ve outlined in this thread, alliances just aren’t conducive to building community; which is critical for any game’s longevity. Alliances would erode that self-identifier, would narrow the definition, and would exclude people when you want them involved.

Why not consider implementing some of the alliance principles to the existing server structure. Cap the population, etc.?

You haven’t outlined any reasons what so ever. You can cap the population but you’d still need variety and you would still need to have a system in place to keep it that way. Arena Net would still need a better metric to decide balance.

Nothing you, I, nor Arena Net can do can create balance if the players won’t get their act together.

You create the alliances, and it’s just another name for the same thing. Six months from now, you have the same stale stagnant lopsided matches. Players will stack to winning battlegroups, it will amount to the same thing, only with six months of chaos.

Your solution is to cap these battlegroup alliances.

My question is why not do that now with the existing server structure? Why do you need to blow things up in order to achieve this?

The answer? You don’t.

Alliances resolve nothing but to alienate a core playerbase; the community.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped you’d see that’s not the case. I made my point clear and I can’t tell anymore if you’re just trying to argue for no reasons. I brought it up because I believe as though it’s a better design then Server Links no matter if it took 6 months to make.

Not trying to argue. It’s just that you seem to contradict yourself with your words.

For example, the above is unclear.

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped

Yes. I bolded that part, which lead me to my question.

And here’s where it gets confusing:

you’d see that’s not the case.

.

What isn’t the case?

So are you saying this alliance idea is on the horizon, that it’s been newly reintroduced based on your “Insider” information? Or are you simply trying to push forward again an idea that was considered, then scrapped, for whatever reason?

Because the difference is important.

My post in which I quoted the the Tyler saying why the overhaul was canceled. It didn’t have to do with what you’re saying. But in fact that’s not even the point. The point is Server Links did not work, and Battlegroups were not heard of as a possible fix to our solutions. Thus, I brought it up because I wanted discussion about it because I think it’s better. I made my point very very clear multiple times. It’s how you choose to pick apart my words for these said contradictions.

Ok that’s a huge difference. Thank you.

When you first introduced the “leak” into this thread, it seemed like this was something currently being considered or new.

I like Tyler. I think he has some great ideas. I think, given wvw’s history, he’s been very engaged. But for the multiple reasons I’ve outlined in this thread, alliances just aren’t conducive to building community; which is critical for any game’s longevity. Alliances would erode that self-identifier, would narrow the definition, and would exclude people when you want them involved.

Why not consider implementing some of the alliance principles to the existing server structure. Cap the population, etc.?

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped you’d see that’s not the case. I made my point clear and I can’t tell anymore if you’re just trying to argue for no reasons. I brought it up because I believe as though it’s a better design then Server Links no matter if it took 6 months to make.

Not trying to argue. It’s just that you seem to contradict yourself with your words.

For example, the above is unclear.

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped

Yes. I bolded that part, which lead me to my question.

And here’s where it gets confusing:

you’d see that’s not the case.

.

What isn’t the case?

So are you saying this alliance idea is on the horizon, that it’s been newly reintroduced based on your “Insider” information? Or are you simply trying to push forward again an idea that was considered, then scrapped, for whatever reason?

Because the difference is important.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Sounds like your graphic card is dying.

You still haven’t outlined how it won’t be gamed.

Like a big guild group decides to push out another guild because they got in a fight by hyper recruiting and making sure all their players stay on map and fill those spots in your selected 1,000 player example cap.

And how does the battle group decide priority of placement? Is it random and first-come, first-served, like existing servers (and if that’s the case why change it)? Or will it give preference to the biggest guild in the battle group and get them “priority seating” on map?

Also, why can’t some of the principles you’ve stated as a benefit to the battle group simply be applied to the existing server set up and keep everyone happy?

As well, what happens to people who don’t want the big map blobs? We’ve heard a lot from them lately, and it seems they’re being ignored with a plan like this.

Again, the battlegroups, while ideal for GvG groups, and guilds in particular, does nothing for everyone else.

And I’d love to see the percentages of players in those guild groups vs smaller guilds/solo that actively play this game.

Don’t cater to a select few.

Include everyone.

Build community.

That’s what keeps a game going.

Or Gaile has politely asked us three times to keep all linking discussion in one thread so the devs don’t have to wade into five or six threads and potentially miss your valuable feedback.

I wouldn’t read too much into that otherwise. She just wants it in one thread. She’s not trying to suppress you.

Jana.6831:

That is all more complicated than you guys make it out to be.
We’ve had a really huge guild on GH. The leader was bored and wanted to transfer. They might or might not have been trolled by another guild on our server (haven’t been there) and left (huge drama and people still think it’s GHs fault). So he decided he wanted to leave and everybody had to follow – and that’s how it goes. The costs wouldn’t matter much anyway as the guild usually pays for transfers if neccessary – in case of Ash.

I had/have different reasons to transfer and one golden rule (I broke with Piken) is that I stay at least for that long that I have an idea what the server is like – which is a bit complicated in times of links and blob-facerolling. I will likely return to Gunnars at some point.

Well that’s the thing. If the guild leader is having drama with people, that’s a personal issue and those in the guild have a choice to follow him or stay or try something else. If it’s one drama after another, folks might want to evaluate the leadership.

If a doubling of transfer costs is incurred each time the guild leader has a fight with someone; it’s going to provide a longterm solution quicker than this 500 gems here, 500 gems there situation.

And those guilds randomly transferring to different servers will have a choice to either dig in, elect someone new to lead, or disband.

The bottom line for the game and the rest of the population not involved in the drama is stability.

Choice remains with those who still want to jump. It’s just going to cost until someone makes a firm decision.

Yes, but if each time the cost to xfer doubled, you’d at least try to make due with the server you were on at some point wouldn’t you?

And that investment lends stability.

X T D.6458:

Exciton.8942:

I agree some restriction should be imposed on frequent server hopping.
I am tired of the excuse of that they need to play with friends.
Why can’t you and your friends just settle on one server for some time?

Who are you to decide where someone plays? Why should someone be forced to stay somewhere they are not happy playing. Should we also decide what profession people are allowed to bring to wvw because of how useful it can be?

Taking away options from players is never a good idea. Rather, they should focus on fixing the issues that promote constant server transferring, mainly server instability.

When serving hopping begins to affect the health of the game, then it’s no longer about individual rights and more about the greater good. The jumping causes the server instability.

Besides, with increasing xfer costs with each successive xfer, you still have freedom of choice; it’s just going to cost you.

It did. Until they yanked Tyler over to the new expansion.

X T D.6458:

Caedmon.6798:

Bandwagoning is and always will be the issue unless anet ups the cost alot for transfering.

Transfer needs to be 2k gems,it shouldn;t be something you can do every week.

Do you really believe players want to constantly move servers? Do you really think people find that fun? They do it primarily because server instability causes a lackluster playing environment, so they leave to a more active server. Since linking can cause so much instability, this effect will continue happening.

And the current system rewards those who server jump, rather than sticking it out and investing in the community.

Any small guild or group can create that stability. You just have to stop thinking that tier 1 is the best tier.

I really like the idea someone pitched where each successive jump increases the transfer cost —- until it becomes too prohibitive.

They need to realize that EU and NA are different beasts, including playstyle, population and language.

Do these fixes for NA; they clearly need it.

Revert EU to the way it was with solo servers.

Give people options.

Hesacon.8735:

Tongku.5326:

BTW, try some other MMORPGs and you’ll realize just how good, our bad balancing here is.

“It could be worse” is not an acceptable excuse for… anything.

https://youtu.be/xzYO0joolR0

Vova.2640:

Im thinking about voting no. It is simply too easy and effective for blobs… and anything that is good for blobs is a BIG NO NO from me.

Yup. That’s why I voted no.

Anyone having issues logging into the poll, don’t try to do it from a tablet or phone. It borks up for some reason. Just your PC.

Gaile loves me.

Xox.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Jayne.9251:

TorquedSoul.8097:

BTW, I’m a casual and don’t care that others are more hardcore than I am.

That’s ok. I’m hardcore.

And yet I still care about inclusivity.

And nobody is stopping you from caring about it. However, expecting Anet to successfully enforce inclusivity in a gaming culture built around guilds and competition is a bit unrealistic, IMO.

Well except for the issue that the bulk of players in WvW aren’t in big organized guilds.

I’d be curious to see the demographics actually. I’d wager that organized guilds are about 35% of entire wvw population.

Jana.6831:

Speaking of EU: What was so wrong with what we’ve had before? Didn’t things work out? Nightcapping was a problem, yes, and T8 and 9 were dying (because the wvw mechanics are out of control) – but other than that – did we really need artificial rankings, linkings and all that stuff?
That’s a genuine question and I won’t be able to vote for that (return most of it to how it has been) in any poll.

Yes, if I had my preference, they’d revert EU to the way it was and continue this grand experiment on NA only.

We were fine before.

TorquedSoul.8097:

BTW, I’m a casual and don’t care that others are more hardcore than I am.

That’s ok. I’m hardcore.

And yet I still care about inclusivity.

TorquedSoul.8097:

You can still play for fun. That is always an option. But others may not want you on their team.

This is a perfect quote to outline the reason why this is a bad idea.

Anything that is exclusive and not inclusive, particularly in an MMO, is bad for business.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Hey Jayne, I’m going to make another thread soon. So that what I pasted here is as the topic and the focal point of discussion. Thanks for the discussion so far and I hope we can continue it.

I’m typically ok with any changes that Anet wants to implement as long as it’s fair and doesn’t affect community. I don’t believe these proposals are fair, and I do believe it will have great impact on community.

That said, as long as they poll the players about it before they implement it, fill your boots with any and all ideas.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

How does imposing seniority not tick people off? People move for various reasons. What if drama happens, what if they change timezones in real life and have to find a server that better suited them. What if they recently got their friends interested in GW2 so they are new to the game. What if someone just came back to the game and found there friends somewhere else.

Imposing seniority would tick me off. considering how much change Arena Net forced upon us all recently.

Your system would tick me off because it forces me to either join a big guild/group or not play.

Let’s review:

1. Matchmaking is done by determining guild rosters/populations within a battle group.

2. Population for that battle group is capped (your example is 1,000 players). This is your counter to bandwagonning.

I’m not sure why you can’t see how disastrous this would be.

Let’s look at population cap.

If 1,000 players are designated to one battle group, if a guild recruits, then it pushes out someone. A cap is a finite determination.

If the 1,000 players are locked to who participated in say the first week of the 14 week matchup, then any returning or new players are SOL and have to stay out of that 14 week matchup.

In fact, your system is more restrictive to player movement than the existing server structure.

If the 1,000 players are dynamic, why is it any better than the existing server system?

Let’s look at matchmaking:

If guild rosters/populations are used to determine battle groups, it assumes that roster will never change.

Guild groups could effectively push out another guild it doesn’t like or has had a fight with by increasing its roster and taking up map space.

It also means stale, stagnant matches where similar groups will be paired with each other week after week because they “best fit” per the metrics.

You keep stating elements of your new system, but when posed with issues where you contradict yourself, you don’t offer resolution.

On top of that, it completely dismisses the value of smaller guilds and caters to an elite group.

It’s a bad business model.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.

And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.

Again, you’re not thinking this through.

just because someone is in a guild doesn’t make them apart of that battlegroup. The number is not important. 1000 players is not important. What is important is they’re willing to give a number cap.

I am thinking this though, I’ve actually been thinking about this for a very long time. As I’ve known about it for a while.

If there are caps or finite numbers to this proposal then they do indeed matter. And now you’re saying it doesn’t matter if you’re in a guild you may not be part of that battle group. Yet in the same breath you’re saying guilds will be used to kitten matchmaking.

Make up your mind.

I’m saying that the number would obviously change and probably wasn’t final. I would assume the number would be left up to debate while they fine tune the same. But the fact that there is a defined cap, instead of what we have now which is a system that can be easily exploited because the cap is determined by equations.

Guilds, individuals, and battlegroups will be match made.

And be random if you aren’t in a big guild.

And be subject to losing your spot as the big guild recruits.

And be gamed to outmanoeuvre another battle group.

If they are going to do caps, do it with existing servers based on account seniority and avoid ticking off a lot of people.

What you propose offers no benefit to anyone other than guild groups.

It eliminates a significant portion of the wvw population.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.

And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.

Again, you’re not thinking this through.

just because someone is in a guild doesn’t make them apart of that battlegroup. The number is not important. 1000 players is not important. What is important is they’re willing to give a number cap.

I am thinking this though, I’ve actually been thinking about this for a very long time. As I’ve known about it for a while.

If there are caps or finite numbers to this proposal then they do indeed matter. And now you’re saying it doesn’t matter if you’re in a guild you may not be part of that battle group. Yet in the same breath you’re saying guilds will be used to determine matchmaking.

Make up your mind.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.

And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.

Again, you’re not thinking this through.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I don’t think Anet wrote this either, so it would be hard to explain for them.

It repeats the same agenda that’s been pushed around here for a year now through various forms of social engineering.

And it would not let us keep our communities. It would destroy them.

But the big guilds would be ok.

I promise you they did.

Ok so now we go back to DeWolfe’s comment that you have insider info that gives you an unfair advantage. And you called him a troll for saying that.

If this is indeed generated from Anet, let’s hope it’s in the first draft stage. It’s a terrible idea and only caters to a small portion of their overall audience.

We don’t know what it is. Its not confirmed. Nor is it happening. I posted it for discussion. No use to speculate on what it could be but instead talk about what is details. I dont think it’s perfect, but i truely believe it needs to be talked about. Regardless if you think so or not.

Then don’t make promises about its veracity.

You can’t flip flop like that without someone noticing.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I don’t think Anet wrote this either, so it would be hard to explain for them.

It repeats the same agenda that’s been pushed around here for a year now through various forms of social engineering.

And it would not let us keep our communities. It would destroy them.

But the big guilds would be ok.

I promise you they did.

Ok so now we go back to DeWolfe’s comment that you have insider info that gives you an unfair advantage. And you called him a troll for saying that.

If this is indeed generated from Anet, let’s hope it’s in the first draft stage. It’s a terrible idea and only caters to a small portion of their overall audience.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I don’t think Anet wrote this either, so it would be hard to explain for them.

It repeats the same agenda that’s been pushed around here for a year now through various forms of social engineering.

And it would not let us keep our communities. It would destroy them.

But the big guilds would be ok.

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice. Then keep those caps in place, with vacancies only occurring through attrition.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Those same people who have worked together for years would in fact be a battlegroup. No matter how they split their numbers. You aren’t forcing anyone to join any guild. individuals join the battle group just the same as guilds. If you choose not to join a battlegroup you will be match made. It stops the bandwagon completely right after it’s match made. That means we dont have this problem we have now. We would be locked for a 14 week period and then instead of every 2 months we get screwed over and forced to move to a random server we really don’t want. We get the option or playing where we want in the time between and during the formation of the next season. I am talking on an individual level. Which makes this system way more flexible than anything we’ve experienced so far.

I don’t know what you classify as a defensive guild neither. I would call TW a defensive guild because they are known to sit on SMC and hold it down to just farm bags in the center. My guild use to be known for home map defense on my previous server. A battlegroup is not a guild.

No the model outlined above caters to big guilds and seemingly ignores the contributions of smaller guilds.

It will alienate the population, because it gives too much power to the playerbase in determining/gaming the system. We already have too much of this.

And how exactly would it stop bandwagonning? Your explanation isn’t clear. And why couldn’t the same rules be applied to existing servers (and subsequently keep everyone happy)?

And if you can play where you want, what’s to stop people from trolling matches to ensure a win for the “home” alliance?

If you choose not to join a battlegroup you will be match made.

So the putty to fill in the cracks if you don’t join a big group?

I think there’s a disconnect here because you’ve played in a big guild and don’t understand that not everyone wants to play that way.

A game shouldn’t cater to one set of people. It should be available to all if it wants to ensure any longevity.

Also, calling something alliance or server or whatever will not resolve issues plaguing WvW. You have to resolve the bandwagonning issue FIRST. Any other change or implementation of alliance/servers/what have you, is just putting lipstick on the pig, and will result in the exact same situation as we have now. Only it will wind up alienating the loyalists in the process and lose even more playerbase.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Not going to say where this came from. Don’t even ask. All I’ll say is it came from someone else.

We want to create a WvW season with weekly matches during 8 to 10 weeks and a final tournament at the end of the season that will last 4 weeks.
There will be a team formation period when groups of guilds will join together as battlegroups. Battlegroups will have a max size of around 1000 players.
The system opens the door for some type of matchmaking (guild activity levels, when they are most active) in order to better distribute people and define metrics about what kind of things guilds like to do. The ultimate goal of the system is to generate great matches.
Population, we will have to move people around with the changes but the goal is to keep communities together as much as possible.
The battlegroup system allows players to create groups of guilds that will work together.
You will be able to switch battlegroups at any time but it won’t affect which world you are on until the next season for scoring purposes.
You can pick which of your guilds you want to join on WvW during the team formation phase.
When teams are formed you will be on that team for the season for scoring purposes, even if you change guild or battle group. This is to avoid spying between battlegroups amongst other issues.
Guilds will take player slots out of the battlegroup total capacity. Every guild will take a minimum of 50 slots out of the battlegroup capacity, to a max of 500.
Battlegroups are effectively a “party system” for guilds.
We will have a system to populate worlds automatically with battlegroups, guild and non-guilded players.
Current worlds won’t matter for battlegroups.
We will be adding a guild recognition system called “the guild medal system” for now.
You will do things with your guild and compete with other guilds to get the medal for that week. The activities (most kills, most defensed objectives) are a way to recognize individual guilds for their contribution on a matchup.

This sounds like someone’s wish list.

It completely ignores the bulk of players: small guilds, solo players, etc .. and focuses instead on the big guilds.

If this is done, it will dismiss a core group of WvW. A vital part of WvW.

Any evaluation that excludes rather than includes is just bad business.

Whats stopping smaller guilds and solo players from joining in on this? From someone who has built two alliances, we also recruit solo players who follow us and small guilds. Both types and all types of play styles is need in any WVW community whether it be alliance based or server based.

It’s doing the “small guilds and solo players” will be the putty to fill in the gaps between the big guild models. It doesn’t work.

Most server’s defensive teams are small guilds. They rely on each other because they’ve worked together for years. If you give random battlegroup assignments to these groups, you lose that cohesion, and then you lose the gameplay we’ve enjoyed for four years in WvW. You have to have BOTH groups (fighters/defense) in order for WvW to work.

Name one big defensive guild. Just one.

You can’t, because they’re all made up of smaller guilds and solo players.

Forcing people to join a big guild or not play is not a good business model.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Not going to say where this came from. Don’t even ask. All I’ll say is it came from someone else.

We want to create a WvW season with weekly matches during 8 to 10 weeks and a final tournament at the end of the season that will last 4 weeks.
There will be a team formation period when groups of guilds will join together as battlegroups. Battlegroups will have a max size of around 1000 players.
The system opens the door for some type of matchmaking (guild activity levels, when they are most active) in order to better distribute people and define metrics about what kind of things guilds like to do. The ultimate goal of the system is to generate great matches.
Population, we will have to move people around with the changes but the goal is to keep communities together as much as possible.
The battlegroup system allows players to create groups of guilds that will work together.
You will be able to switch battlegroups at any time but it won’t affect which world you are on until the next season for scoring purposes.
You can pick which of your guilds you want to join on WvW during the team formation phase.
When teams are formed you will be on that team for the season for scoring purposes, even if you change guild or battle group. This is to avoid spying between battlegroups amongst other issues.
Guilds will take player slots out of the battlegroup total capacity. Every guild will take a minimum of 50 slots out of the battlegroup capacity, to a max of 500.
Battlegroups are effectively a “party system” for guilds.
We will have a system to populate worlds automatically with battlegroups, guild and non-guilded players.
Current worlds won’t matter for battlegroups.
We will be adding a guild recognition system called “the guild medal system” for now.
You will do things with your guild and compete with other guilds to get the medal for that week. The activities (most kills, most defensed objectives) are a way to recognize individual guilds for their contribution on a matchup.

This sounds like someone’s wish list.

It completely ignores the bulk of players: small guilds, solo players, etc .. and focuses instead on the big guilds.

If this is done, it will dismiss a core group of WvW. A vital part of WvW.

Any evaluation that excludes rather than includes is just bad business.