Guild Wars 2 Shop

I see a lot of talk about alliances. Two questions on that front:
1) What functionality would you like to get out of an alliance?
2) What makes you want alliances?

I’ll try to answer them myself.
1) Ability to play content that is made for larger guilds. Ability to connect some of my guilds and have them be able to chat together without the commitment of being in the same guild.
2) My guild is small and there is not enough content for small guilds. I think we could make more small guild content too which would help alleviate the need for alliances.

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … QOL/page/9

Ok time for a third topic.

Guild Halls.

I see this subject come up a lot in this thread and while we can talk about other aspects of Guild Halls at some point, let’s try another exercise.

What are the 3 top QOL features you think Guild Halls could provide that maybe couldn’t exist otherwise? Try not to list features that are beyond QOL, but I won’t hold it against you because its hard to do.

I’m out for the day hiking at Mt. Rainier but will try and return with my own top three later this weekend.

Source :

Kaz.5430 a écrit :

The biggest QoL feature that I can think of, that ‘only’ a Guild Hall could provide is as a Megaserver Transportation system.

If only guild members (or invitees perhaps) can access the hall, then it would be an easy place to gather a large group together and be sure to all be on the same map. There could be an NPC that each player speaks to, and by speaking to them, megaserver system is able to get an exact count of the number of players wanting to travel together to a particular zone, BEFORE they try to travel.

Rather than each player loading a zone independently, and the system using predictive logic to try and group people together, it would know exactly how many spaces it needs to have on whichever map the collective attempts to load.

While obviously cool there are some details that would be required to start talking about this.
          • How big of a group would be required to create one of these zones?
          • Could you join half empty zones or would you always want them guild exclusive?
          • Would zones created for your guild stay exclusive to your guild?
          • etc.

I’d love to see your thoughts on the details of this proposal to talk through some of the issues and see if it is in fact realistic, knowing that obviously you don’t know how the server infrastructure for megaservers works but I’ll try and be here to guide you.

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … OL/page/14

Since I started it let me list my top QOL improvements from guild halls.

1) Some way for the entire guild to physically gather in a location.
2) A more physical representation of guild upgrades allowing the upgrades themselves to take on forms that are more physical as well.
3) A place where you can do in game activities in a space controlled by your guild (technically custom arenas offer this for PvP already but the only activity you can do in them is conquest PvP.)
Jon
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … OL/page/14

This is just a short summary of the most mentioned things in this Thread. I hope it helps a little

Guild mail
-ability for the guild leader so send mail to the whole guild at once

Guild halls

Guild capes
-visible representation of own guild

GvG
-8v8 match between two guilds

Guild recruitement boards
-possibility to post facts of own guild for guildless ppl to read at one place

Guild event calendar
-ingame event calendar to post guild mission dates and other events

Auto upgrades
-set specific upgrade times for guild buffs e.g. every friday

Alliances
-ability for guilds to group up for guild missions and other events

Guild tags
-commander tag only visible for guild members, for organizing guild missions and other events

Guild bank changes
-separate material slot
-donations possibility
-finer tunement for member rights e.g. view only, moving only of items

Divisions in guild roster
-ability to group members by activity

API
-access to ad ability to edit guild info and rooster outside the game

MotD
-make MotD more visible for members

rename Guilds
-allow renaming of guilds

Guild chat
-allow guild chat for all guilds, not only the one who gets represented

Guild missions changes
- mission in instances
- missions can only be started with given permission

Account guild
-new toons rep one choosen guild automatically

Guild UI changes
-make it harder to leave guilds by accident
-show player join/ last representing date
-more ranks

Hi All,
Please find below Orpheal’s summary for the CDI below:
https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost4419141
What are the top 3 improvements you would like to see to Guilds in regard QOL and Logistics.
Once we have a good idea of folks favorites we can have a final discussion.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … OL/page/16

I was about to toss out the exhaustion idea altogether because of the legitimate concerns of small groups that a good number of you have brought up but this post gave me another perspective on it. I’m going to merge some of the ideas you guys have put forth into a new iteration on the design you and I have been working out.

Here is the new proposal based on your ideas:
Siege Dismantling

• You DO NOT get exhaustion from placing siege

• If you own a piece of siege:
          • There is a skill on the skill bar called “Dismantle” that will drop the timer down to one minute

• If you do not own a piece of siege:
          • There is a skill on the skill bar called “Vote Dismantle”
          • If a piece of siege gets 5 votes:
                • The timer on the siege drops to 5 minutes
                • The player who placed the siege gets a stack of exhaustion
                         • In this proposal this is the only way to get exhaustion[/*

• When a siege timer is reduced to 0 it is dismantled
          • All siege that is dismantled drops 25% of the supply it took to construct

Exhaustion

• A player who has 5 stacks of exhaustion can no longer place siege until they have 0 stacks of exhaustion

• A stack of exhaustion is removed:
          • After 5 minutes
                • For commanders this time is reduced by 2 minutes for each member of your squad for up to 20 minutes
          • For each enemy player defeated
          • For each objective taken

This proposal has these properties:

• Play is not affected at all for anyone unless they repeatedly place siege that is repeatedly voted down

• Players are encouraged to clean up their siege to get a refund and to prevent their siege being voted down

• Players can police themselves by voting down bad siege

• Players who get exhaustion incorrectly can easily remove it by playing WvW normally

• The more siege that gets placed that is left unattended the easier it will be to lose the privilege of placing siege.

• Commanders who actually have people following them can bypass the bulk of the penalty and should easily remove the rest through normal play

For other topics, there seems to be general agreement that some sort of labeling or filtering will help with siege that is dropped onto the area you are trying to build in. Also, I agree that build sites could have a smaller footprint.

Again there were a lot of really good suggestions! I am reading every single post in this thread (and you guys are keeping me busy ) so I really appreciate those of you who have stayed constructive, on topic and within the guidelines that were set down. It is really helping us think out possible ways together of how we could address this problem in a way that would work for everyone.

So now…

ROUND THREE … DISCUSS!

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ion/page/7

You guys beat me to it. After last week’s positive discussion on siege trolls I wanted to bring up the topic of population imbalance and ideas that you have on it.

There are a couple of ideas already going in this thread:

• population caps

• merge servers

• Battle Groups

I’d like to join in this brainstorm with some questions on these. For merging servers, how do we determine who gets merged? Where would we merge them to? How do we maintain any sort of world pride or identity they have? How do we handle potentially merging with your mortal enemies?

For population caps, how do we deal with the longer queues on the worlds that can field enough people? If it is dynamic, would players be able to manipulate it? For example, our world is ahead so we all agree to not play WvW so the other worlds are capped down and can’t counter us.

For Battle Groups, Asglarek mentioned more details are on the way. I’d love to hear more.

I’m approaching this as a brainstorm. The topic is “Approaches to correcting overall population imbalance”. I know there is a related topic of 24 hour coverage but I’d like to keep that as a separate conversation for now.

Please keep this friendly, constructive and on topic. We had a really good discussion on the siege troll thread I’m hoping we can kick around some ideas and have another great discussion here. Feel free to add additional ideas that I didn’t list out but please make sure they are on topic.

Thanks,
John

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ance/first

Yowzers that was a lot to read! You guys have been busy. I dropped that line that I needed to get caught up and then the size of this thread more than doubled! I’ll apologize in advance for not calling out who some of the ideas in this post are coming from but there were too many posts to keep it all straight.

There are a number of great ideas circulating attacking the problem from different angles and with varying levels of magnitude of change. One note though, I really feel that scoring is a separate issue that needs to be addressed on it’s own. We will discuss that one after we wrap this one up. Even if we were to overhaul the scoring system population imbalance will still be an issue.

From reading through this thread I think we can agree on the following goals:

• We want a thriving and vibrant WvW community in each world. That is to say, we want people to play with and against.

• We want to continue to play with our friends and the communities that we have developed already.

There were a number of other goals but I think those are the two big ones. I’m going to combine a number of your ideas to attempt to address this problem with a proposal and see what you guys think.

First off, as many of you have pointed out, it will be impossible to create equal populations without moving people around. As several others have pointed out we don’t want to break apart communities. This has been a really tough one for all of us. I know all about server pride. At the risk of having people scream “MATCH THREAD” and red card me off the forums, I’ll let you know that I have been known to pipe up in meetings with “SBI TILL I DIE” because it’s where I play with my friends and family members. So I’ve had the same reaction that many of you had when merges have come up in discussion. Through Adopt-A-Dev I’m now repping the DR crowd and I’ve learned that these guys on DR don’t all have three heads and eat puppies (unless they are really cool) and while it did feel a little dirty to fight SBI last week it was still great fun.

Anyway, this discussion made it clear it is who you play with that’s important and a number of ideas in this thread preserved that without restricting the number of people who could play at a time. These have had a number of names but for the sake of discussion I’ll go with Alliances. The idea that I liked for Alliances is that it is a group of guilds and people that are guaranteed to stay together no matter how things are rearranged. There would probably need to be a size limit on Alliances and several of you pointed out that whatever limits are put in place it should be based on WvW participation.

A few of you noted that things will always be changing over time so the system would have to be dynamic. There are a couple of ways of addressing this discussed in this thread. An idea that would be a small incremental change to how the game plays would be to create a new set of worlds then fill them up with our Alliances of guilds and players that are guaranteed to always play together. This would happen at regular intervals, the intervals were all over the map as were the size of the worlds in this thread so I will propose this cadence:

• Off Season

• Tournament

• Restructure
    • Create new Worlds
    • Redistribute Alliances

This cycle would take a few months given the cadence of tournaments we have had which is about the time that we would want to rebalance populations. After the restructure, players could transfer like they do now if they so desired.

Alliances would provide continuity for the community. I see the server pride of today becoming Alliance pride because of that continuity. But I also see the off season as a time for the newly formed world of alliances to develop their own identity as they head into the tournament. Keep in mind that if an alliance was big enough to fill a world that mapping becomes one to one. If that became the case maybe the world could just take the alliance name. It’s interesting because that time together gives everyone involved a chance to see if they all want to ally together to truly solidify into a world. If not, you are still playing with your community for the glory of your alliance in the next restructure. But your community would be playing with other communities new to you and maybe this new bunch is a better fit for you and an opportunity for your alliance to grow.

The pieces for this idea comes from a number of posts in this thread. There are also some thoughts in there from some discussions I’ve had with several guild leaders. I just glommed it all together into something that I think could be a workable solution. I do want to emphasize though that this is all brainstorming

Let me know your thoughts and thanks again for all the great and constructive discussion!

John

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ce/page/10

We will have a CDI phase on GvG.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … alls/first

Hey Guys,
Just a quick note to let you know I’m not dead I took a day off to celebrate a birthday for a special little dude in my life. Now I’m back and waaaaaay behind!
I’ve had some thoughts based on some feedback you guys have given on the proposal I posted. I’m going to try to get caught up on this thread then see how we can adjust things to cover some concerns.
John
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ce/page/20

this is a great point. I have not explicitly said what the box is on purpose but I’m happy next week to take an idea and really ask all the hard questions to try to boil it down more so that you can all see how this works more clearly on our end. One thing is the constraints we have are rarely what you all imagine they might be so I think it will be good to break down an actual problem that way.
Jon
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/15

Actually it hasn’t been talked about at all. I’ve seen a lot of basic suggestions, but what I am suggesting is that we flesh something out here in this thread. I’m choosing the upgrade system because someone actually started breaking it down. I think the first question(s) I have is:
Are the current upgrade categories the ones we would use or would we break it up differently? If not, how many categories would you think make sense? Specifically what would your categories be?
Jon
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/16

I think one solution to the scaling problems is to create different aspects that work on different scales. For example some aspects can be time gated and therefore don’t favor any size guild. Some can be based on straight up farming which favor larger guilds, and some could be driven by activity and favor guilds with active members. Think of it like the 3 branches of government, and the aspects within that. The senate favors states, the house favors population (or gerrymandering at least  ), etc…
I think in that way the question that comes to mind is what parts of Guild Halls would you want to have work in what different ways so that we can reward big guilds for those areas but not punish small guilds for the things they really want…
Jon

I’ll chime in a bit here. It is a good question. I think there would be some conflict here but that there would also be some technical wiggle room. I think we can safely assume that 500 players from a guild being logged in is not the common case. What is a “reasonable” maximum # of members in the guild hall to you? 150? 200? 400?
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/17

My box is guild upgrades. I want us to brainstorm how we could revamp the upgrade system given the introduction of a feature such as guild halls.
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/18

Morning All,
Due to recent events I must confess that I am only properly knowledgeable up to roughly page 12 but I want to jump in and start discussing things with you. I hope that is ok.
I want to emphasize that my questions, thoughts, and brain storming are theoretical and should not be taken as a given. With that said I want to start at the foundation.
Ok lets assume that in the world of the CDI Guild Halls have a lot of horizontal progression such as the ability to create buildings, upgrade them and customize the whole experience. What is the smallest guild size that this would be suitable for. Even more specifically is it ok to have a ton of progression in this Guild Hall example and have small guilds work through it.
An idea I wanted to throw into the mix would be could small guilds have a shared Guild Hall with an Alliance?
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/17

All good points and this one is very valid:
‘I think, for smaller guilds, the basic bonuses should be obtainable easily. Examples like a guild armorer merchant or something. But the bigger, longer, and higher stuff should stay the bigger and longer. Yes, big guilds will reach it faster than smaller guilds, but that’s the nature of the beast. Bigger guilds are going to get to the bigger and better stuff sooner.’
This is also a very acute point:
‘As for guild alliance halls. They could work, and would be neat. The only issue would be, what happens if the alliance breaks apart? who gets the hall?’
Initial thoughts are that members of the Alliance would each get an instance of the shared guild hall. And yes I am aware I said instance. This is purely because I am a fan of instance over open world (-:
Chris

FYI I would not put a hard gate on number of guildees required for Guild Hall creation. That is my personal opinion.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/18

Hi,
GvG will be discussed after we discuss raiding.
Thanks,
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost4469798

Ok cool let’s start it of then Donari:

Note these are my personal top three priorities:

1: The ability for guild members to be able to show of their prowess and achievements through Guild Halls and their own avatar customization.
2: The ability for players to work together in a fun way to build something different and exciting.
3: The ability for smaller guilds to enjoy guild halls.

Chris

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/29

Bump.

We will wait a few more days for folks to post their top three priority’s. Could those who are doing summaries please post them (Orpheal and Vod)

Then on Monday I will put our proposal together and then on Tuesday we will begin Phase 3: Raiding!!

Chris

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/29

Hi,

I am replying to you but talking to all those as well who have been frustrated with the lack of collaboration and maturity in this CDI.

We take the CDI very seriously and it is clear that whilst most CDIs have been extremely valuable and born lots of fruit that the maturity and professional levels required can not be ensured by the guidelines I have set.

I am therefore going to request that the CDI moving forward have its own area where anyone can enter and join in the design sessions but that those who find it hard to focus on the spirit and rules of the CDI can be locked out.

This is the only fair approach because the rules of our forums are different to those of the CDI and thus behavior that would be deemed acceptable on the forums may not be in the CDI and thus one should not be held to the same rules across both areas.

I will update when I have more info. Thanks to all those who participated and followed the rules and please understand that tons of useful info was gleaned and that your efforts were not wasted.

Chris

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ng/page/31

Morning,

Ok I have been up all night reading the posts and thinking about this CDI.

To be frank this is not a good CDI, specifically because whilst some folks are trying to be collaborative and have valuable discussion others are just bullying with their different agendas.

I have always said that if a CDI loses its value on both sides that it will be stopped.

So I am at some what of a loss. I can’t tell anymore if it is of value to this group. Whilst it certainly has been valuable for us it has been extremely time consuming to get to the good stuff.

So I will leave it up to you folks. If you feel you can work more collaboratively then by all means let me know that you want to carry on.

If you feel that it is a lost cause then I will ask for everyone’s top three priorities for raiding and call it a day.

I want to say thank you very much to all those who tried to follow the rules of the CDI and who had a healthy discussion. I also wanted to say a big thank you to TTS and DnT. We appreciate your feedback.

Chris

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ng/page/30

I’m not the one who makes decisions on gear tiers, but it’s very unlikely raids will have a new gear tier with new stats. We would attempt to find other avenues to reward players, and create a sense of progression within the raids instead.

You mention a “raid-focused progression track”. What do you think that might look like?
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ng/page/11

Regarding Agony. Personally I would not want to use it for Raiding. I would like us to focus on the core combat and movement mechanics of the game and then build on that as a foundation to how encounters and mobs interact with the player and group.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ng/page/22

Entirely up for debate. I’ll use two extreme examples here with some hypothetical made up assumptions:

• A raid could be as small as a singular dungeon path that takes 4 hours to learn, but can be completed in as little as 30 minutes on farm.

• A raid could be as large as the Eternal Battlegrounds with many different paths/encounters that takes upwards of a month(s) to learn, but can be completed in as little as 4 hours on farm.

And ultimately, and here’s a totally crazy idea (because I love brainstorming)… Why can’t raiding be both?

• If we have a singular story to tell, can it just be a one off instance that tells one story and has one final boss at the end (imagine if we rebuilt the Marionette to be a 15 man encounter in a raid instance and that’s the entire instance)?

• If we have a much larger story to tell, can it be a full sized map complete with multiple encounters and hidden areas to explore (imagine if Dry Top was a 15 man instance and you progressed through the map learning the story of how a huge sand storm is coming, and the final boss is some sort of magical sand storm giant that summons chickenados as its minions)?

Hi All,
Please list your top three priorities for raiding (Challenging, Instanced, Cooperative, Content)
Mine are:
1: Knowledge>
2: Skill>
3: Raid Group Setup
I will leave the thread open until folks have had a chance to put there top three forward and then I will put forward a proposal on behalf of the CDI group to the team.
Thanks,
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ng/page/31