Patreon: - How I Think Alliances Should Have Been Handled — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

Patreon: - How I Think Alliances Should Have Been Handled

Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

I stopped myself from making this post a couple of years ago because I thought to myself, "Eh, Anet adding only a system (Alliances). Anet is not even making a full-on game or full-on expansion. How much longer can it take?" Yet, here we all are, years later, still waiting . . . I guess that is what "soon" means. Anyways, done with that small rant. I making this post regarding an idea involving how I still think Alliances could have progressed much faster. The idea is overall simple:

Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators items such as Gems, Artwork, and/or whatever is perceived fair, what matches their contribution, in/out of the game. I would have gladly donated to the cause. I am not making this post anymore complicated than that. That is all, thanks for reading.

"You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

~ Me

Comments

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Think you mean crowd funding? Patreon is like a sub?

    Also I don't think they had a problem with funding as you all seem to think. They had a bunch of side projects in the works if you don't remember, so they obviously had development power to improve wvw over all those years, they chose not to make it a priority ever. Whatever developments they made, most of it was under appreciated, because frankly it wasn't much to begin with, and most of it were things they wanted not what the players wanted, so I would guess they never made even less effort after.

    But sure, run a crowd funding for it, they just better be ready to actually develop and improve wvw if they do so.

    Patreon can be set up for different tiers to greater reward people who donate especially more than others. Although, all donators usually get some kind of reward. I do not care much on the platform used. However, initially, that is why I jumped towards mentioning Patreon.

    Personally, no, I did not forget about the past side projects. My issue with those projects is that they were kept "secret," for the longest time, from the player base. I want to know where my money is going this time EXACTLY, as much as the next guy/gal should. Other than that, I agree with everything else you said.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • knite.1542knite.1542 Member ✭✭✭

    Do you actually have faith that anet would deliver if some hypothetical goal set by them was met?

    If your team wins it's because of everyone else. If your team loses, blame the thief.
    ranger is OP but holo is more OP so its fine
    Why do this matter at all, you have people asking you why play so bad as fractal god?

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @knite.1542 said:
    Do you actually have faith that anet would deliver if some hypothetical goal set by them was met?

    The amount of "faith" I posses, large or small, holds very little if any weight in the overall desired outcome of Alliances. Sure though, I'll still bite. If the goal set by them "was met," as you said, then in all fairness, yes, I should have reason to believe at that point Anet would deliver. Regardless, people, no matter where they stand, have the option to donate however much or not at all. If they find this option too risky, then they simply don't donate then. However, I find this option more appealing than doing nothing at all as we all theorize on what could be. Not to mention, all while I have the option to buy gems, dress "cool," or whatever and continuing playing anything else, in-game, but Alliances.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • Justine.6351Justine.6351 Member ✭✭✭✭

    You presume it is a matter of money rather than a matter of interest on their part.

    If only a couple of devs are interested in even touching it, that's not going to go very far I would imagine.

    Throwing out money isn't always a solution.

    Anet buff me :-(
    Make me good at game!

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @Justine.6351 said:
    You presume it is a matter of money rather than a matter of interest on their part.

    If only a couple of devs are interested in even touching it, that's not going to go very far I would imagine.

    Throwing out money isn't always a solution.

    No, I firstly presume it is a matter of interest because they brought up "Alliances" to the player base. Merely stating that "money isn't always a solution" does not prove it was not part of the solution either. Additionally, the intention is not to just continue to "[throw] out money". The money is intended to go in a specific direction, being Alliances. Enough money could potentially help them put on a bigger team if need be. Besides if one man can come this far:

    Then surely a few devs should be able to put together a system (not even a full game) together. Otherwise, what the kitten.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    There is china flu, which caused disruption in everyone's money making scheme. So, if you plan to do a sub when most ppl are trying to survive or don't have work, you will end up with an empty game.

    A good business model must be seen from the point of view of the environment. Your market, the means ppl make money, etc.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    There is china flu, which caused disruption in everyone's money making scheme. So, if you plan to do a sub when most ppl are trying to survive or don't have work, you will end up with an empty game.

    A good business model must be seen from the point of view of the environment. Your market, the means ppl make money, etc.

    Alright, then people should not donate if it is not convenient for them any more than they continue to buy unessential gems as we speak.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    There is china flu, which caused disruption in everyone's money making scheme. So, if you plan to do a sub when most ppl are trying to survive or don't have work, you will end up with an empty game.

    A good business model must be seen from the point of view of the environment. Your market, the means ppl make money, etc.

    Alright, then people should not donate if it is not convenient for them any more than they continue to buy unessential gems as we speak.

    Anet needs a mode where you need to compete because there players will spend gold for necessities and gems to gold.etc.

    Also it shouldn't be something that you must use cash directly. Like an option we have now but I give it 40% more likely people to spend cash if they like the mode.

    I.e. old school tourneys. Because we wanted to buy those sieges. Upgrade those structures etc.,

    Now anet needs to do something like this. Something meaningful. Something that gives us feelings for the game.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @Justine.6351 said:
    You presume it is a matter of money rather than a matter of interest on their part.

    If only a couple of devs are interested in even touching it, that's not going to go very far I would imagine.

    Throwing out money isn't always a solution.

    No, I firstly presume it is a matter of interest because they brought up "Alliances" to the player base. Merely stating that "money isn't always a solution" does not prove it was not part of the solution either. Additionally, the intention is not to just continue to "[throw] out money". The money is intended to go in a specific direction, being Alliances. Enough money could potentially help them put on a bigger team if need be. Besides if one man can come this far:

    Then surely a few devs should be able to put together a system (not even a full game) together. Otherwise, what the kitten.

    Yeah, and then compare how many crowdfunded things have failed or had millions put into them and then nothing to show for it.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @Justine.6351 said:
    You presume it is a matter of money rather than a matter of interest on their part.

    If only a couple of devs are interested in even touching it, that's not going to go very far I would imagine.

    Throwing out money isn't always a solution.

    No, I firstly presume it is a matter of interest because they brought up "Alliances" to the player base. Merely stating that "money isn't always a solution" does not prove it was not part of the solution either. Additionally, the intention is not to just continue to "[throw] out money". The money is intended to go in a specific direction, being Alliances. Enough money could potentially help them put on a bigger team if need be. Besides if one man can come this far:

    Then surely a few devs should be able to put together a system (not even a full game) together. Otherwise, what the kitten.

    Yeah, and then compare how many crowdfunded things have failed or had millions put into them and then nothing to show for it.

    . . . And then compare how many crowdfunded things have succeeded with something to show for it.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • enkidu.5937enkidu.5937 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 21, 2020

    Ppl already donate with transfer costs in the current model.

    As far as I understood it (or not^^), alliances will bring (A) the opportunity to stack up to 500 ppl (which can already be done now by stacking ppl into a guild, so its just some kind of QoL addition) and (B) restrictions to the transfer system (that are urgently needed).

    So this crowd funding would have to be on par with the continous revenue from transfer costs to make it appealing for Anet, gl with that ^^

  • SexyMofo.8923SexyMofo.8923 Member ✭✭✭

    Lol. We all know that money would have been wasted on side projects.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @Justine.6351 said:
    You presume it is a matter of money rather than a matter of interest on their part.

    If only a couple of devs are interested in even touching it, that's not going to go very far I would imagine.

    Throwing out money isn't always a solution.

    No, I firstly presume it is a matter of interest because they brought up "Alliances" to the player base. Merely stating that "money isn't always a solution" does not prove it was not part of the solution either. Additionally, the intention is not to just continue to "[throw] out money". The money is intended to go in a specific direction, being Alliances. Enough money could potentially help them put on a bigger team if need be. Besides if one man can come this far:

    Then surely a few devs should be able to put together a system (not even a full game) together. Otherwise, what the kitten.

    Yeah, and then compare how many crowdfunded things have failed or had millions put into them and then nothing to show for it.

    . . . And then compare how many crowdfunded things have succeeded with something to show for it.

    Yeah like Camelot Unchained, which people on this forum said killed WvW in 2015.

    Wait.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • primatos.5413primatos.5413 Member ✭✭✭

    At least it seems to have killed roaming. Roaming dead :(

  • TinkTinkPOOF.9201TinkTinkPOOF.9201 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I used to crowd fund, it was called buying gems, as a 100% WvW player, I also bought the game and the expacs.

    They stated back when this was all still fresh that most of the system was already in place, as it's a modification of the existing system. They stated that they more or less just needed to make a GUI for it and they wanted to study server populations so they had data to work with, as if they didn't already have that from years of game play already. This is just another example of people acting like it is more work for this system than a new triple A game. When really it's a job a single person could have completed by now....What people don't understand is that NOT EVEN A SINGLE PERSON HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS. I had hopes I was wrong, but at this point it's clear no one has been working on it and they are just hoping over time people forget it was ever talked about. And considering the number of old school players on my list that has logged-in in the past few months is shrinking faster and faster, that might actually happen.

    The direction GW2 is going in the super casual mindset, with only scraps given to WvW, I mean come on, this system is less work than a SINGLE living story update. So we don't even really get scraps anymore to be honest. But what I am waiting for is them to start adding pay to win items, I can see it coming already.

    "When you power creep the game and make it so that spam gameplay is nearly as effective as deep knowledge and nuance, the quality of players will decrease." -Exedore

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Eotm mwahaha. Revive this and kill wvw

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Whiteout.1975 said:
    I stopped myself from making this post a couple of years ago because I thought to myself, "Eh, Anet adding only a system (Alliances). Anet is not even making a full-on game or full-on expansion. How much longer can it take?" Yet, here we all are, years later, still waiting . . . I guess that is what "soon" means. Anyways, done with that small rant. I making this post regarding an idea involving how I still think Alliances could have progressed much faster. The idea is overall simple:

    Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators items such as Gems, Artwork, and/or whatever is perceived fair, what matches their contribution, in/out of the game. I would have gladly donated to the cause. I am not making this post anymore complicated than that. That is all, thanks for reading.

    Name all the established MMOs that turn to crowd funding for continued development?

  • knite.1542knite.1542 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 21, 2020

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @knite.1542 said:
    Do you actually have faith that anet would deliver if some hypothetical goal set by them was met?

    The amount of "faith" I posses, large or small, holds very little if any weight in the overall desired outcome of Alliances. Sure though, I'll still bite. If the goal set by them "was met," as you said, then in all fairness, yes, I should have reason to believe at that point Anet would deliver. Regardless, people, no matter where they stand, have the option to donate however much or not at all. If they find this option too risky, then they simply don't donate then.

    You don't really need to 'bite', the question isn't bait, it is just a question. Either way, the only reason I ask is because anet doesn't have the greatest track record of doing what they say they are going to do. I remember a time when they listed 2nd generation legendary weapons as a selling point of the Heart of Thorns expansion and then once they realized they couldn't deliver that, they silently changed the Heart of Thorns FAQ page, removing any mention of legendary weapons, and only addressed it after they got called out by the community.

    Things like that are why I believe that, even if arenanet were to do something like this, I don't think they would deliver if the goal was met.

    edit: Also, not trying to be a negative nancy, just being realistic. Anet clearly has little to no interest in alliances, or wvw in general.

    If your team wins it's because of everyone else. If your team loses, blame the thief.
    ranger is OP but holo is more OP so its fine
    Why do this matter at all, you have people asking you why play so bad as fractal god?

  • Excursion.9752Excursion.9752 Member ✭✭✭

    Alliances are alive and well you just have to spend money to get gems and switch to a server. So in short its already being funded. And I believe until Anet can figure out a way to monetize alliances we will not see it implemented.

                                                              There is a 50% chance you will not agree with me and a 50% chance I will not agree with you
    
  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I doubt alliances will happen if there is no announcements. It's not really worth taking seriously until they do tournaments.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @enkidu.5937 said:
    Ppl already donate with transfer costs in the current model.

    As far as I understood it (or not^^), alliances will bring (A) the opportunity to stack up to 500 ppl (which can already be done now by stacking ppl into a guild, so its just some kind of QoL addition) and (B) restrictions to the transfer system (that are urgently needed).

    So this crowd funding would have to be on par with the continous revenue from transfer costs to make it appealing for Anet, gl with that ^^

    We do not know what/where these donations are used in funding in its entirety. The majority could still be supporting side projects and/or the typically focused advancements made in PvE, such as expansions, raids, or what have you. The OP offers a more focused method or direct intentions toward alliances . . . But I cannot ever hope to compete with one's own belief system of where they believe the money with go, that's a personal problem.

    Alliances started out as a concept, but was and still is subject to change as Anet originally claimed. Ultimately, it is a system that intends to create a more balanced population system, yes.

    Transfers are a much more limiting approach. I should not need to get into "why" on this one. However, something like the crowdfunding or subscription-based (subscriptions can be simply 30 days even and then end) are free to donate basically anytime, until the desired amount is reached. And for people who do not wish to transfer, this creates a more easy/alternate/direct method of donating to the intended cause. A method that may easily hold more value to them.

    Considering what I've said, I appreciate your offer "luck," but I may easily find myself saying "good luck" to transfers if the situation ever did arise.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @Justine.6351 said:
    You presume it is a matter of money rather than a matter of interest on their part.

    If only a couple of devs are interested in even touching it, that's not going to go very far I would imagine.

    Throwing out money isn't always a solution.

    No, I firstly presume it is a matter of interest because they brought up "Alliances" to the player base. Merely stating that "money isn't always a solution" does not prove it was not part of the solution either. Additionally, the intention is not to just continue to "[throw] out money". The money is intended to go in a specific direction, being Alliances. Enough money could potentially help them put on a bigger team if need be. Besides if one man can come this far:

    Then surely a few devs should be able to put together a system (not even a full game) together. Otherwise, what the kitten.

    Yeah, and then compare how many crowdfunded things have failed or had millions put into them and then nothing to show for it.

    . . . And then compare how many crowdfunded things have succeeded with something to show for it.

    Yeah like Camelot Unchained, which people on this forum said killed WvW in 2015.

    Wait.

    Well I was never one of those people if that makes you feel better. However, I rather not get into attempted murders vs attempted suicides if we are still comparing here.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:
    I stopped myself from making this post a couple of years ago because I thought to myself, "Eh, Anet adding only a system (Alliances). Anet is not even making a full-on game or full-on expansion. How much longer can it take?" Yet, here we all are, years later, still waiting . . . I guess that is what "soon" means. Anyways, done with that small rant. I making this post regarding an idea involving how I still think Alliances could have progressed much faster. The idea is overall simple:

    Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators items such as Gems, Artwork, and/or whatever is perceived fair, what matches their contribution, in/out of the game. I would have gladly donated to the cause. I am not making this post anymore complicated than that. That is all, thanks for reading.

    Name all the established MMOs that turn to crowd funding for continued development?

    That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

    Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . .
    "What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    I doubt alliances will happen if there is no announcements. It's not really worth taking seriously until they do tournaments.

    You are probably right. I only brought the topic up because I get tired of seeing what WvW could have been (Alliances). Current WvW feels like I'm playing some unrefined version of the game. Almost, like a Game-Demo in a sense, back when they used to have those more so. It completely destroys my urge to play as a result.

    Under respectable matching circumstances (was hoping Alliances would help with this) I believe I would love tournaments too.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @knite.1542 said:
    Do you actually have faith that anet would deliver if some hypothetical goal set by them was met?

    The amount of "faith" I posses, large or small, holds very little if any weight in the overall desired outcome of Alliances. Sure though, I'll still bite. If the goal set by them "was met," as you said, then in all fairness, yes, I should have reason to believe at that point Anet would deliver. Regardless, people, no matter where they stand, have the option to donate however much or not at all. If they find this option too risky, then they simply don't donate then.

    You don't really need to 'bite', the question isn't bait, it is just a question. Either way, the only reason I ask is because anet doesn't have the greatest track record of doing what they say they are going to do. I remember a time when they listed 2nd generation legendary weapons as a selling point of the Heart of Thorns expansion and then once they realized they couldn't deliver that, they silently changed the Heart of Thorns FAQ page, removing any mention of legendary weapons, and only addressed it after they got called out by the community.

    Things like that are why I believe that, even if arenanet were to do something like this, I don't think they would deliver if the goal was met.

    edit: Also, not trying to be a negative nancy, just being realistic. Anet clearly has little to no interest in alliances, or wvw in general.

    Okay, I just have gotten tired of sitting around, waiting on the world to change. I just thought I would mention an approach that could potentially help. I hope that is understandable.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 24, 2020

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:
    I stopped myself from making this post a couple of years ago because I thought to myself, "Eh, Anet adding only a system (Alliances). Anet is not even making a full-on game or full-on expansion. How much longer can it take?" Yet, here we all are, years later, still waiting . . . I guess that is what "soon" means. Anyways, done with that small rant. I making this post regarding an idea involving how I still think Alliances could have progressed much faster. The idea is overall simple:

    Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators items such as Gems, Artwork, and/or whatever is perceived fair, what matches their contribution, in/out of the game. I would have gladly donated to the cause. I am not making this post anymore complicated than that. That is all, thanks for reading.

    Name all the established MMOs that turn to crowd funding for continued development?

    That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

    Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . .
    "What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

    My question is valid. Anet made like around $50,000,000 USD last year, and you want them to now ask for donations to develop wvw???

    Name an existing MMO that's taking in MILLIONS that then turns to the community for hand out donations to add content??? Hmm? And you think that looks good for a business?... And that's exactly what you are proposing, and crowd funding is only done for start up studios to produce a "someday" game...

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:
    I stopped myself from making this post a couple of years ago because I thought to myself, "Eh, Anet adding only a system (Alliances). Anet is not even making a full-on game or full-on expansion. How much longer can it take?" Yet, here we all are, years later, still waiting . . . I guess that is what "soon" means. Anyways, done with that small rant. I making this post regarding an idea involving how I still think Alliances could have progressed much faster. The idea is overall simple:

    Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators items such as Gems, Artwork, and/or whatever is perceived fair, what matches their contribution, in/out of the game. I would have gladly donated to the cause. I am not making this post anymore complicated than that. That is all, thanks for reading.

    Name all the established MMOs that turn to crowd funding for continued development?

    That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

    Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . .
    "What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

    My question is valid. Anet made like around $50,000,000 USD last year, and you want them to now ask for donations to develop wvw???

    Name an existing MMO that's taking in MILLIONS that then turns to the community for hand out donations to add content??? Hmm? And you think that looks good for a business?... And that's exactly what you are proposing, and crowd funding is only done for start up studios to produce a "someday" game...

    • How much of that money was put into Alliances so far?

    Everything you just said makes Anet look bad for having so much money and still no Alliances to show for years now. That hurts them before anything I've suggested here, so congrats. Also, I never explicitly said: "hand out donations." I basically said, have a Pateron that rewards people back based on how much they donate accordingly. However, if they want a strict free hand out donation method . . . They can go ahead. That is just not my preferred method and you just further illustrated why already.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:
    I stopped myself from making this post a couple of years ago because I thought to myself, "Eh, Anet adding only a system (Alliances). Anet is not even making a full-on game or full-on expansion. How much longer can it take?" Yet, here we all are, years later, still waiting . . . I guess that is what "soon" means. Anyways, done with that small rant. I making this post regarding an idea involving how I still think Alliances could have progressed much faster. The idea is overall simple:

    Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators items such as Gems, Artwork, and/or whatever is perceived fair, what matches their contribution, in/out of the game. I would have gladly donated to the cause. I am not making this post anymore complicated than that. That is all, thanks for reading.

    Name all the established MMOs that turn to crowd funding for continued development?

    That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

    Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . .
    "What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

    My question is valid. Anet made like around $50,000,000 USD last year, and you want them to now ask for donations to develop wvw???

    Name an existing MMO that's taking in MILLIONS that then turns to the community for hand out donations to add content??? Hmm? And you think that looks good for a business?... And that's exactly what you are proposing, and crowd funding is only done for start up studios to produce a "someday" game...

    • How much of that money was put into Alliances so far?

    Everything you just said makes Anet look bad for having so much money and still no Alliances to show for years now. That hurts them before anything I've suggested here, so congrats. Also, I never explicitly said: "hand out donations." I basically said, have a Pateron that rewards people back based on how much they donate accordingly. However, if they want a strict free hand out donation method . . . They can go ahead. That is just not my preferred method and you just further illustrated why already.

    Yes, so Anet makes money, no alliances yet, and community isn’t happy. Now add in how it would look if Anet asked players for donations to make alliances...

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Whiteout.1975 said:
    That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

    Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . .
    "What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

    GW2 has expansions, they have a gem store which takes the place of a monthly sub. You can already donate to them by using the gem store. It's not a matter of money, they obviously had money to invest and development power to use, they just chose to use it on side projects which eventually got cancelled, and Mike running off to form another studio.

    What you are asking for is for donations to be funneled into a specific area and to be used in a specific manner, which will not happen for various reasons. When they take money in this way they are obligated to use that money in that specific way, but with any and all develop things can change, things can be canceled, what if they don't even make enough to cover the cost?

    You might be happy to chip in $100, but what if they don't even raise 5k? or 10k or 20k whatever amount may be needed for the development. Then people are going to be screaming for refunds. What if alliances doesn't turn out how you want it? are you going to turn around and start demanding stuff because you donated specifically for this? No other company does this after release.

    You want them to take wvw seriously? then force them and get more players playing wvw. There's a big social aspect of wvw that is not welcoming or toxic, and turns off a lot of new or non pvp players. We can blame anet for everything, the lack of development, lack of marketing for wvw, whatever else, but the other reason why wvw does not grow and does not get taken seriously is because of it's player base too.

    But we all know things won't change either way, and anet is at that point they need to keep themselves afloat, there isn't room a lot of extra side projects, not when they need to work on the next expansion.

    Better yet go buy warclaw mount skins, show them how much interest you have in wvw development with that.

    ^ Another derailing post - Anet
    Perma stealth is needed to outrun zergs - Thieves
    A skill overpowered? just nerf their dodge, balanced. - Anet
    There's no power creep you just don't recognize more people hitting you - Flat Earther

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 24, 2020

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:
    That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

    Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . .
    "What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

    GW2 has expansions, they have a gem store which takes the place of a monthly sub. You can already donate to them by using the gem store. It's not a matter of money, they obviously had money to invest and development power to use, they just chose to use it on side projects which eventually got cancelled, and Mike running off to form another studio.

    I disagree. The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended.

    • I hear it's not because of money, but then I remember layoffs . . . So, in fairness, I wonder.

    Paying the employees, art supplies, technical equipment, overall studio bills (including the rights to the property) . . . I'm not going to pretend like I know how much comes out to.

    What you are asking for is for donations to be funneled into a specific area and to be used in a specific manner, which will not happen for various reasons. When they take money in this way they are obligated to use that money in that specific way, but with any and all develop things can change, things can be canceled, what if they don't even make enough to cover the cost?

    The vast majority of things put forth, including some coming from Anet, do not happen. Do you really think I'd be surprised regarding this time? If they follow what I initially said in the OP, or a similar system, they can reward people for how much they do donate accordingly. Have a goal date, if they don't reach it in time, refund people. Refunds are nothing new as the times' people have been upset about HoT or PoF content. Of course, we wouldn't know if they would happen though, just more negatively theorizing.

    You might be happy to chip in $100, but what if they don't even raise 5k? or 10k or 20k whatever amount may be needed for the development. Then people are going to be screaming for refunds. What if alliances doesn't turn out how you want it? are you going to turn around and start demanding stuff because you donated specifically for this? No other company does this after release.

    Okay, so you are describing refunds in the case of a finished product here. If Alliances come, as advertised, then I wouldn't expect a refund. If the method in the OP was used then you are still rewarding the player for being a donator.

    • I mean I don't donate to a cancer patient and then demand a refund because they died, sadly. I understood the potential risks of doing so.
    • Also, similar to that logic, I should be refunded every time I have to change my WvW gear after a balance patch because I was unsatisfied.

    Of course, however, I don't speak for the company and what they do is for them to decide.

    You want them to take wvw seriously? then force them and get more players playing wvw. There's a big social aspect of wvw that is not welcoming or toxic, and turns off a lot of new or non pvp players. We can blame anet for everything, the lack of development, lack of marketing for wvw, whatever else, but the other reason why wvw does not grow and does not get taken seriously is because of it's player base too.

    Completely disagree on the first sentence. Yes, I want them to take WvW seriously, but that will not happen with more players in WvW. More players actively playing WvW just shows the company that those players already value that service/part of the game.

    I agree with the rest. Do you know what doesn't help either? Is when I see/hear conversations like this all the time:

    Player 1: "Man, I hate that Anet still hasn't brought out Alliances."
    Player 2: "Yeah bro, what gives? Something like that should have been finished by now. Pisses me off."
    Player 1: "This game sucks!"
    Player 2: "Yeah . . . So . . . See you on for reset tomorrow?"
    Player 1: "Of course, sure thing man, also don't forget to buy more siege ahead of time, hahaha"

    . . . LOL

    But we all know things won't change either way, and anet is at that point they need to keep themselves afloat, there isn't room a lot of extra side projects, not when they need to work on the next expansion.

    True.

    Better yet go buy warclaw mount skins, show them how much interest you have in wvw development with that.

    Don't know about this last one though lol. Plenty of people need to stop paying for services they will never truly value. No matter where they transfer, WvW will still be a WvW without Alliances. I'm convinced that current WvW is just a demo version of its true self.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 24, 2020

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:
    That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

    Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . .
    "What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

    GW2 has expansions, they have a gem store which takes the place of a monthly sub. You can already donate to them by using the gem store. It's not a matter of money, they obviously had money to invest and development power to use, they just chose to use it on side projects which eventually got cancelled, and Mike running off to form another studio.

    I disagree. The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended.

    • I hear it's not because of money, but then I remember layoffs . . . So, in fairness, I wonder.

    Paying the employees, art supplies, technical equipment, overall studio bills (including the rights to the property) . . . I'm not going to pretend like I know how much comes out to.

    What you are asking for is for donations to be funneled into a specific area and to be used in a specific manner, which will not happen for various reasons. When they take money in this way they are obligated to use that money in that specific way, but with any and all develop things can change, things can be canceled, what if they don't even make enough to cover the cost?

    The vast majority of things put forth, including some coming from Anet, do not happen. Do you really think I'd be surprised regarding this time? If they follow what I initially said in the OP, or a similar system, they can reward people for how much they do donate accordingly. Have a goal date, if they don't reach it in time, refund people. Refunds are nothing new as the times' people have been upset about HoT or PoF content. Of course, we wouldn't know if they would happen though, just more negatively theorizing.

    You might be happy to chip in $100, but what if they don't even raise 5k? or 10k or 20k whatever amount may be needed for the development. Then people are going to be screaming for refunds. What if alliances doesn't turn out how you want it? are you going to turn around and start demanding stuff because you donated specifically for this? No other company does this after release.

    Okay, so you are describing refunds in the case of a finished product here. If Alliances come, as advertised, then I wouldn't expect a refund. If the method in the OP was used then you are still rewarding the player for being a donator.

    • I mean I don't donate to a cancer patient and then demand a refund because they died, sadly. I understood the potential risks of doing so.
    • Also, similar to that logic, I should be refunded every time I have to change my WvW gear after a balance patch because I was unsatisfied.

    Of course, however, I don't speak for the company and what they do is for them to decide.

    You want them to take wvw seriously? then force them and get more players playing wvw. There's a big social aspect of wvw that is not welcoming or toxic, and turns off a lot of new or non pvp players. We can blame anet for everything, the lack of development, lack of marketing for wvw, whatever else, but the other reason why wvw does not grow and does not get taken seriously is because of it's player base too.

    Completely disagree on the first sentence. Yes, I want them to take WvW seriously, but that will not happen with more players in WvW. More players actively playing WvW just shows the company that those players already value that service/part of the game.

    I agree with the rest. Do you know what doesn't help either? Is when I see/hear conversations like this all the time:

    Player 1: "Man, I hate that Anet still hasn't brought out Alliances."
    Player 2: "Yeah bro, what gives? Something like that should have been finished by now. Pisses me off."
    Player 1: "This game sucks!"
    Player 2: "Yeah . . . So . . . See you on for reset tomorrow?"
    Player 1: "Of course, sure thing man, also don't forget to buy more siege ahead of time, hahaha"

    . . . LOL

    But we all know things won't change either way, and anet is at that point they need to keep themselves afloat, there isn't room a lot of extra side projects, not when they need to work on the next expansion.

    True.

    Better yet go buy warclaw mount skins, show them how much interest you have in wvw development with that.

    Don't know about this last one though lol. Plenty of people need to stop paying for services they will never truly value. No matter where they transfer, WvW will still be a WvW without Alliances. I'm convinced that current WvW is just a demo version of its true self.

    Different game companies monetize their game differently. Anet chose to monetize this game as follows... "We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions.".

    "The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended."... No, its not a more "specific approach as to where the funds are intended.". A monthly sub is just a monetization method, that's it. And monetization methods are not an indication of "where the funds are intended.".

    You are asking for a donation system. That's called "crowd funding"... "Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators"... Again.. you want " tier donators" to fund a portion of the game and that's not gonna happen.

    This is an example of crowd funding... https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/13861848/camelot-unchained

    When CU launches they will stop crowd funding. That's how it works.

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:
    That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

    Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . .
    "What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

    GW2 has expansions, they have a gem store which takes the place of a monthly sub. You can already donate to them by using the gem store. It's not a matter of money, they obviously had money to invest and development power to use, they just chose to use it on side projects which eventually got cancelled, and Mike running off to form another studio.

    I disagree. The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended.

    • I hear it's not because of money, but then I remember layoffs . . . So, in fairness, I wonder.

    Paying the employees, art supplies, technical equipment, overall studio bills (including the rights to the property) . . . I'm not going to pretend like I know how much comes out to.

    What you are asking for is for donations to be funneled into a specific area and to be used in a specific manner, which will not happen for various reasons. When they take money in this way they are obligated to use that money in that specific way, but with any and all develop things can change, things can be canceled, what if they don't even make enough to cover the cost?

    The vast majority of things put forth, including some coming from Anet, do not happen. Do you really think I'd be surprised regarding this time? If they follow what I initially said in the OP, or a similar system, they can reward people for how much they do donate accordingly. Have a goal date, if they don't reach it in time, refund people. Refunds are nothing new as the times' people have been upset about HoT or PoF content. Of course, we wouldn't know if they would happen though, just more negatively theorizing.

    You might be happy to chip in $100, but what if they don't even raise 5k? or 10k or 20k whatever amount may be needed for the development. Then people are going to be screaming for refunds. What if alliances doesn't turn out how you want it? are you going to turn around and start demanding stuff because you donated specifically for this? No other company does this after release.

    Okay, so you are describing refunds in the case of a finished product here. If Alliances come, as advertised, then I wouldn't expect a refund. If the method in the OP was used then you are still rewarding the player for being a donator.

    • I mean I don't donate to a cancer patient and then demand a refund because they died, sadly. I understood the potential risks of doing so.
    • Also, similar to that logic, I should be refunded every time I have to change my WvW gear after a balance patch because I was unsatisfied.

    Of course, however, I don't speak for the company and what they do is for them to decide.

    You want them to take wvw seriously? then force them and get more players playing wvw. There's a big social aspect of wvw that is not welcoming or toxic, and turns off a lot of new or non pvp players. We can blame anet for everything, the lack of development, lack of marketing for wvw, whatever else, but the other reason why wvw does not grow and does not get taken seriously is because of it's player base too.

    Completely disagree on the first sentence. Yes, I want them to take WvW seriously, but that will not happen with more players in WvW. More players actively playing WvW just shows the company that those players already value that service/part of the game.

    I agree with the rest. Do you know what doesn't help either? Is when I see/hear conversations like this all the time:

    Player 1: "Man, I hate that Anet still hasn't brought out Alliances."
    Player 2: "Yeah bro, what gives? Something like that should have been finished by now. Pisses me off."
    Player 1: "This game sucks!"
    Player 2: "Yeah . . . So . . . See you on for reset tomorrow?"
    Player 1: "Of course, sure thing man, also don't forget to buy more siege ahead of time, hahaha"

    . . . LOL

    But we all know things won't change either way, and anet is at that point they need to keep themselves afloat, there isn't room a lot of extra side projects, not when they need to work on the next expansion.

    True.

    Better yet go buy warclaw mount skins, show them how much interest you have in wvw development with that.

    Don't know about this last one though lol. Plenty of people need to stop paying for services they will never truly value. No matter where they transfer, WvW will still be a WvW without Alliances. I'm convinced that current WvW is just a demo version of its true self.

    Different game companies monetize their game differently. Anet chose to monetize this game as follows... "We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions.".

    Yeah, "non-pay-to-win." Nothing I've said is suggesting "pay-to-win" rewards. So, cool?

    "The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended."... No, its not a more "specific approach as to where the funds are intended.". A monthly sub is just a monetization method, that's it. And monetization methods are not an indication of "where the funds are intended.".

    Disagree. When someone or some entity, rather, states what they are raising money for (Alliances in the case) they are making their intentions known. Whether the money heads in that direction OR whether an individual/group believes them is not only a personal problem but another story. I hope that makes things more clear on what I mean by that if I was not before.

    You are asking for a donation system. That's called "crowd funding"... "Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators"... Again.. you want " tier donators" to fund a portion of the game and that's not gonna happen.

    Crowdfunding is a generalized term. Yes, it is crowdfunding, but I was referring to a more specific method/system of going about it, initially. Yes, I am asking for the potential funding of a major feature of the game. And the day you @Swagger.1459 you work at Anet is the day you can tell more accurately tell me: "[T]hat's not gonna happen." Provided you don't pick up traditional company values of bad player communication.

    This is an example of crowd funding... https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/13861848/camelot-unchained

    When CU launches they will stop crowd funding. That's how it works.

    Yes! Kickstarter, that's the one I forgetting to mention before. Thanks for reminding me :+1:

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 25, 2020

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:
    That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

    Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . .
    "What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

    GW2 has expansions, they have a gem store which takes the place of a monthly sub. You can already donate to them by using the gem store. It's not a matter of money, they obviously had money to invest and development power to use, they just chose to use it on side projects which eventually got cancelled, and Mike running off to form another studio.

    I disagree. The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended.

    • I hear it's not because of money, but then I remember layoffs . . . So, in fairness, I wonder.

    Paying the employees, art supplies, technical equipment, overall studio bills (including the rights to the property) . . . I'm not going to pretend like I know how much comes out to.

    What you are asking for is for donations to be funneled into a specific area and to be used in a specific manner, which will not happen for various reasons. When they take money in this way they are obligated to use that money in that specific way, but with any and all develop things can change, things can be canceled, what if they don't even make enough to cover the cost?

    The vast majority of things put forth, including some coming from Anet, do not happen. Do you really think I'd be surprised regarding this time? If they follow what I initially said in the OP, or a similar system, they can reward people for how much they do donate accordingly. Have a goal date, if they don't reach it in time, refund people. Refunds are nothing new as the times' people have been upset about HoT or PoF content. Of course, we wouldn't know if they would happen though, just more negatively theorizing.

    You might be happy to chip in $100, but what if they don't even raise 5k? or 10k or 20k whatever amount may be needed for the development. Then people are going to be screaming for refunds. What if alliances doesn't turn out how you want it? are you going to turn around and start demanding stuff because you donated specifically for this? No other company does this after release.

    Okay, so you are describing refunds in the case of a finished product here. If Alliances come, as advertised, then I wouldn't expect a refund. If the method in the OP was used then you are still rewarding the player for being a donator.

    • I mean I don't donate to a cancer patient and then demand a refund because they died, sadly. I understood the potential risks of doing so.
    • Also, similar to that logic, I should be refunded every time I have to change my WvW gear after a balance patch because I was unsatisfied.

    Of course, however, I don't speak for the company and what they do is for them to decide.

    You want them to take wvw seriously? then force them and get more players playing wvw. There's a big social aspect of wvw that is not welcoming or toxic, and turns off a lot of new or non pvp players. We can blame anet for everything, the lack of development, lack of marketing for wvw, whatever else, but the other reason why wvw does not grow and does not get taken seriously is because of it's player base too.

    Completely disagree on the first sentence. Yes, I want them to take WvW seriously, but that will not happen with more players in WvW. More players actively playing WvW just shows the company that those players already value that service/part of the game.

    I agree with the rest. Do you know what doesn't help either? Is when I see/hear conversations like this all the time:

    Player 1: "Man, I hate that Anet still hasn't brought out Alliances."
    Player 2: "Yeah bro, what gives? Something like that should have been finished by now. Pisses me off."
    Player 1: "This game sucks!"
    Player 2: "Yeah . . . So . . . See you on for reset tomorrow?"
    Player 1: "Of course, sure thing man, also don't forget to buy more siege ahead of time, hahaha"

    . . . LOL

    But we all know things won't change either way, and anet is at that point they need to keep themselves afloat, there isn't room a lot of extra side projects, not when they need to work on the next expansion.

    True.

    Better yet go buy warclaw mount skins, show them how much interest you have in wvw development with that.

    Don't know about this last one though lol. Plenty of people need to stop paying for services they will never truly value. No matter where they transfer, WvW will still be a WvW without Alliances. I'm convinced that current WvW is just a demo version of its true self.

    Different game companies monetize their game differently. Anet chose to monetize this game as follows... "We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions.".

    Yeah, "non-pay-to-win." Nothing I've said is suggesting "pay-to-win" rewards. So, cool?

    "The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended."... No, its not a more "specific approach as to where the funds are intended.". A monthly sub is just a monetization method, that's it. And monetization methods are not an indication of "where the funds are intended.".

    Disagree. When someone or some entity, rather, states what they are raising money for (Alliances in the case) they are making their intentions known. Whether the money heads in that direction OR whether an individual/group believes them is not only a personal problem but another story. I hope that makes things more clear on what I mean by that if I was not before.

    You are asking for a donation system. That's called "crowd funding"... "Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators"... Again.. you want " tier donators" to fund a portion of the game and that's not gonna happen.

    Crowdfunding is a generalized term. Yes, it is crowdfunding, but I was referring to a more specific method/system of going about it, initially. Yes, I am asking for the potential funding of a major feature of the game. And the day you @Swagger.1459 you work at Anet is the day you can tell more accurately tell me: "[T]hat's not gonna happen." Provided you don't pick up traditional company values of bad player communication.

    This is an example of crowd funding... https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/13861848/camelot-unchained

    When CU launches they will stop crowd funding. That's how it works.

    Yes! Kickstarter, that's the one I forgetting to mention before. Thanks for reminding me :+1:

    "Yeah, "non-pay-to-win." Nothing I've said is suggesting "pay-to-win" rewards. So, cool?"

    First of all, that dev quote was to highlight the monetization method they use for gw2. The key words here are... "fund GW2 live development through" "microtransactions". Context... right? right.

    You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the facts that different games use different monetization methods to generate money to pay employees, for continued development of their games, future potential games from the company... and for the 1000 other things that require money. I think you should brush up on things in this area. And assuming one monetization method means 1 thing and another monetization method means another thing is your big misunderstanding here. Doesn't work the way you are assuming here.

    No, you are asking Anet to make a fundraiser system for alliances using player donations. No need to niggle over wording or synonyms... That's not gonna happen period. Anet funds "GW2 live development through" "microtransactions". That's it period. They are NOT going to do a some "donation" monetization system for the game, nor for specific content development.

    Read and get a better understanding of monetization methods... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_monetization

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 25, 2020

    Alliances will just remove most peoples reason to play WvW: Almost all active commanders that lead 10 hour+/week are loyal to their server. This also applies to off-prime crew and such. Most long-standing servers are still around as main servers because they refused to let the server go down without a fight.

    Nobody really cares about giving guilds more tools to stack on same place. Alliances just fill the dreams of people who thought "you should be able to vote to kick people out of server" was a good idea.

    Alliances seemed like a ray of hope during dark times but those times are gone by now and people should just open their eyes and accept the reality that the main-server people left in the game have hardly any interest in putting effort in for some random people that swap every 1-2 months.

    TLDR; Alliances won't fix anything and just kill the gamemode

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, innovator
    Social Experiment [sX] leader
    Desolation+Alt
    Diamond Legend