Would 'alliances' really work? - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

Would 'alliances' really work?

2>

Comments

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @JTGuevara.9018 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @JTGuevara.9018 said:

    @God.2708 said:

    @JTGuevara.9018 said:
    @subversiontwo.7501

    First off, I will just address your name. You have a massive post, so I will just address it in general. As far as my argument being "baffling", it is simple enough to me. Maybe I should reiterate it? Here it is. I'm just going to be transparent about this.

    Guilds should not be given any more power in this game. A potential influx of guilds aided by the implementation of an alliance system will not magically fix WvW, specially at this point. The fact that PUGs are toxic and mean at times are not a viable argument for guilds taking control for this game mode. Period. End of. Guilds are not "the server", as you claim, they are a part of the server, they are in the server. Guilds are no more important than PUGs and everyone else. That is ALL that I have said.

    I really cannot make this any more clearer than that.

    I don't think you understand what power actually is, or how it manifests itself in something like WvW. Else you would not be speaking nonsense like you are.

    My apologies! Might you explain to the rest of us what power is then if what you think I say is "nonsense"? I'll be waiting.

    @getalifeturd.8139

    It is massive posts like these that just drive the point home for me that any sort of guild 'alliance' system is doomed to fail. All this drama, politicking and backstabbing...for what? Stroking your e-stick to compensate for what you don't have? Doing it just for kicks? Tryharding in this manner is just sad and just drives people away from playing this game. And overall, these situations demonstrate how flawed and broken the server tier system actually is. If ya ask me, honestly, nothing short of unifying all the servers and implementing a WvW mega server with a 3-way faction system will actually address population in any meaningful way. Yes, I know some people will balk at this suggestion, but I honestly see no other way. With the server links that we have, we basically are halfway there. (8 to 4 tiers) However, I see that people are either too loyal to either their guild or their server (aka "guild pride" and "server pride" respectively) to actually accept meaningful changes to WvW.

    So I would assume based on the text in your posts that you feel as if ‘guilds’ have no true use in the game. I would also guess you don’t use any VOIP.

    And loyalty to a server or guild is bad.

    So... who generally tags up on your server?

    I’ll give you a hint: it’s normally a guild leader. Or a senior member of a guild.

    Many Commanders tag up because they enjoy those people In their guild and trust those members to work with them to succeed. Often the open up to others, work on training them.

    Of course there are buttheads out there.

    Your proposal would effectively eliminate ANY ability to consistently work with people you know.

    You want EoTM back? That exists currently: megaservered WvW. And it was a fail. There was no reason to actually engage the other ‘factions’ unless you were wanting to troll them.

    It was a huge circle**** that guilds were established that ran on all three colors and actively avoided each other.

    On the contrary. I am in a guild and I do use VOIP.

    Also, in what way does my suggestion eliminate any ability to work together consistently? If anything, it enhances it. Guilds would more easily meet each other since they don't need to pay an arm and a leg in cross-server transfers. They easily can all meet up on the same world. As far as cross-faction guilds go aka. "all three colors", as you say, realistically the only way I can think of to oppose that is through implementing some sort of blacklisting system as a check and balance against that, although even that can be abused.

    And EOTM did not fail because the megaserver system is bad, it failed because of two reasons: the map, and the implementation of pips. There is a reason that most people in WvW keep to Alpine BLs and Eternal BG and reject EOTM, Obsidian Sanctum. The maps suck! ANet also royally messed up the rewards between EOTM and general WvW back then.

    Ok.. so.. explain to me how, in a ‘megaservered’ system, you can guarantee you play with your guild members?

    Because of course, ‘servers and worlds’ would go away. Period.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • God.2708God.2708 Member ✭✭✭

    @JTGuevara.9018 said:

    @God.2708 said:

    @JTGuevara.9018 said:
    @subversiontwo.7501

    First off, I will just address your name. You have a massive post, so I will just address it in general. As far as my argument being "baffling", it is simple enough to me. Maybe I should reiterate it? Here it is. I'm just going to be transparent about this.

    Guilds should not be given any more power in this game. A potential influx of guilds aided by the implementation of an alliance system will not magically fix WvW, specially at this point. The fact that PUGs are toxic and mean at times are not a viable argument for guilds taking control for this game mode. Period. End of. Guilds are not "the server", as you claim, they are a part of the server, they are in the server. Guilds are no more important than PUGs and everyone else. That is ALL that I have said.

    I really cannot make this any more clearer than that.

    I don't think you understand what power actually is, or how it manifests itself in something like WvW. Else you would not be speaking nonsense like you are.

    My apologies! Might you explain to the rest of us what power is then if what you think I say is "nonsense"? I'll be waiting.

    @getalifeturd.8139

    It is massive posts like these that just drive the point home for me that any sort of guild 'alliance' system is doomed to fail. All this drama, politicking and backstabbing...for what? Stroking your e-stick to compensate for what you don't have? Doing it just for kicks? Tryharding in this manner is just sad and just drives people away from playing this game. And overall, these situations demonstrate how flawed and broken the server tier system actually is. If ya ask me, honestly, nothing short of unifying all the servers and implementing a WvW mega server with a 3-way faction system will actually address population in any meaningful way. Yes, I know some people will balk at this suggestion, but I honestly see no other way. With the server links that we have, we basically are halfway there. (8 to 4 tiers) However, I see that people are either too loyal to either their guild or their server (aka "guild pride" and "server pride" respectively) to actually accept meaningful changes to WvW.

    Power is top down. What something has to exert control on its surroundings by force or tools that grant it said control. If you join my guild I can kick you.

    What guilds have that you are describing is authority. That is bottom up. Authority is control gifted from below, and it can be rescinded at anytime by those beneath it.

    WvW runs off of authority because there doesn't exist any tools of power. I can't kick anyone off my server, at best I can annoy/troll them which could possibly result in Anet using their power on me to get me removed, so is not very effective. Guilds are given that authority by subsections of the WvW populace for a variety of reasons. Some because they like the commander's attitude, some because they like to PPT, some because they like to troll. The point of alliances is to create a system that lets guilds expand their authority and compete with one another. (IE. a guild that caters to PUGs and gets them to work with it will see more success than one that actively trolls them, regardless of the guilds capabilities when actually playing)

    This is why what you are saying is nonsense. Guilds aren't separate entities from PUGs. They are PUGs that have gotten together and agreed on a mutual idea. (It should go without saying that a mode about war would value coordination and cooperation, a topic many PUGs seem to fail to grasp.) You can't get rid of that 'power' because it isn't power, it's authority. Nor can guilds gain 'control' of the mode through alliances. If they have control it is through the collective cooperation of a very large number of people. The only way to get rid of it would be to randomly match people and not let them talk to each other so they can't coordinate. Which, forgive me for saying, sounds kitten awful.

    The largest detriment to the mode at the current moment is the fact that Anet makes it actively difficult for servers to gain a consistent identity. Identity and culture create a lasting impact, and are important to a long term mode like WvW. You can take guilds out of Guild Wars 2 but you can't take it out of war.

    Also that guy was copypasta ing.

  • @God.2708 said:
    Guilds aren't separate entities from PUGs. They are PUGs

    that was deep bro

    te lazla otstara.
    fingers crossed meta ~

  • @diamondgirl.6315 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    BG will hit 3rd because they want to keep SoS with them, about the only server these days that doesn't mind hanging out with them.

    While I am kind of charmed by the idea of being frenemies with a great server (you are only really as good as your rivals, and wvw is pointless without great rivals), I really would like other servers to come mix it up with us. Mag, JQ, whoever wants to come up and start smashing BG's toys with us, I think stiffer (gigglegiggle) competition will only help absolutely all of us have more fun in the mode. Including BG.

    Exactly...Ignoring all the trash talk the fact is we all need rival servers for fights. Some of the best times in WvWvW were the BlackGate, Jade Quarry and Sanctum of Rall matchups years ago. Let's all have a bit more sportsmanship and server pride like the good old days. Enjoy the fights, bags and fun because all we've got left is each other...

    Found this on the old GW2 forums archive on Reddit:
    In any case, every death of a server has a cost: Not all of the players move on. Probably close to half of the player base simply gives up, stops playing, or moves to another game mode (e.g. duel based roaming). This is a big reason why the inherently instable T1 WvW could not go on forever. Everytime T1 consumed another server, the overall pool of players shrank. Together with the natural erosion over time, this has contributed to todays situation, where not enough PPT players are left to fill 3 server.

    There is not enough guilds in this game to create alliances out of just them. The active players of this game have been declining for years. All this update will do is make the last organised playerbase into groups; which will dominate random pugs who are learning to play the game.

    The fact of the matter is we have proven as a playerbase that we like to stack together in massive zergs and dominate other servers. Also If Arenanet is trying to turn GvG into an esport it's already been tried with obsidian sanctum and stronghold in pvp. Forcing everybody into massive guilds so they can ktrain together is the only result of this.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/24889/season-1-wvw-gvg-na-tournament#latest

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/30492/best-notable-wvw-havoc-guilds-eu-and-na#latest

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/32179/why-isnt-kdr-a-bigger-part-of-the-war-score-in-wvw#latest

    There is a common trend among these threads which is to glorify GvGers and put down PPTers.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26790/wvw-restructure-will-fail-if-you-do-not-balance-defensive-power#latest

    Especially this thread where the OP believes removing the defence of the structures of an outnumbered force would lead to better fights. The original poster of this thread is from Magumma and like many on his server is a GvGer (Guild vs Guild). He claims that if Arenanet do not nerf defence like siege and guild upgrades on structures then the WvWvW megaserver restructuring will fail. I believe the opposite and I will go into detail why.

    When this restructuring of WvWvW servers takes place and the system is moved into guild based then players will be concentrated into alliances of guilds. This means that all of the GvGers will probably stack together in a massive alliance just like Magumma is currently. If Arenanet nerfs defence then not only will the PPT guilds not be able to defend properly but also they will be spawn camped and most likely quit the game.

    Magumma vs BlackGate is a recent example in T1 where Magumma would dominate EBG with SMC and PPK (Points Per Kill). This meant that none of the BG PUGs and militia who usually go fight all the time on EBG could not rally a force to fight the Magcloud. Magumma complained that there was nobody to fight and claimed that BlackGate had ran off to EOTM or PvE. Both servers lost because 1 server had all the GvGers and the other did not.

    When this WvWvW megaserver restructuring happens you can be sure that good players will stack into guilds with good players. The concentration of good players vs PUGs/roamers/militia and even new players will be even greater. This means that WvWvW will become like the old days of EOTM where GvGers would farm uplevel randoms (for their ultimate dominator title) who didn't even stand a chance to fight with a PPT pugmander.

    WvWvW will change from a place where roamers and militia are accepted because they scout for enemy zergs taking structures into a GvG or gtfo game mode. Many of these players do not realise that without the structures to take there are no massive fights simply because many GvGers run untagged and do not command PUGs (Pick Up Groups) how to fight with them. This will slowly demoralise anybody who is not in a massive alliance of guilds and make them quit the game mode entirely.

    When outnumbered players hide inside keeps with their siege they do so because that do not want to be forced to spawn where they will often be camped. Instead of fun fights these players simply want bags in any way possible to boost their KDR (Kills/Death Ratio). This can be tracked through websites like https://wvwintel.com/ by server. The statistics from this website have been used to brag in the past about winning and will probably get worse with the WvWvW megaserver restructuring.

    The sportsmanship in online gaming is almost non-existent and there are no real consequences for winners making fun of the losers (Example; http://www.gw2wvw.net/). In the end we all lose when players quit because they have been forced out of the game mode. New players in the past especially on BlackGate were encouraged to join TeamSpeak to learn to fight with the commanders who were in guilds. These guilds formed the frontline while the PUG players were often the backline. The commanders would literally tank the enemy zerg for the server and these were the days of true server pride and fun.

    A competition needs 2 fair teams so if Arenanet do not spread the guilds correctly then the whole thing will fail. It doesn't matter if they can't all stack together in a massive alliance because that is literally what has caused the problem over the years. Every fun fight needs sportmanship on each side because in the past people have pinsniped commanders from enemy zergs and suddenly instead of a fight they have a pushover for bags. Do these players want a fight or do they want their KDR/PPK boosted for bags and bragging rights?

  • Sviel.7493Sviel.7493 Member ✭✭✭

    They have a much better chance of working than what we currently have.

    Alliances only wouldn't solve all problems, but they allow for other, easier changes that are currently nigh impossible.

  • @God.2708 said:

    @JTGuevara.9018 said:

    @God.2708 said:

    @JTGuevara.9018 said:
    @subversiontwo.7501

    First off, I will just address your name. You have a massive post, so I will just address it in general. As far as my argument being "baffling", it is simple enough to me. Maybe I should reiterate it? Here it is. I'm just going to be transparent about this.

    Guilds should not be given any more power in this game. A potential influx of guilds aided by the implementation of an alliance system will not magically fix WvW, specially at this point. The fact that PUGs are toxic and mean at times are not a viable argument for guilds taking control for this game mode. Period. End of. Guilds are not "the server", as you claim, they are a part of the server, they are in the server. Guilds are no more important than PUGs and everyone else. That is ALL that I have said.

    I really cannot make this any more clearer than that.

    I don't think you understand what power actually is, or how it manifests itself in something like WvW. Else you would not be speaking nonsense like you are.

    My apologies! Might you explain to the rest of us what power is then if what you think I say is "nonsense"? I'll be waiting.

    @getalifeturd.8139

    It is massive posts like these that just drive the point home for me that any sort of guild 'alliance' system is doomed to fail. All this drama, politicking and backstabbing...for what? Stroking your e-stick to compensate for what you don't have? Doing it just for kicks? Tryharding in this manner is just sad and just drives people away from playing this game. And overall, these situations demonstrate how flawed and broken the server tier system actually is. If ya ask me, honestly, nothing short of unifying all the servers and implementing a WvW mega server with a 3-way faction system will actually address population in any meaningful way. Yes, I know some people will balk at this suggestion, but I honestly see no other way. With the server links that we have, we basically are halfway there. (8 to 4 tiers) However, I see that people are either too loyal to either their guild or their server (aka "guild pride" and "server pride" respectively) to actually accept meaningful changes to WvW.

    Power is top down. What something has to exert control on its surroundings by force or tools that grant it said control. If you join my guild I can kick you.

    What guilds have that you are describing is authority. That is bottom up. Authority is control gifted from below, and it can be rescinded at anytime by those beneath it.

    WvW runs off of authority because there doesn't exist any tools of power. I can't kick anyone off my server, at best I can annoy/troll them which could possibly result in Anet using their power on me to get me removed, so is not very effective. Guilds are given that authority by subsections of the WvW populace for a variety of reasons. Some because they like the commander's attitude, some because they like to PPT, some because they like to troll. The point of alliances is to create a system that lets guilds expand their authority and compete with one another. (IE. a guild that caters to PUGs and gets them to work with it will see more success than one that actively trolls them, regardless of the guilds capabilities when actually playing)

    This is why what you are saying is nonsense. Guilds aren't separate entities from PUGs. They are PUGs that have gotten together and agreed on a mutual idea. (It should go without saying that a mode about war would value coordination and cooperation, a topic many PUGs seem to fail to grasp.) You can't get rid of that 'power' because it isn't power, it's authority. Nor can guilds gain 'control' of the mode through alliances. If they have control it is through the collective cooperation of a very large number of people. The only way to get rid of it would be to randomly match people and not let them talk to each other so they can't coordinate. Which, forgive me for saying, sounds kitten awful.

    The largest detriment to the mode at the current moment is the fact that Anet makes it actively difficult for servers to gain a consistent identity. Identity and culture create a lasting impact, and are important to a long term mode like WvW. You can take guilds out of Guild Wars 2 but you can't take it out of war.

    Also that guy was copypasta ing.

    ...no...

    Power is the possession of authority. Guilds do have power, granted by subsections of the WvW community as you say, that's completely fine. However, they just don't have absolute power. I'm guessing this is something you want aka. "I can't kick anyone off my server". In that case, nope...sorry!

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

    @getalifeturd.8139 said:

    @diamondgirl.6315 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    BG will hit 3rd because they want to keep SoS with them, about the only server these days that doesn't mind hanging out with them.

    While I am kind of charmed by the idea of being frenemies with a great server (you are only really as good as your rivals, and wvw is pointless without great rivals), I really would like other servers to come mix it up with us. Mag, JQ, whoever wants to come up and start smashing BG's toys with us, I think stiffer (gigglegiggle) competition will only help absolutely all of us have more fun in the mode. Including BG.

    I'm gonna guess you misedited that post with my one line and diamond's reply to it.

    @getalifeturd.8139 said:
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26790/wvw-restructure-will-fail-if-you-do-not-balance-defensive-power#latest

    Especially this thread where the OP believes removing the defence of the structures of an outnumbered force would lead to better fights. The original poster of this thread is from Magumma and like many on his server is a GvGer (Guild vs Guild). He claims that if Arenanet do not nerf defence like siege and guild upgrades on structures then the WvWvW megaserver restructuring will fail. I believe the opposite and I will go into detail why.

    Funny thing, the op in that thread runs a guild that's heavily boon ball, they could sit under multiple ac and treb fire for 10-20 mins and not get a scratch, but they wanted defense nerfed. Well siege and structures did get nerfed, did it get any better? did we get more fights than usual? or was it the same ole same ole. Even as of last week I've seen t3 structures fall over because the defenders even their guilds, couldn't be bothered to fight a boon ball zerg in the lords, some t3 places couldn't rally a defense because players couldn't give a beep and rather afk camp in smc.

    You can take out all the defense you want, but if the enemy doesn't have the numbers you won't get a fight anyways, especially against organized boon abusing ones. You still get coms trying to bring a map blob to camp a structure to grind out rando pugs. They talk so much about defense killing fights, but they never talk about how much their overwhelming numbers and boon balling can also kill an entire side during their time.

    I do agree, with the amount of guilds left in the game, if alliances were to come out in the near future most of the fite players would just enter into one fat alliance and run over everyone else, then get bored and quit anyways. With a 500 player limitation on guilds and probably for the alliance I don't doubt you can fit most of the good fite players under one banner.

    Structure defense wasn't going to be the downfall of alliances, pfft, but boon balling will.

    ^ Another derailing post - Anet
    Perma stealth is needed to outrun zergs. - Thieves
    /Stomps Mirage-Scourge-Warclaw, boon ball balance! - Anet
    No expansion money as long as Mesmers are trash. - Me

  • kamikharzeeh.8016kamikharzeeh.8016 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @getalifeturd.8139 i mean, that kinda is still similar. good pugs will wait for a guild or a openzerg to engage first... u cannot just yolo into some enemy blob, that's deadly within a few seconds only


    i personally don't understand what alliances could even make possibly worse than the current state is, really.

    also the thought of pugs and roamers to "be forgotten" is .. questionable. there's been roamer/smallscale guilds ever since. and GvG guilds always formed the backbone of the real fighting zergs and blobs, they still save the "precious ppt" of those pugs who are interested in having that ppt.

    siege, disablers, single actions of defenders only rarely really save objectives that get attacked by zergs (or blobs). means without them, the whole mode would not be able to exist.


    i would prefer people here to refer to exact passages from the "world restructuring" threads (where alliances been explained with FAQ etc) and tell us, why they don't believe those passages and points would or could not work alike. not just randomly asking in a general way. topic's too broad for that.

  • manu.7539manu.7539 Member ✭✭
    edited February 22, 2021

    Give to GvGers their owns things: maps, rewards, anything that can push them out of WvW. Then we'll have a smaller WvW community and less lags.

  • @JTGuevara.9018 said:
    First off, I don't think they're coming so let's get that out of the way... But honestly, do people actually think they're going to work? I don't. And here's why:

    1.) It's not much different than server links -- Servers already get partially restructured every 2 months with server links. Guilds across servers already get put into a de-facto alliance, it's just not called an alliance. If anything, the 'alliance' system is just a more souped up version of server links. The population imbalance will still persist. If anything, it will be worse.

    2.)Players and guilds won't change -- Try-hard players and guilds will still find a way to bandwagon and game the system. Instead of server stacking, it will be alliance stacking instead. You can have the best matchmaking system in the world for world restructuring that takes different metrics and statistics in mind, but it doesn't mean jack if players just stack the winning alliances and losing or struggling alliances don't show up due to attrition, demoralization, etc. This situation makes things harder for smaller guilds and alliances that are trying to resist them.

    3.) Guilds will have too much power -- Alliances will eventually consolidate into powerhouses limited only by the yet to be proposed alliance cap, dominating smaller ones either through victories, bandwagons, or both. So, as with the current server stacking and through historical bandwagons over the years, attrition eventually sets in as smaller guilds desperately try to resist the stacked alliances and people leave or quit WvW entirely out of frustration. Again, it's no different than the current situation. It will be Blackgate all over again but with guild alliances. Due to people quitting, the matching system will get to the point where it cannot find an opposing alliance of equivalent strength, so the system breaks down.

    Thoughts to this?

    to:
    1&2) Depends how it is implemented it so far I remember there was a hard cap of 1000 players for a alliance and then ad 20% more randoms from players which has no alliance selected . Basically it depends how it is implemented when the alliance hit this limit you can't select it any more even when your guild is in the alliance and when a guild chance to what alliance it count you need to make sure that every player in this guild need to reselect this guild as their alliance guild and this all thread and transition safe . Otherwise you can overstack.

    3.) If you a try hard type of player and you want to 'use' the alliance system you need basically 2 guilds which are basically the alliance system in which are only very active members. Such Mega guild are very unstable what is stable are those guilds which have 15-20 active players . This show also the weakness of this system what happens to the player which are inactive ? What happens when a player leaves or get kicked out of a guild does he still count to the cap ?

    I can add to this the alliance system won't safe WvW even if it works as intended like other here already said effectively they removed parts of the content from Wvw , with the pip nerf of EoftM they made this map obsolete.

    With shift from points generation from objectives to kills they which basically means that objectives are often ignored which in return means that the siege war aspect got slowly pushed away. Then they nerfed Siege weapons and the last time they nerfed banners which makes gain holding objects again less meaningful.

    Let me be frank you can find 50 vs 50 vs 50 fights totally cool but this doesn't change the fact that the Gw2 servers have a hard time with it and you can find such mass scale fight way better in other MMOs. What was unique for Gw2 was the Siege War + RPG elements which is mostly washed away now in WvW.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 23, 2021

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    @getalifeturd.8139 said:

    @diamondgirl.6315 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    BG will hit 3rd because they want to keep SoS with them, about the only server these days that doesn't mind hanging out with them.

    While I am kind of charmed by the idea of being frenemies with a great server (you are only really as good as your rivals, and wvw is pointless without great rivals), I really would like other servers to come mix it up with us. Mag, JQ, whoever wants to come up and start smashing BG's toys with us, I think stiffer (gigglegiggle) competition will only help absolutely all of us have more fun in the mode. Including BG.

    I'm gonna guess you misedited that post with my one line and diamond's reply to it.

    @getalifeturd.8139 said:
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26790/wvw-restructure-will-fail-if-you-do-not-balance-defensive-power#latest

    Especially this thread where the OP believes removing the defence of the structures of an outnumbered force would lead to better fights. The original poster of this thread is from Magumma and like many on his server is a GvGer (Guild vs Guild). He claims that if Arenanet do not nerf defence like siege and guild upgrades on structures then the WvWvW megaserver restructuring will fail. I believe the opposite and I will go into detail why.

    Funny thing, the op in that thread runs a guild that's heavily boon ball, they could sit under multiple ac and treb fire for 10-20 mins and not get a scratch, but they wanted defense nerfed. Well siege and structures did get nerfed, did it get any better? did we get more fights than usual? or was it the same ole same ole. Even as of last week I've seen t3 structures fall over because the defenders even their guilds, couldn't be bothered to fight a boon ball zerg in the lords, some t3 places couldn't rally a defense because players couldn't give a beep and rather afk camp in smc.

    You can take out all the defense you want, but if the enemy doesn't have the numbers you won't get a fight anyways, especially against organized boon abusing ones. You still get coms trying to bring a map blob to camp a structure to grind out rando pugs. They talk so much about defense killing fights, but they never talk about how much their overwhelming numbers and boon balling can also kill an entire side during their time.

    Issues arised when defender passive buffs: Claim buffs, gliding, supply balance, upgrade times got all changed up to point where equal groups cant match up near objectives but rather play this mental pingpong of " who gets bored first and suicides at the enemy."

    Siege itself being nerfed was completely different entity as it could already be played around before. So it was active defense that you could remove with ballistas, omegas, trebs etc. Same doesnt apply to claim buff.

    So theyre distinctly different and yes they should buff siege defending where it can buy more time to drain supplies and gather numbers in return for nerfing the defending passive buffs they introduced. It isnt about offense or defense being overpowered but rather the strengths of them having weird distribution.

    For example lets say keep lords had 500% more HP but walls would be 40% weaker? Defending could be as easy as it is now but it would feel bad to play. What Anet did to Wvw balancing was akin to that. They introduced billion buffs to defending but nerfed siege, that wasnt buffed, in return.

    So buff siege defending and wall/gate hp and nerf tactics/claim buff/upgrade times so there is more brain and player-to-player interaction involved.

    The stupidest change they did so far was when they made siege vulnerable to conditions and crits doubling The health but forgot about siege vs siege damage. So trebs and acs still do half damage to trebs, rams and catas. Massive nerf to small groups defending outnumbered as they need twice as many people manning siege or as much time.

    Ri Ba - Charr of logic
    twitch.tv/ribatime
    ~Key to fixing WvW with minimal effort resides in my post history~

  • Naxos.2503Naxos.2503 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I think I rather agree with God's definition of Power, in that theorically, even if guilds are indeed organized and have a heavy hand in WvW, they dont have anything that the WvW server they are on doesn't actively give them and let them keep.

    Let's face it, it is rare/impossible for an entire guild to take over a WvW side completely. Sooner of later, you'll have to deal with non guildies, whether it be on a specific map, or all the other ones if you actually manage to queue up a map with just one guild. From there on, if the rest of the server doesn't trust the guild to do the job, they can actively sabotage or simply refuse to assist. I've seen it happen, the guild group generally doesn't get very far when it does.

    There are many reasons why the community would trust guilds though : Typically organized guilds in WvW are more knowledgeable due to being focused on WvW and having many members at a high level of play. Most of the time, you can trust them to take strategical decision based on the map and the opposition they're facing, like a true commander. The zerg they're surrounded with in this case serve as a sort of personal strike force. On the other hand if it's the Only force, as is often the case, you end up fighting against phantoms, and your territory is attacked elsewhere as multiple small groups will strike many places at once, which is why defenders are just as important.

    It varies from server to server, but I feel defending is not something commonly done in WvW. Only very few guilds actively take the time to fortify an objective, send patrols and build defensive siege as well as reset them. I've seen it done, but it is extremely rare. Many WvW guilds are indeed Fight Guilds, they prefer to duke it out in the open. Which is fair enough. In my opinion, there should be both. Assault Guilds exists, they are the one whom All Your Bases Are Belong To Them. I think if there is a force, there should necessarily be an opposing force, but there isn't. As it turns out, assaulting is too easy, and defending is too hard/boring.

    That is not to say that you cant defend an objective without a guild, that is flat out not true. A properly fortified objective can delay an assault guild for a fair amount of time... Until it inevitably becomes messy and a fight guild is needed to clean it out, because in all situations defenders number 3 to 5 for keeps against 30 to 50 assaulters. If your server has fairly good natured fight guild (Mine is one such server blessed to have one), they'll act as the cavalry. If you dont, then you'll watch as the tag seemingly pointlessly fights in the open while your precious T3 keep is overrun, map chat will enflame and the defenders will leave the map out of protest. Support from the Fight guild there was not -due- but in a team effort, it would certainly have helped. Fight guilds want to fight however, and dont care for objectives unless it leads them to bigger fights.

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Gudradain.3892 said:
    You need more worlds and smaller worlds to create an healthy and interesting competitive scene.

    The mode is WvWvW and three servers fighting against each other or together will always be more or less unfair. Which is fun sometimes. But for a healthy competitive scene you need fair fights.

    You can have GvG and 1v1 in WvW but these are only segments of the game mode.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • kamikharzeeh.8016kamikharzeeh.8016 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Naxos.2503 pretty legit view imo. just you get fight guilds to support defenses, you just need to have the pugs supporting them and not beeing uncooperative. like also defenders should watch their movements, and strike after the guild and do the cleaving (if small numbers), or bait the enemy blob (if its like 20-30 defenders).

    @Zok.4956 and this is very much the point. Wvw cannot be really balanced, as the mode as such isn't. some people say that also the numbers of people on server vary, some open showcase of numbers from Anet years ago did apparently show this. (and on EU; everyone knows BaruchB is artificially open)

    like even if we map map caps to 40, then your big group is 30 now. and if u have only 10-15 ppl to defend, things aren't much different, bc u still will have several trolls or afk piphunters or duelers on the map. stuff would just flip slower, maybe? maybe also not, bc 3 experienced players easily flip keeps alone. with one 30 ppl group at garri, you'd have all defenders there, and 2*3 people could steal hills and bay in one go, very likely, even if those'd be tier 3 and fully siege up, i guess.

    giving people more space to play would help. update and upgrade EotM to a real map with pips and upadate red border by flattening it a bit, make it less clunky.

    also, nearly everyone i know hate the "borderlands bloodlust" buffs... just remove those and maybe put a "baby Stonemist" on each map instead. if possible not the same on every map.

    also a bit more rotation... who gets which border as homeborder and who gets which starting place of EBG should be randomized.

    the only way ppt would become really a thing ever again would be sorta "seasons", where u get legit amounts of gold in the end. and @manu.7539 Wvw is the only mode of this game called GUILD WARS (2), where guilds actually have a crucial role. in pvE they are more like farming communities, in spvp they are barely important (from what some good NA streamers said sofar), only in Wvw the strongest guilds have still reputation and lore amongst the community. guilds are a sign of a group who shares some identity, and enemy servers tend to notice and take more care, if they see specific guild groups running around.

    without guilds, you'd just empty out Wvw. trying to "get them off Wvw" won't work either ways i think. guilds comms carry the fighting groups always, and if they openlead (which most of them do), the core of their guilds still also forms the core of that blob or zerg, which is important, so the comm has a group that comes on the right builds and is just a reliable force. u only know u can trust pugs' fighting abilties if u know them long enough, or if u know their guilds. nobody just prejudices roamers, and as long as the group isn't full, most people don't even kick non-meta classes.

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 23, 2021

    @JTGuevara.9018 said:

    @God.2708 said:

    @JTGuevara.9018 said:

    @God.2708 said:

    @JTGuevara.9018 said:
    @subversiontwo.7501

    First off, I will just address your name. You have a massive post, so I will just address it in general. As far as my argument being "baffling", it is simple enough to me. Maybe I should reiterate it? Here it is. I'm just going to be transparent about this.

    Guilds should not be given any more power in this game. A potential influx of guilds aided by the implementation of an alliance system will not magically fix WvW, specially at this point. The fact that PUGs are toxic and mean at times are not a viable argument for guilds taking control for this game mode. Period. End of. Guilds are not "the server", as you claim, they are a part of the server, they are in the server. Guilds are no more important than PUGs and everyone else. That is ALL that I have said.

    I really cannot make this any more clearer than that.

    I don't think you understand what power actually is, or how it manifests itself in something like WvW. Else you would not be speaking nonsense like you are.

    My apologies! Might you explain to the rest of us what power is then if what you think I say is "nonsense"? I'll be waiting.

    @getalifeturd.8139

    It is massive posts like these that just drive the point home for me that any sort of guild 'alliance' system is doomed to fail. All this drama, politicking and backstabbing...for what? Stroking your e-stick to compensate for what you don't have? Doing it just for kicks? Tryharding in this manner is just sad and just drives people away from playing this game. And overall, these situations demonstrate how flawed and broken the server tier system actually is. If ya ask me, honestly, nothing short of unifying all the servers and implementing a WvW mega server with a 3-way faction system will actually address population in any meaningful way. Yes, I know some people will balk at this suggestion, but I honestly see no other way. With the server links that we have, we basically are halfway there. (8 to 4 tiers) However, I see that people are either too loyal to either their guild or their server (aka "guild pride" and "server pride" respectively) to actually accept meaningful changes to WvW.

    Power is top down. What something has to exert control on its surroundings by force or tools that grant it said control. If you join my guild I can kick you.

    What guilds have that you are describing is authority. That is bottom up. Authority is control gifted from below, and it can be rescinded at anytime by those beneath it.

    WvW runs off of authority because there doesn't exist any tools of power. I can't kick anyone off my server, at best I can annoy/troll them which could possibly result in Anet using their power on me to get me removed, so is not very effective. Guilds are given that authority by subsections of the WvW populace for a variety of reasons. Some because they like the commander's attitude, some because they like to PPT, some because they like to troll. The point of alliances is to create a system that lets guilds expand their authority and compete with one another. (IE. a guild that caters to PUGs and gets them to work with it will see more success than one that actively trolls them, regardless of the guilds capabilities when actually playing)

    This is why what you are saying is nonsense. Guilds aren't separate entities from PUGs. They are PUGs that have gotten together and agreed on a mutual idea. (It should go without saying that a mode about war would value coordination and cooperation, a topic many PUGs seem to fail to grasp.) You can't get rid of that 'power' because it isn't power, it's authority. Nor can guilds gain 'control' of the mode through alliances. If they have control it is through the collective cooperation of a very large number of people. The only way to get rid of it would be to randomly match people and not let them talk to each other so they can't coordinate. Which, forgive me for saying, sounds kitten awful.

    The largest detriment to the mode at the current moment is the fact that Anet makes it actively difficult for servers to gain a consistent identity. Identity and culture create a lasting impact, and are important to a long term mode like WvW. You can take guilds out of Guild Wars 2 but you can't take it out of war.

    Also that guy was copypasta ing.

    ...no...

    Power is the possession of authority. Guilds do have power, granted by subsections of the WvW community as you say, that's completely fine. However, they just don't have absolute power. I'm guessing this is something you want aka. "I can't kick anyone off my server". In that case, nope...sorry!

    Look at the giant guilds that exist in the game - they wield power akin to those of PUG zergs when it comes to ktraining over objectives with little resistance (particularly at off-peak hours).

    There are definite distinctions here though;
    PUG zergs are made up of individuals who retain their autonomy, whereas guild members must obey their leader, lest they be ostracised.
    Thus guild leaders wield Power, not authority - what has happened is that the environment has changed, the Alliance IS the community when Worlds don't exist.

    The alliances system removes the autonomy of individuals and puts the power to "kick anyone off my server" into the hands of the guild leaders.

    This post contains my opinion.

  • kamikharzeeh.8016kamikharzeeh.8016 Member ✭✭✭✭

    normally guild leaders don't randomly kick people. persons that moody should not lead guilds anyways. and would not manage that, bc the other member would likely just wander off to other guilds, where the comm doesn't roleplay stalin.

    even at the hardcore fighting guilds, you can criticize your comm. good comms also reflect constantly what went wrong. strong fighting groups contain mostly experienced players, so you normally know what u messed up. therefore, real drama isn't very common.

    and most guilds aren't fielding more than 25-30 people on their guildruns, so not sure what u refer to by "giant guilds" @Svarty.8019

  • Yuffi.2430Yuffi.2430 Member ✭✭✭

    Do I think Alliances would work? Don't know, but I'd like to try it and find out.
    I want to say it would be nice to have something new in WvW, but that was the thinking behind DBL... Hmm.

    I'd still like to risk it though, just to see what happens.

  • Cuks.8241Cuks.8241 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 23, 2021

    I don't really have a good idea of how alliances would be set up here. But I have played games where alliances were a thing. Basically, guilds forming alliances to fight a war like game mode (castle wars) also involving taking and holding objectives.
    One thing always stayed the same. There were always only one or 2 alliances that were by far the top dogs. All the strong guilds with the best players were concentrated in those few top guilds. Noone else even played the mode because it was pointless, you couldn't do anything. And of course joining those guilds involved 2 things, being one of the best players or paying them lot's of gold (limited spots). Oh, and the balance of power literary stagnated for years and only broke due to internal drama when another alliance took over for following years. Luckily I was an officer in one of those guilds, but I knew players that never even saw the game mode.
    Now I'm not saying a scenario to that extent can happen within the rules of WvW. But one thing I noticed during my long time as a gamer. Players will not make matchmaking fair to promote good fights. They will try to skew the odds in their favour as much as possible.

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 24, 2021

    This thread has really taken a sharp turn for the worse again with people arguing semantics or whatever spirit of Alliances.

    An alliance, the proposed entity in the system, is just a guild. It is a way to stick 5 guilds into one piece or to divide your guild into 5 pieces, however you choose to see it. The Alliance on a World is just like a Guild on a Server today. There is no major significant difference. Alliances can't kick players off Worlds anymore than Guilds can kick players off a Server. That is just nonsense. Whether its authority or power is just semantics.

    Alliances, the system, has two major perks remaining:

    • Guilds will be automatically transfered together every 8 weeks
    • Worlds will be seen as very high for players in a guild designated for that World but full for other players when 90% to the cap

    That makes the guild less prone to transfer simply because the world is full. Do we not want guilds to stop transfering just because their servers turn full? Do we not want players to try to form guilds and communities that can go out there, form tags/squads and create content? It really is that simple and that is all anyone here needs to know unless they are curious enough about the system to dive into its details and discuss them out of sheer interest.

    So what are the wider ramifications beyond those basics?

    It also makes manipulation by transfers less impactful even if someone can throw tens of thousands of gold at it every 8 weeks to upset the reset. They can throw money at it but whatever investment into stacking with transfers disappear from the system every 8 weeks. I'm sure someone will try. I'm sure there will be resets that disrupts the system and turns some matchups bad for the duration. However, it will not be persistant or recurring. It will be less needed and less impactful to fork out 200g every 8 weeks just to reset yourself.

    People can still move. People can still pay to move as is now. People will just have alternatives or be less prone to feel forced to move. In fact, they could probably raise the transfer costs for any transfer to 600g/1800gm to make sure they got something back from anyone desperate enough to transfer within an 8 week window. I sincerely believe they don't make that much off the recurring 200g/500gm transfers even if they still continue to some degree of mass. If they did make bank out of it, I would assume them to farm that harder by making the mode more appealing to play. That's why I always say that it is a question of neglect before it is a question of business.

    It also makes sure less players will quit because of the 200-600g transfer wall and that players who want to make new guilds do not have to climb the transfer wall first. It also makes sure that if you have IRL friends who wants to come play WvW with you, either of you do not have to immidiately climb the transfer wall (or that you will not have to give up your entire existing ingame circle of friends just to get your IRL friend aboard it). If friends can play that means box sales. That has to be a hell of alot more lucrative than milking a dwindling existing playerbase dry. To any sensible business, not being able to sell your product because you have yourself in a twist is a major prioritized red flag.

  • shame we'll never find out if they work or not

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 24, 2021

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:
    It also makes sure less players will quit because of the 200-600g transfer wall and that players who want to make new guilds do not have to climb the transfer wall first. It also makes sure that if you have IRL friends who wants to come play WvW with you, either of you do not have to immidiately climb the transfer wall (or that you will not have to give up your entire existing ingame circle of friends just to get your IRL friend aboard it). If friends can play that means box sales. That has to be a hell of alot more lucrative than milking a dwindling existing playerbase dry. To any sensible business, not being able to sell your product because you have yourself in a twist is a major prioritized red flag.

    Well there will still be a paywall if you come off a break and are stuck with randoms for average of ~a month. just a week would be enough for people to quit the game. Basically same as your current problem. I do agree that PvE guilds should be given platform to group on a WvW server considering we are lacking more casual guilds these days but maybe matchmaking based system would be more reasonable than separating all newbies and experienced players with 500+ people alliances. I do think that alliances would be more balanced if it was with for example 50 or 100 player cap per "alliance", do you not agree? But people would still quit the game because not having server to rally behind and experience bad/good times with gets repetitive quite fast, like any matchmaking based system.

    Ri Ba - Charr of logic
    twitch.tv/ribatime
    ~Key to fixing WvW with minimal effort resides in my post history~

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:
    An alliance, the proposed entity in the system, is just a guild. It is a way to stick 5 guilds into one piece or to divide your guild into 5 pieces, however you choose to see it. The Alliance on a World is just like a Guild on a Server today. There is no major significant difference. Alliances can't kick players off Worlds anymore than Guilds can kick players off a Server. That is just nonsense. Whether its authority or power is just semantics.

    Guild leaders (and their officers) can kick players from a guild. And because Alliances are like a Guild of Guilds, Alliance leaders (and their officers) can kick/remove guilds from their alliance.

    And because there will be limits (i.e. players per allliance, per server, etc), the guilds that are now regularly bandwagoning to create the biggest and overstacked linked-servers will make sure, that in their alliance only likeminded guilds exist, to have a bigger advantage against other servers/alliances.

    And all players, that are not in those alliances/guilds, will be placed randomly on other servers, that can not compete with the organized-big-alliance servers.

    So yes, players can't be kicked from a server. But they (and their guilds) can be kicked from Alliances. And probably will be assigned to other servers after the next relinking/reshuffling.

    A lot of details about the alliance system are not communicated yet and we can not be sure if and how it will be implemented in the end. But there is a high risk that it could kill the game mode finally, instead of revitalizing it.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:
    An alliance, the proposed entity in the system, is just a guild. It is a way to stick 5 guilds into one piece or to divide your guild into 5 pieces, however you choose to see it. The Alliance on a World is just like a Guild on a Server today. There is no major significant difference. Alliances can't kick players off Worlds anymore than Guilds can kick players off a Server. That is just nonsense. Whether its authority or power is just semantics.

    Guild leaders (and their officers) can kick players from a guild. And because Alliances are like a Guild of Guilds, Alliance leaders (and their officers) can kick/remove guilds from their alliance.

    And because there will be limits (i.e. players per allliance, per server, etc), the guilds that are now regularly bandwagoning to create the biggest and overstacked linked-servers will make sure, that in their alliance only likeminded guilds exist, to have a bigger advantage against other servers/alliances.

    Why is that a problem? Working with guilds to improve yourself and work WITHIN the confines of the rules to be successful is a bad thing?

    And all players, that are not in those alliances/guilds, will be placed randomly on other servers, that can not compete with the organized-big-alliance servers.

    Why would you want to be a part of an alliance where your views don’t align with them? And there is nothing stopping you from putting your guild in another alliance.

    So yes, players can't be kicked from a server. But they (and their guilds) can be kicked from Alliances. And probably will be assigned to other servers after the next relinking/reshuffling.

    Yes, that is why it exists which allow people to align (alliance) with people that view the game in a similar fashion. Why is that bad?

    A lot of details about the alliance system are not communicated yet and we can not be sure if and how it will be implemented in the end. But there is a high risk that it could kill the game mode finally, instead of revitalizing it.

    Or, like we currently are, allow it to slowly die without any change.

    Currently, a guild can’t really recruit. If they are on a host world, the link players can’t stay with them unless they bandwagon multiple times. (Incidentally that is why I don’t think we are going to see alliances) it continues to create imbalance in matchups despite links. Just look at the fact that BG has a full link server now. And they aren’t alone in that. CD was medium pop when the link took place.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:
    An alliance, the proposed entity in the system, is just a guild. It is a way to stick 5 guilds into one piece or to divide your guild into 5 pieces, however you choose to see it. The Alliance on a World is just like a Guild on a Server today. There is no major significant difference. Alliances can't kick players off Worlds anymore than Guilds can kick players off a Server. That is just nonsense. Whether its authority or power is just semantics.

    Guild leaders (and their officers) can kick players from a guild. And because Alliances are like a Guild of Guilds, Alliance leaders (and their officers) can kick/remove guilds from their alliance.

    And because there will be limits (i.e. players per allliance, per server, etc), the guilds that are now regularly bandwagoning to create the biggest and overstacked linked-servers will make sure, that in their alliance only likeminded guilds exist, to have a bigger advantage against other servers/alliances.

    Why is that a problem? Working with guilds to improve yourself and work WITHIN the confines of the rules to be successful is a bad thing?

    And all players, that are not in those alliances/guilds, will be placed randomly on other servers, that can not compete with the organized-big-alliance servers.

    Why would you want to be a part of an alliance where your views don’t align with them? And there is nothing stopping you from putting your guild in another alliance.

    So yes, players can't be kicked from a server. But they (and their guilds) can be kicked from Alliances. And probably will be assigned to other servers after the next relinking/reshuffling.

    Yes, that is why it exists which allow people to align (alliance) with people that view the game in a similar fashion. Why is that bad?

    I responded to "Alliances can't kick players off Worlds anymore than Guilds can kick players off a Server.".

    However, big guilds/alliances dominating a server could be a bad thing, because it will change the game mode a lot. Because players that join the game mode but do not want to join those bandwagoning-guilds could be assigned to servers where they probably only will be cannon-fodder for the other servers. Like it is today on some servers, but this could be worse with alliances.

    It is a pattern sometimes seen in other games with openworld-PVP (and WvW is Anets version of openworld PvP): If mega guilds lock a server down the gameplay stagnates and then players, that do not want to be in those mega-guilds, leave the game-mode.

    If they are on a host world, the link players can’t stay with them unless they bandwagon multiple times. (Incidentally that is why I don’t think we are going to see alliances) it continues to create imbalance in matchups despite links. Just look at the fact that BG has a full link server now. And they aren’t alone in that. CD was medium pop when the link took place.

    server-links were a band-aid for population imbalance. but they did not really solve the population imbalance problem (because of massive bandwagoning after each server relinks) and they have created new problems (links and massive bandwagoning after server relinks destroy the remaining server communities).

    For this reason, I do not trust Anet blindly to solve the problem of population imbalance with alliances before Anet shows us all the details of how it works and I can see it with my own eyes.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zok.4956 said:

    server-links were a band-aid for population imbalance. but they did not really solve the population imbalance problem (because of massive bandwagoning after each server relinks) and they have created new problems (links and massive bandwagoning after server relinks destroy the remaining server communities).

    Agreed. It needs to be changed. They are unwilling to limit transfers more than they have, and ‘unlinking’ would be even more detrimental to the mode.

    For this reason, I do not trust Anet blindly to solve the problem of population imbalance with alliances before Anet shows us all the details of how it works and I can see it with my own eyes.

    I guess I would agree on ‘trusting’ Anet.

    I am also a realist: they haven’t let us ‘see’ anything game wise prior to its release, )unless you include the DBL ‘test’ where they actually asked for suggestions then did not incorporate and of the suggestions. They released it as is..) so I wouldn’t expect we are going to get ‘more details’ than the Three posts on it from Anet that are visible along with the answers to the most common responses.

    For me, given I spend most of my WvW time running alone, or with small groups, I am perfectly OK with Alliances as it has been explained.

    It’s far from perfect. But it is worth swapping to it to see where it takes us.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 24, 2021

    @Zok.4956 said:
    A lot of details about the alliance system are not communicated yet and we can not be sure if and how it will be implemented in the end. But there is a high risk that it could kill the game mode finally, instead of revitalizing it.

    Except what you describe as a critical flaw is... well... competition.

    Not even if only a single alliance exist would this be an issue - that's only 1 out of 4-5 matchups. And the worlds fighting them would still be the "best" among zero-alliance worlds by way of the matchup tiers (assuming the alliance world is top server).

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • Cuks.8241Cuks.8241 Member ✭✭✭

    I still think server pride would be a better way to go. This can serve everyone, guilds and solo casuals alike. Hey, they can even implement it in a way that would attract people that don't play WvW.
    One idea, similar to what I saw in an old Korean grind game. Server instances that could be shaped by the top WvW guilds. It would be public to anyone on the server, visitors welcome. Top WvW guilds on the server would own and shape estates, similar to guild halls. They could add merchants and mini-games that would bring revenue to the owner guilds.
    Guilds would be loyal to the server because you couldn't be on the top overnight. Guilds would spread over the servers.

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    A lot of details about the alliance system are not communicated yet and we can not be sure if and how it will be implemented in the end. But there is a high risk that it could kill the game mode finally, instead of revitalizing it.

    Except what you describe as a critical flaw is... well... competition.

    A competition who can game the system best or a competition who is more organized and can dominate its alliance/guild members and steamroll unorganized servers/players better?

    As long as we do not have all the details (and see the whole system) its only speculation if there will be critical flaws that Anet has not adressed/solved.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 24, 2021

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    A lot of details about the alliance system are not communicated yet and we can not be sure if and how it will be implemented in the end. But there is a high risk that it could kill the game mode finally, instead of revitalizing it.

    Except what you describe as a critical flaw is... well... competition.

    A competition who can game the system best or a competition who is more organized and can dominate its alliance/guild members and steamroll unorganized servers/players better?

    Yes.

    It's the same as sPvP and people grouping. They get an advantage, they win. But then incidently... they are more and more likely to meet other such groups.

    We dont have the details because the system doesnt exist, but we know the idea behind of it and this particular aspect has nothing to do with what Anet is addressing or solving - it's all on players. And the idea isnt that players create just one supreme alliance to win over everything. It's that there is 20, 30, 40+ alliances.

    If you think players wont go creating a ton of tiny alliances because they think they are the best and everyone else suck, just look at the guilds today. Why dont they just leave their own guilds and create a single 500 man guild that dominate everything?

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @kamikharzeeh.8016 said:
    and most guilds aren't fielding more than 25-30 people on their guildruns, so not sure what u refer to by "giant guilds" @Svarty.8019

    Well ye, I'm not talking about "most guilds", I'm talking about the giant ones, and, if you haven't noticed, there are more of them than there were.

    This post contains my opinion.

  • kamikharzeeh.8016kamikharzeeh.8016 Member ✭✭✭✭

    really not, i think some german guilds are bigger, and some pvE guilds have bigger numbers, but those aren't fighting guilds, numbers don't count too much therefore.

    if u count together all WSR guilds, okay, that is like 50+ roughly guessed.

  • @Zok.4956 said:

    @Gudradain.3892 said:
    You need more worlds and smaller worlds to create an healthy and interesting competitive scene.

    The mode is WvWvW and three servers fighting against each other or together will always be more or less unfair. Which is fun sometimes. But for a healthy competitive scene you need fair fights.

    You can have GvG and 1v1 in WvW but these are only segments of the game mode.

    No. I'm quite sure you just need more competitors to create healthy competition. Given enough competitors, it doesn't matter what the competition is because you will be able to match opponents of similar levels together.

    On the other hand, if you don't have enough competitors it's impossible to create any healthy competition. Chess for example is a very competitive game. But, if there was only 12 players in the world, would it even be competitive?

  • Kylden Ar.3724Kylden Ar.3724 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @SniffyCube.6107 said:
    shame we'll never find out if they work or not

    Cause you can't spell Al-lie-ances with LIE! (Yeah, doesn't really work, but... whatever.)

    Alliances when!?

    We know it's not coming. We just want them to come out and admit it.

    How many times we gotta tell you GRIND IS NOT CONTENT there ANet?

    Leader of Tyrian Adventure Corp [TACO], member of [RaW][TACO][Owls][HELL] Alliance, Kaineng.

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Gudradain.3892 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Gudradain.3892 said:
    You need more worlds and smaller worlds to create an healthy and interesting competitive scene.

    The mode is WvWvW and three servers fighting against each other or together will always be more or less unfair. Which is fun sometimes. But for a healthy competitive scene you need fair fights.

    You can have GvG and 1v1 in WvW but these are only segments of the game mode.

    No. I'm quite sure you just need more competitors to create healthy competition. Given enough competitors, it doesn't matter what the competition is because you will be able to match opponents of similar levels together.

    No, that is definitely not enough.

    You need rules for fair fights for a healthy competition.

    Three servers fighting against each others at the same time can often be fun, but it is not fair. Never was. That is the reason, why in team sport (i.e. soccer) usually only two groups fight against each others in a match/game. And to be fair there must not be any population imbalances. Thats why in team sport (i.e. soccer) there is a fixed and equal amount of players on both sides and removing one or more players from one side is used as a penalty (because it is usually a big disadvantage).

    In New World, for example, this is solved in a way that there are only two groups fighting each other at the same time and before a battle begins the groups collect/invite players until the groups are full (50 players per group), so the fights/battles will always be 50v50.

    And then: Do you remember the time when Anet tried to go into eSports with sPVP? There was a competitive scene for a while. But then Anet did not really understand how to balance the different classes (hint: balancing also is important for fair and skill based fights) and that was one of many reasons why that was a big failure.

    Alliances in GW2 are not a solution for this. To have fair fights in WvW the mode has to be changed so much that it would be more or less a new game mode.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • Gudradain.3892Gudradain.3892 Member ✭✭
    edited February 25, 2021

    Yes, 3 way fights might never be completely balanced but that is not the problem. It's how the game mode works and it's fun like that. The problem is that we don't have enough competitors to create healthy competition.

    Match Up are often not a close fight. One server is often much stronger or much weaker than the other servers. Given enough servers, you would always find servers that are closely related in strength. Given only 12 servers, it's practically impossible to match a server against others of similar strength.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Gudradain.3892 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Gudradain.3892 said:
    You need more worlds and smaller worlds to create an healthy and interesting competitive scene.

    The mode is WvWvW and three servers fighting against each other or together will always be more or less unfair. Which is fun sometimes. But for a healthy competitive scene you need fair fights.

    You can have GvG and 1v1 in WvW but these are only segments of the game mode.

    No. I'm quite sure you just need more competitors to create healthy competition. Given enough competitors, it doesn't matter what the competition is because you will be able to match opponents of similar levels together.

    No, that is definitely not enough.

    It is enough. What you describe is ‘fair competition’ (to you)

    You need rules for fair fights for a healthy competition.

    There are rules, they just aren’t the ones you want.

    Three servers fighting against each others at the same time can often be fun, but it is not fair. Never was. That is the reason, why in team sport (i.e. soccer) usually only two groups fight against each others in a match/game. And to be fair there must not be any population imbalances. Thats why in team sport (i.e. soccer) there is a fixed and equal amount of players on both sides and removing one or more players from one side is used as a penalty (because it is usually a big disadvantage).

    This isn’t ‘team sports’. It’s realm v realm v realm. Always was designed to be. It you want ‘even’ matches sPvP exists for you. And there has been talk of more of a 10v10 mode in sPvP.

    WvW will NEVER meet your definition of ‘fair’. It’s a 24 hour mode and unless you don’t care who actually plays with you, it will never be ‘fair’ in the way you describe. Alliances would be closer than what we have now.

    In New World, for example, this is solved in a way that there are only two groups fighting each other at the same time and before a battle begins the groups collect/invite players until the groups are full (50 players per group), so the fights/battles will always be 50v50.

    It sounds as if you might be happier playing that game when (or if) it comes out.

    Alliances in GW2 are not a solution for this. To have fair fights in WvW the mode has to be changed so much that it would be more or less a new game mode.

    It was never intended to be a ‘solution’ as in a ‘50v50’ mode. That was NEVER an intention of WvW.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

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

    @Zok.4956 said:
    In New World, for example, this is solved in a way that there are only two groups fighting each other at the same time and before a battle begins the groups collect/invite players until the groups are full (50 players per group), so the fights/battles will always be 50v50.

    "Solved" in the sense that the NW pvp scene will probably crash and burn within 2-3 months because they wont be able fill both sides with players.

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"