World Restructuring - Page 51 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

World Restructuring

1454647484951>

Comments

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

    @primatos.5413 said:
    Meanwhile found fun in housing/gardening @ archeage unchained .. a little grindy.. but not that much.

    ... until you realize that it's basicly slave labour as you need to do it every single day or loose it.

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

  • primatos.5413primatos.5413 Member ✭✭✭

    Hm ...idk .. you can leave the game untouched for at least 3 weeks ez if u like to... been playing gw2 way more intensive than i'm doing now @ aau and it is all fine to me :)

  • kamikharzeeh.8016kamikharzeeh.8016 Member ✭✭✭

    n e h W s e c n a i l l A

  • Xion.5694Xion.5694 Member ✭✭✭

    Any day now.

  • how is this topic not dead yet?

  • vier.1327vier.1327 Member ✭✭✭

    @Potatoface.1287 said:
    how is this topic not dead yet?

    Arenanet buff nigromants, so old post are safe

  • Faenar.8036Faenar.8036 Member ✭✭✭

    copypasta from what I wrote in another topic, because it is directly related to alliances (deleted unnecesary or unrelated parts) ...
    After this balance patch, there are spreading some rumors about Alliances.

    @Faenar.8036 said:
    Actually there are rumors that ArenaNet do not want Alliances to happen , because current WvW status generate more money income that Alliances probably would. Why? Some guilds are transfering between servers at the time when linking system switch. Those transfers cost Gems. While Gems can be earned by ingame gold exchange, those transfers ar usualy done by real money GW2 Gem purchase. To say it in one sentence:

    Alliances = no more guild transfers = no more money income from guild transfers.

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

    We’ll know if alliances is dead (I mean Anet will confirm it lol) when they lock this and the update threads.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 8, 2020

    qhdfuquwvn951.jpg

    I guess I'm not the only one who found the Q3 roadmap funny.
    (posted by u/devimorph on GW2 reddit, not trying to steal the thunder)

  • vier.1327vier.1327 Member ✭✭✭

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:
    qhdfuquwvn951.jpg

    I guess I'm not the only one who found the Q3 roadmap funny.
    (posted by u/devimorph on GW2 reddit, not trying to steal the thunder)

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:
    qhdfuquwvn951.jpg

    I guess I'm not the only one who found the Q3 roadmap funny.
    (posted by u/devimorph on GW2 reddit, not trying to steal the thunder)

    For a moment, I hope Alliances were in there...

  • Faenar.8036Faenar.8036 Member ✭✭✭

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:

    @Faenar.8036 said:
    copypasta from what I wrote in another topic, because it is directly related to alliances (deleted unnecesary or unrelated parts) ...
    After this balance patch, there are spreading some rumors about Alliances.

    @Faenar.8036 said:
    Actually there are rumors that ArenaNet do not want Alliances to happen , because current WvW status generate more money income that Alliances probably would. Why? Some guilds are transfering between servers at the time when linking system switch. Those transfers cost Gems. While Gems can be earned by ingame gold exchange, those transfers ar usualy done by real money GW2 Gem purchase. To say it in one sentence:

    Alliances = no more guild transfers = no more money income from guild transfers.

    To real-talk for a second in this meme of a thread: I think that rumour is becomming less and less likely. See, people transfer so much now that actually transfering for pure gem purchases rather than gold-conversion for those who do not have the play-time to convert gold is becomming less and less sustainable. It isn't worth taking out your wallet because you don't know when or where everyone will disappear to next. So it is very possible that they are losing potential income by keeping the circus as there is a shrinking community transfering through conversion rather than spending that on their accounts and as a result see no value in putting upgrades on their accounts, upgrades that are easier to motivate spending real cash for gems on. If I'm spending all my low-income WvW gold on transfers I am not getting new characters or gear for which I could maybe want a slot or skins for. Right?

    So at this point the WvW transfers may be little more than a gold-sink to the PvE faucet than anything else. A couple of years back I would have considered the assumption that transfers make bank to be possible but now I think that this is just another case of neglect. It isn't even an effective way to let WvW pay for PvE indirectly as a gold sink and in the inverse I strongly disbelieve that the "login and play solo story only" kind of players spend more in the gemstore than a "WvW player".

    No doubt the majority of spenders are pretty casual, but I'm pretty convinced that most of the continued gemstore support these days comes from the core audience of people who are casual but still social; the kind of players who at least pop around to do some World bosses and maybe even tourists WvW from time to time, the social PvX casuals. Those are the people I still see sweeping cards at least, among my friends. They still have a reason to care about the appearance of their characters and the investment into their accounts. I highly doubt that the full game tourists that only do LW and play other games care that much about their accounts and appearances to other players as they do not interact with them very much or require the QoL.

    The same goes for the more invested PvE-only players that play a fair hobby amount but do only lucrative things in the game. I can't see them swiping their cards very much since they must be bathing in enough gold to convert for almost anything they want by now. The conversion rates are probably heavily doped by now as well. I'm not saying it always wasn't but it there was probably more of a notion of supply and demand there at first.

    With all honesty, it was a relief to read a post from someone who is not just another fanatical ANet white knight, but someone who actually constructively broaden the discussion with highlighting different aspects which were not mentioned before. You have nice and wise arguments to think about, good job subversiontwo. Insta ThumbUp.

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

    Passing Mid July and no indication of Alliances in the ‘roadmap’ for third quarter. In fact, nothing in there WvW related. Color me shocked... 😯🤭🧐😉

    But there IS a Fractal! And a NEW mount ability!!!

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • jsp.6912jsp.6912 Member ✭✭✭

    why do you want alliance when you can have mount skin ?

  • vier.1327vier.1327 Member ✭✭✭

    WvW frecuently asked questions

    Q: When we are going to have Alliances?

    R: Soon, the WvW developer is working on it.

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 20, 2020

    This is my opinion.

    After playing tonight...I felt that WvW as a game mode has lost the close & personal social cohesion that used to exist in niche server ranks that was the old WvW ecosystem.

    We used to have a lot of eccentric players that used to just hang out in WvW...which often times...I believe...led to browsing the Black Lion Trader store...and sometimes buying that funky outfit.

    I used to think that ANet made money from these kinds of purchases in addition to the server transfers.

    The game is still good, but that warm local tavern feeling is gone & it feels more like it's been replaced by a cold business liquor store now.

    Nowadays...I just go in to get my daily WvW fix...then leave.

    Alliances if it ever happens....should consider the importance of social cohesion that Long-Term Server communities used to bring to the table.

    Bringing players together in a way that Player controlled Guilds can never do.

    We need to be extremely cautious when building an Alliance of Guilds that has the potential to be powered & manipulated by politics.

    Once passion ignites...it's very easy for things to burn out of control & to destroy everything connected by social threads.

    Alliances will allow players to burn down a large segment of WvW through mega guilds introducing the potential of political power struggles & shenanigans on a scope impacting large communities within their control. There's a serious danger to the WvW game mode survival when the design gives this much control to players...with the hope they don't burn it down.

    WvW should be a game mode that encourages Healthy Competition that is "Wholesome" for the players.

    Without changing the current Match-Up mechanics...Server Linking, Language Linking, and even Guild Linking (Alliances) will continue to encourage an Un-Healthy Competition that is "Toxic" to players.

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    Credibility requires critical insight & time.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/89449/wvg-world-vs-globes/p1

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

    Was surprised (well....) to see no mention about Alliances in the Roadmap nor the announcement.

    I wonder when we’ll get another snippet to keep us strung along?

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • vier.1327vier.1327 Member ✭✭✭

    It was written in the roadmap, at the end... The very end...

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 25, 2020

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    I wonder when we’ll get another snippet to keep us strung along?

    I, your friendly neighbourhood shitposter, will deliver:

    This is yesterday btw, in case the date isn't clear, and wherever Alliances are at, I guess they're not confined to where Raids are at least. So however short and sweet, this is better than nothing and its the first tiny bit of confirmation on it since Mike Z's saga announcement.

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

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    I wonder when we’ll get another snippet to keep us strung along?

    I, your friendly neighbourhood shitposter, will deliver:

    Awesome! That means we are past the first waiting part of 10!!

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Mil.3562Mil.3562 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 25, 2020

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    I wonder when we’ll get another snippet to keep us strung along?

    I, your friendly neighbourhood shitposter, will deliver:

    This is yesterday btw, in case the date isn't clear, and wherever Alliances are at, I guess they're not confirmed to where Raids are.

    Finally they changed the carrot at the end of the stick! Yes, that will keep us going!
    Wait.. It's the same rotten one, they just washed it.

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 25, 2020

    No disrespect intended here.

    For some reason...these comments made me think about this movie scene.

    Deja vu all over again...

    Match-Ups need to encourage Healthy Competition that's "Wholesome" for the players...imho

    This is your last chance. After this there is no turning back.

    You take the blue pill, the story ends; you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

    You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

    Remember, all I’m offering is the truth, nothing more.

    Caution - glitch anomaly detected - There's ongoing work

    Fight Club: The First Rule of Fight Club 1999

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    Credibility requires critical insight & time.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/89449/wvg-world-vs-globes/p1

  • vier.1327vier.1327 Member ✭✭✭

    @Diku.2546 said:
    Deja vu...

    I've just been in this place before
    Higher on the street
    And I know it's my time to go
    Calling you and the search is mystery
    Standing on my feet
    It's so hard when I try to be me uoooh!

  • vier.1327vier.1327 Member ✭✭✭

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    I wonder when we’ll get another snippet to keep us strung along?

    I, your friendly neighbourhood shitposter, will deliver:

    This is yesterday btw, in case the date isn't clear, and wherever Alliances are at, I guess they're not confirmed to where Raids are at least. So however short and sweet, this is better than nothing and its the first tiny bit of confirmation on it since Mike Z's saga announcement.

    The same; we are working on Alliances, be patient and buy gems.

  • DeLys.5380DeLys.5380 Member ✭✭

    @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
    A message from McKenna Berdrow:

    I want to update everyone on the design we currently are investigating to help achieve population balance between worlds, and the goals we hope this new World Restructuring system can achieve.

    The goals of the World Restructuring system are:

    • Create great matches
    • Handle population fluctuations
    • Balance teams
    • Diversify WvW experiences

    Transitioning to this System

    This system is going to take time to make. As mentioned in the WvW FAQ, part of the reason we did World Linking was because it utilized a lot of existing tech and did not require a considerable amount of time. This allowed us to address the growing population issue quickly, while also being able to address other WvW issues. This new system is going to take considerably more time to make. We do not have a release date, but this is going to require several months of work and it will share resources with any other WvW changes that we work on.

    Transitioning to this system is going to be slow and we want to make this transition as smooth as possible. Once this system is ready, we plan to give everyone several weeks to form their WvW guilds and alliances. We also want to give titles related to the worlds on which players currently are playing when World Restructuring goes live. If there are other transition ideas, we would love to hear them!

    We will continue with World Linking until World Restructuring is ready to ship.

    2.5 years later.

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 25, 2020

    @DeLys.5380 said:

    @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
    A message from McKenna Berdrow:
    We will continue with World Linking until World Restructuring is ready to ship.

    2.5 years later.

    Hate to tell you this, but Gaile & McKenna had to "ironically" abandon ship due to a Company Restructuring.

    I pray they've found a better path in life.

    Our WvW community here has somewhat recovered...but it's still missing the heart & soul feel that they gave us.

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    Credibility requires critical insight & time.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/89449/wvg-world-vs-globes/p1

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Sometimes I struggle really hard to understand what Diku says.

    It's like he communicates through poems :3 .

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 29, 2020

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:
    Sometimes I struggle really hard to understand what Diku says.

    It's like he communicates through poems :3 .


    Haiku Syllables Count - 5/7/5

    Life is subjective
    Senses are deep or shallow
    Meaning can be found

    It's odd to say this
    We struggle to pick the hard
    The fix is simple

    WvW Haiku :)
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/5m7950/newgamemodewvgworldvsglobes


    You took the red pill, you stay in Wonderland and I'm showing you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

    Remember, all I’m offering is the truth, nothing more.

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    Credibility requires critical insight & time.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/89449/wvg-world-vs-globes/p1

  • TheBravery.9615TheBravery.9615 Member ✭✭✭

    it's been almost 3 years lmao

  • DeLys.5380DeLys.5380 Member ✭✭

    @Diku.2546 said:

    @DeLys.5380 said:

    @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
    A message from McKenna Berdrow:
    We will continue with World Linking until World Restructuring is ready to ship.

    2.5 years later.

    Hate to tell you this, but Gaile & McKenna had to "ironically" abandon ship due to a Company Restructuring.

    I pray they've found a better path in life.

    Our WvW community here has somewhat recovered...but it's still missing the heart & soul feel that they gave us.

    I knew this. It's still 2.5 years later. They are (supposed to be) a business. Enough said?

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 26, 2020

    @DeLys.5380 said:

    @Diku.2546 said:

    @DeLys.5380 said:

    @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
    A message from McKenna Berdrow:
    We will continue with World Linking until World Restructuring is ready to ship.

    2.5 years later.

    Hate to tell you this, but Gaile & McKenna had to "ironically" abandon ship due to a Company Restructuring.

    I pray they've found a better path in life.

    Our WvW community here has somewhat recovered...but it's still missing the heart & soul feel that they gave us.

    I knew this. It's still 2.5 years later. They are (supposed to be) a business. Enough said?

    It seems that you & I have both been loyal fans of WvW for a very long time...so you're correct...enough was said in your statement.

    Your comment provided the grilled steak & my comment was there to give it the umami.

    Still hanging in there as a die hard fan of WvW & hope this game mode will get the recognition it deserves & allow ANet to prosper.

    My reply was meant for the newer WvW players...who might not be able to appreciate the irony.


    TLDR version

    Gaile - Original Author of thread
    McKenna - WvW Developer

    Gaile quotes - McKenna's announcement - We will continue with World Linking until World Restructuring is ready to ship

    2.5 years later.

    Gaile & McKenna had to "ironically" abandon ship (not continue) due to a Company Restructuring.

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    Credibility requires critical insight & time.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/89449/wvg-world-vs-globes/p1

  • vier.1327vier.1327 Member ✭✭✭

    This post will survive us all..

  • The current model is dangerously close to pay to win. I can easily pay money to transfer to the winning server each relink. And many do, because people don't like losing or being farmed, and are happy to get a quick fix and be on a winning team. A philosophy/model I thought Anet was against. Seems when the $$ starts flowing their principles take a back seat :angry:

  • DeLys.5380DeLys.5380 Member ✭✭

    @KiteCrossx.3790 said:
    The current model is dangerously close to pay to win. I can easily pay money to transfer to the winning server each relink. And many do, because people don't like losing or being farmed, and are happy to get a quick fix and be on a winning team. A philosophy/model I thought Anet was against. Seems when the $$ starts flowing their principles take a back seat :angry:

    I don't think it's that people can't stand losing and want to be on a winning team necessarily. I think it's that they want to have a fighting chance. What currently makes their re-linking system so stupid is that they do re-links based on their "server population" algorithms, then a week later, guilds move around and you have a few servers left with hardly any population, or population stacked in one or two time zones up against two servers who are stacked with huge amounts of population, or evenly distributed ones. You can see this by just watching the servers that move between High, Very High, and Full on a nearly weekly basis.

    At this point, I'm not sure why Anet even bothers wasting time re-linking the servers at all. It's just really stupid.

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 29, 2020

    I'll bump this thread with a rehash of something noted in another recent thread (or I guess, I've been saying some version of it for years):

    The saddest part about the state of the WvW population systems is that if ArenaNet had not been sleeping on the job (or reinventing the wheel) they could have solved everything by just adding a proper GvG Arena and a scoring system based on live and tuned "outnumbered" status.

    • That would have stopped the GvG guilds from transfering just to match up against each other
    • That would have made equal-number scenarios determine the matchups on the ladder (fight guilds / server ID socials)
    • That would have made stacking any timezone for sense of winning or rewards pointless (anons)

    It really is that simple. It really has been that simple all along.

    • Thus they could have introduced more result-based per server rewards (everyone)
    • It inherently encourages the population to spread out even if that doesn't slate out stacks overnight (regardless of scale or time)
    • It even allows people to still stack a language or timezone or a full server to get their personal time-spent rewards without affecting the ladder
    • It could even potentially encourage roaming in off-hours or off-maps by letting them contribute equal score or score when other maps wouldn't

    and

    • It could be used as a platform to launch other systems, like doing away with the queue system, through overflow copies that lets you start pips etc.
    • It could let you do away with the border/home advantage style maps and only make balanced/mirror style maps prone to better facilitate content
    • It could let you rework the existing EotM and/or OS maps to lobby maps with the existing side-join tech to house things rather than be things
    • EotM today is intended as an overflow but never was because it doesn't facilitate transitions or balanced rewards - map copies would do that better
    • OS today is an FFA arena, GH is a GvG arena with PvE physics, EotM houses an FFA arena etc., so the ideas are all there, but none of them are GvG arenas. Armistice bastion also proves that combinated tech exists but that map is just a big fook you to us players in good old neglect-WvW style. Want some of what the others get for free? Well, you have to pay because you are WvW. Honestly, no single thing in this game makes me fume as much as AB, because I can not fathom how anybody could be so stupid as to actually build a proof of concept only to dangle it and not deliver. What kind of company spends time and resources to prove to their customers that they can give them what they want, only to not give it to them? It's pretty much the same thing with Strongholds etc. It proves that they can but will not. It throws any form of complexity-defense out the window.
  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Honestly this one feels like:

    • Problem is accepted as an issue
    • Expansion was discussed internally
    • Issue was acknowledged since it could be part of an expansion
    • Expansion idea was cancelled
    • Communication stops
    • Living World was pushed hoping to be a replacement to expansion, didn't work
    • Numbers and income falling
    • Expansion idea re-opened
    • Alliances once again planned to be part of expansion selling point but free change for all
    • Alliances will release in 2 years with expansion release

    I admit I side with the group that likes server pride and view the alliances as killing that. But not a fan of community engagement and then community dis-engagement when something is shelved, just say its shelved and move on. Since I do see it as much much more complex then sPvP match making I have made the argument that data has been being collected and numbers tested during server relinks. But again if that was true, come out and say that. Silence just lends weight to arguments that its shelved. That said wasn't asking for the linking system but have gotten to play with some people I did not before and it was fun and I look forward to potentially playing with again. The key is can the alliance system track enough attributes to actually create reasonable matchups, and is it even in works.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 29, 2020

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    I admit I side with the group that likes server pride and view the alliances as killing that. But not a fan of community engagement and then community dis-engagement when something is shelved, just say its shelved and move on.
    /.../
    The key is can the alliance system track enough attributes to actually create reasonable matchups, and is it even in works.

    The problem with that viewpoint is that it has never been the players with server-identity who has created the things that the server is proud about. It has almost exclusively been players with guild-identities who have created content that the server is proud about and then shared it with the server.

    I am not saying that having some sort of server pride is a bad thing. I believe that the vast majority of players have it to some degree. The guilds are apart of the servers too. It is just bad not to aknowledge the processes leading to the result. There is no mutual exclusivity in guild-identity and server-identity, there is just a priority. Like I said in my previous post above, had this been aknowledged earlier we may not have needed something as drastic as Alliances to solve problems that were rising.

    Considering that Ray confirmed it as still being in the works last week, we will have to assume that it is. We can debate the details of that, but the baseline is there in black and white. As far as the system itself goes, I think it is mostly a question of understanding the system and treating it for what it is at this point. It is pretty much just a system that is even more open than the linking system. The linking system shuffles some servers while Alliances will shuffle all servers. The main selling point of the system is no longer necessarily balance (the mode's player-structures have devolved past a point of the intended balance) but rather that it may open for players to rebuild over time by providing alternatives to gem/gold transfers, by opening up full entities so we can recruit both in the game and from outside the game again, etc. Those more fundamental things are now the main sales point and not the possible social- and balance results of them. Alliances made up of 1-2 fight guilds and 3-4 GvG guilds are going to wreck the battlegroup entity as much as they do server entities now. However, at least more guilds and alliances can be created to fill up the battlegroups. Even if balance won't be stellar it will at least be better.

    The issues with the current system isn't necessarily that entities aren't balanced, but rather that the ladder/matchups are not representative of the balance. At least not in the minds of the vast majority of players with plenty of good arguments as to why or how problems are related to that.

    The transition for server-identity players may be rough, but I'm pretty sure that once they understand the system they may form server-alliances and end up in the right place on the ladder where they get the kind of matchups and content that suits them (whereas the fully anonymous will drift, but not necessarily have any group pride at all). A player with server pride usually at least has enough identity to socially interact in that likely >500 community. Also, given battlegroups, any such server-community will now and then be hitched to a more competetive alliance and then their pride will have to be similar to that of a link server: to provide some sort of support and help pull weight.

    No doubt it will create some drama and infighting but you already have that now, that is apart of the content and with an Alliance model you get more control over that meta-game since you can kick people from guilds and guilds from Alliances. That gives incentive to work on your group's social aspects too and not just its organisation or performance. That is content, even if it is meta.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    I admit I side with the group that likes server pride and view the alliances as killing that. But not a fan of community engagement and then community dis-engagement when something is shelved, just say its shelved and move on.
    /.../
    The key is can the alliance system track enough attributes to actually create reasonable matchups, and is it even in works.

    The problem with that viewpoint is that it has never been the players with server-identity who has created the things that the server is proud about. It has almost exclusively been players with guild-identities who have created content that the server is proud about and then shared it with the server.

    I am not saying that having some sort of server pride is a bad thing. I believe that the vast majority of players have it to some degree.

    I think mileage will vary here. You are correct in your statements but for me, I do fight for my guild but I also fight for my server. And it's less what people have built for the server and moreover we fight since its home. Therefore it translate to, if you take our stuff, that won't do. I agree more likely for others it's exactly what you said, but I wouldn't rule out us oddballs that fight because the servers been our home for so long and we see familiar peeps. And when you see a familiar peep get attacked, you engage since they also live in your home. Some servers have elaborate external community tools and some just might have a common Discord/TS3/Voice-of-Choice-Here. I do know a lot of guilds also usually run their own as well. I agree there are strengths in the Alliance system, but as always new dark clouds will find silver linings.

    Side note: I missed the comment from Ray. Will have to go look for that later.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 30, 2020

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    I think mileage will vary here. You are correct in your statements but for me, I do fight for my guild but I also fight for my server. And it's less what people have built for the server and moreover we fight since its home. Therefore it translate to, if you take our stuff, that won't do. I agree more likely for others it's exactly what you said, but I wouldn't rule out us oddballs that fight because the servers been our home for so long and we see familiar peeps. And when you see a familiar peep get attacked, you engage since they also live in your home. Some servers have elaborate external community tools and some just might have a common Discord/TS3/Voice-of-Choice-Here. I do know a lot of guilds also usually run their own as well. I agree there are strengths in the Alliance system, but as always new dark clouds will find silver linings.

    Like I said, as far as I am concerned people can be however oddball they like.

    The issue here is that no amount of community tools, guides or help would compensate for the 2-3 top commanders on a server picking their tent up and leaving. This is especially true in any balanced scenario (where there is coverage, presence or content on a map).

    I know of no server where those players were not either born in guilds and aquired their status with the backing of a guild or are still members of a guild (that still has a guild-first identity). If people then have other guilds, do other things or helps out either directly or indirectly... awesome! Yet, it doesn't change the fact. If a single player like Bez or James decides that they want to hop server, that effect ripples through their entire server's organisation and identity. The server's conception of identity then changes. It shows just how vulnurable the system is.

    If I designed a game it would be a sore mistake to overlook that and assume that other forms of organisation were equal to- or more important than that, especially if I wanted to design systems reflective of- or rooted in content, balanced content.

    Whatever people then like to do or choose to do is something they can do freely, as long as they do not misjudge their own importance to where it misrepresents and negatively affects those design decisions. That mistake has been made for WvW and it is in everyone's interest that it isn't perpetuated.

    Side note: I missed the comment from Ray. Will have to go look for that later.

    It's the video plastered all over this page.

  • vier.1327vier.1327 Member ✭✭✭

    Do you think Arenanet's developers use the Alliances Meme in the office?

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

    @vier.1327 said:
    Do you think Arenanet's developers use the Alliances Meme in the office?

    The laughing guy one? Now THAT never gets old...

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Likely to come with the next expansion as a selling point... or as a "potential" addition for "down the road" when they are "Ready to talk to us" once it gets off the sticky "table"

  • Xion.5694Xion.5694 Member ✭✭✭

    I think you forgot about 'laying the groundwork', they for sure doing that.

  • waxx.3619waxx.3619 Member ✭✭
    edited August 1, 2020

    @KiteCrossx.3790 said:
    The current model is dangerously close to pay to win. I can easily pay money to transfer to the winning server each relink. And many do, because people don't like losing or being farmed, and are happy to get a quick fix and be on a winning team. A philosophy/model I thought Anet was against. Seems when the $$ starts flowing their principles take a back seat :angry:

    Exactly. They make lot $$$ from transferring accounts IMO. why lose that opportunity with Alliance. This decision was probably made in haste and they realized how much money they will be losing thus discarded. BTW server transfer in this game more expensive than any MMO I have seen and if people still keep buying them why stop?