Alliance Will Be The New Bandwagon - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Alliance Will Be The New Bandwagon

2>

Comments

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @Baldrick.8967 said:
    So, still confused about how this will work. Let's say we form an alliance with two guilds in it, both maxed out, 1000 players, and that is the alliance cap. We steamroll the first match. What happens then? Do they disband our alliance? Stop people playing? Randomly assign guild players to other alliances?

    I don't understand why so many people keep saying "more of the same with alliances instead of worlds", etc. This will mark a big change. Even if one group manages to "steamroll" the others in the first matchup, any mega-Alliance involved is going to lose many or most of its playing partners who helped them steamroll that session. Next matchup they will be grouped with people who were not part of that roflstomp, and might even be fighting many of those who helped them. Because there is no permanent control over entire worlds, and because no alliance is going to be more than a partial component of an entire fighting group's matchup, it would be an incredible feat for any alliance to dominate matchup after matchup no matter who they are playing with OR who they are playing against. Blackgate can do this now because their entire population is basically stable and full-coverage to an extent no other world can match. That won't happen with alliances, they are simply too small to generate that kind of domination. Even if they somehow manage to corral the 1000 "best" players on the planet, I doubt they would win every single time, with any other group of allies and any other group of enemies.

    I see no realistic way in which any alliance can remotely dominate the game the way Blackgate currently does. And that is a GOOD thing.

  • @SugarCayne.3098 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @SugarCayne.3098 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @SugarCayne.3098 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    I wouldn't worry about pugs hopping around. fight guilds will determine things, which is good, cuz if they want competition then they wouldn't band together as there wouldn't be any fights.

    Lol.

    Because they did exactly this over the past five years. A new system is just going to be more of the same. Don’t kid yourself.

    eh those people kid themselves if they think theyre fight guilds. maybe I'm ignorant as to how widespread it is. anyway, I would rather have these new changes tested out for a few months then to dismiss them outright before even testing.

    No the point is if this was going to happen, it would have already. They had five years to spread out "for the fights" and never did it.

    well if caps don't fix this issue and other countermeasures fail then we can all go back to links. I think its important to try even if it fails.

    It’s not that simple. The proposed change is a significant code restructuring. There is no on/off switch.

    well the dev said that if the new system doesn't work then they would go back to links, so I think ill go with their word over yours.

    you don't know till you know, ya know.

  • trueanimus.4085trueanimus.4085 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 3, 2018

    @Rampage.7145 said:

    @trueanimus.4085 said:
    this system will never see the light of day because of 2 things..

    1. Server transfers for wvw players. This is how anet makes a TON of cash, people transfering back and forth across servers. They will never shoot themselves in the foot or kill their golden goose unless they are just done with the game and about to close it down.

    You are dumb if you think arenanet makes any serious cash out transfers tbh (95% of those are paid in gold not gems), they would make a ton of money tho if the 90% of the playersbase (that left because the game sucked) came back to the game cuz it all the sudden stop sucking, not to mention attract new players from other games and whatnot. WvW today is a dying game mode, bleeding players and guild everyday not anywhere close to be a golden goose believe me, all they care about at this point is to try bring players to the game so they can ACTUALLY make money.

    Our entire guild, as many do, used cash and other methods to transfer 40+ people from TC to YB.. so did other guilds like CERN, ONS etc... not to mention guilds like TW and others in the "Alliance" that switch servers every month. Do you really think that they transfer all those people over with gold they earn for farming PVE content? God knows you cant really make any cash in WVW even if you use the reward lines. If you are hardcore wvw like i am.. you are broke all the time and just can barely get enough to cover the cost of food and utility and upgrades to armor etc as the game changes and the meta evolves.

    They sell gem cards in stores (cash) they sell gems in the gem store (visa/masterdard) etc... MOST servers even have a pool where people dotate cash to bring over bigger guilds and a LOT of people transfer every month to get into newly opened servers (high end pop servers like YB/DB/SOS/JQ/Mag, when they pop open) or go where the fights are to KEEP this game mode alive.

    Trust me.. they make WAY more than you think from wvw even in the horrid state its in now.

  • @jacksmith.6028 said:

    @Baldrick.8967 said:
    So, still confused about how this will work. Let's say we form an alliance with two guilds in it, both maxed out, 1000 players, and that is the alliance cap. We steamroll the first match. What happens then? Do they disband our alliance? Stop people playing? Randomly assign guild players to other alliances?

    What about gaming the inactives?

    What about someone who logs in on the third day of an 8 week match up having forgotten or not been able to specify their wvw guild before the match starts- are they now in pergatory (another server) for the next 7.5 weeks?

    Good questions and I don't think we know all the details but, from what I can glean -
    1. You're stuck in a steamroll situation for a season. After that, I'd imagine they'll match up your capped alliance against another capped alliance or group of alliances/guilds that will give you a challenge.
    2. You have to declare a prime guild so not sure if there's any gaming of inactives
    3. This one has been answered in the big thread. Once the cap is reached, your late-to-the-game guildmates won't be able to join you. They would have to play somewhere else for 7.5 weeks.

    was watching a video on youtube about the changes this morning and people were just concerned that they will get locked out of a server... which is a valid point.

    Say for example you are a returning player...

    "OOOOh WVW update.. ill get back on and see what they changed"

    You log in.. and realize that you have been inactive for a while and maybe your guild leader booted you from your wvw guild.... you now have to WAIT 8 full weeks to be able to play with your guild of choice on the world they signed up for, because of the way the new system will work.

    ALSO... the "alliances" just begs for people to abuse it... imagine... Mag/SOS/JQ/fA/BG/DB alliance vs your alliance.... yeah i can see this already and you know it will happen.

  • There is one thing that i HOPE they do before they put this new system in.... ban the hackers..

    Yes i know i will get slack from this but hear me out. There are people in the game who hack... and have been since orbs were removed ( the actual reason WHY orbs were removed) and i think Anet needs to do a sweep (sort of like blizzard does with WoW) that would remove most of the known hackers and let the new game mode start fresh.

    Thats all im gonna say as i dont want to press too much on it because i know they get a little touchy about mentioning things like this... but I just hope they realize what will happen if they dont.

  • Cyczer.7834Cyczer.7834 Member ✭✭✭

    Idk hows the situation is on NA but alliances wont be a bandwagon material in EU. Eu actually cares about fighting more than they care about winning, so best fights you can possibly find is in t3 and below. There will be several server alliances to keep people together obviously, but most guilds here already agreed on going independent without joining an alliance so that way there always will be a chance to fight another guild.

    Besides, you are forgotting the fact that its an idea on development still and wont come until summer ( most likely ) . This means that the ideas of "ULTIMATE BG MAG ALLIANCE WOW COVERED 5 TIMEZONES WE GONA DESTROY YOU" can be changed or limited, cuz as you know they actually stated that alliances will have a number and guild limit. Also remember that having a full alliance , lets say 500, because even the lowest suggested limit 500 can cover 4 maps at the same time and can put 150+ people in queue will most likely struggle against multiple "covered" timezones because you most likely wont get to choose your enemies and what timezone they are capable of covering. Basically you can have 300 people to cover a specific timezone and entire enemy server can cover another timezone and it will be a dead matchup. Besides that , the system somewhat will end bandwagoning that those pugs filled with server pride will be placed randomly if they refuse to join/choose a guild . Because joining a guild that represents your server is a very hard task. Most people will just complain instead of doing this. Because we clearly dont have 5 guild slots lol.

  • @PH Law.4063 said:
    They should just condense the servers and make it to 6 servers instead of removing servers entirely. Rotations should be every 2 weeks instead of the 8.

    That would result in horrible queues.

  • ALSO... the "alliances" just begs for people to abuse it... imagine... Mag/SOS/JQ/fA/BG/DB alliance vs your alliance.... yeah i can see this already and you know it will happen.

    How would they abuse it? Alliances will be considerably smaller than current world populations. Sure there will 'elite' alliances full of cherry picked players. But there won't be population overstacking.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 3, 2018

    @Glass Hand.7306 said:

    ALSO... the "alliances" just begs for people to abuse it... imagine... Mag/SOS/JQ/fA/BG/DB alliance vs your alliance.... yeah i can see this already and you know it will happen.

    How would they abuse it? Alliances will be considerably smaller than current world populations. Sure there will 'elite' alliances full of cherry picked players. But there won't be population overstacking.

    Aye. Sometimes I wonder if people actually read the restructure post... I mean I was quick to frown my eyebrows at it but its been days for it to sink in. People seem to confuse alliances with entire servers. Alliances are only a part of the world (ie the eqvivalent of a server).

    An alliance steamrolling a world is like saying that a 50 man guild raid can steamroll a server today. And thats like... yeah. Of course it can, why shouldnt it? Its a freaking 50 man raid from a single guild. It should be able to beat anything, otherwise it would be an embarassment. Yet, how many 50 man guild raids do you see running around 24/7 winning matchups singlehandedly?

  • Run the numbers and you'll have no fear of a "super alliance" - let's say you max out alliance at 1,000. It makes no sense to stack one timezone....that's not really the path to world domination so they spread out. Let's further assume they play for 16 out of the 24 hours (some play for a few hours; others play for multiple hours)...1,000/16 = 62 people. If they stack all on one map doesn't make sense (queues plus again..not a path to domination)...62/3 = 21 people per map (I didn't include desert BL because it's kitten and no one plays there). So, 21 people are hardly going to dominate.

    If you think people will grind it out like in the tournaments, when was the last time we saw WvW populations like that? I don't think there's enough that all 1,000 will be playing nor playing for long stretches of time.

  • Baldrick.8967Baldrick.8967 Member ✭✭✭

    Your maths is faulty. if 1000 people play for 16 out of the 24 hours then 2/3rds of the players will be online at any one time- not 62. So at any one time over 600 online, more than enough to stack every map all the time. You only need 1000 players to play 3 hours a day and your average players online is 125. Four hours/day and 167- probably enough to cover all four maps permanently.

    A well balanced alliance will be able to dominate a match up against a less balanced one. If the unbalanced one has 500 players online at prime, it can still only get around 60 into each map, so the balanced one only needs 240 players at prime to counter- and then steamrolls for the rest of the time.

    The rest of the population wouldn't matter- as the map caps are so low due to Anet's failure engine that can't cope with the huge spam of aoe condis etc, once you cap at 60 or 70.

    Maybe if they could cope with the original intentions of wvw which was to have hundreds a side on each map then we'd be having a different discussion.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @Baldrick.8967 said:
    Your maths is faulty. if 1000 people play for 16 out of the 24 hours then 2/3rds of the players will be online at any one time- not 62. So at any one time over 600 online, more than enough to stack every map all the time. You only need 1000 players to play 3 hours a day and your average players online is 125. Four hours/day and 167- probably enough to cover all four maps permanently.

    A well balanced alliance will be able to dominate a match up against a less balanced one. If the unbalanced one has 500 players online at prime, it can still only get around 60 into each map, so the balanced one only needs 240 players at prime to counter- and then steamrolls for the rest of the time.

    The rest of the population wouldn't matter- as the map caps are so low due to Anet's failure engine that can't cope with the huge spam of aoe condis etc, once you cap at 60 or 70.

    Maybe if they could cope with the original intentions of wvw which was to have hundreds a side on each map then we'd be having a different discussion.

    Mark me down and quote me when this gets implemented: your fears will not come to pass.

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

    @Baldrick.8967 said:
    Your maths is faulty. if 1000 people play for 16 out of the 24 hours then 2/3rds of the players will be online at any one time- not 62. So at any one time over 600 online, more than enough to stack every map all the time. You only need 1000 players to play 3 hours a day and your average players online is 125. Four hours/day and 167- probably enough to cover all four maps permanently.

    A well balanced alliance will be able to dominate a match up against a less balanced one. If the unbalanced one has 500 players online at prime, it can still only get around 60 into each map, so the balanced one only needs 240 players at prime to counter- and then steamrolls for the rest of the time.

    The rest of the population wouldn't matter- as the map caps are so low due to Anet's failure engine that can't cope with the huge spam of aoe condis etc, once you cap at 60 or 70.

    Maybe if they could cope with the original intentions of wvw which was to have hundreds a side on each map then we'd be having a different discussion.

    So, right now we can have 500 man guilds. By that same math 2/3rds can be online at any given time in a well balanced WvW guild. Lets say that's roughly 300 people.

    Have you ever seen a single guild have a 50 man on EB, another 50 man on DBL, yet another 50 man on ABL#1 and a fourth 50 man on ABL#2 and still have 100 people sitting in queue waiting to get in on all 4 maps?

  • Baldrick.8967Baldrick.8967 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Baldrick.8967 said:
    Your maths is faulty. if 1000 people play for 16 out of the 24 hours then 2/3rds of the players will be online at any one time- not 62. So at any one time over 600 online, more than enough to stack every map all the time. You only need 1000 players to play 3 hours a day and your average players online is 125. Four hours/day and 167- probably enough to cover all four maps permanently.

    A well balanced alliance will be able to dominate a match up against a less balanced one. If the unbalanced one has 500 players online at prime, it can still only get around 60 into each map, so the balanced one only needs 240 players at prime to counter- and then steamrolls for the rest of the time.

    The rest of the population wouldn't matter- as the map caps are so low due to Anet's failure engine that can't cope with the huge spam of aoe condis etc, once you cap at 60 or 70.

    Maybe if they could cope with the original intentions of wvw which was to have hundreds a side on each map then we'd be having a different discussion.

    So, right now we can have 500 man guilds. By that same math 2/3rds can be online at any given time in a well balanced WvW guild. Lets say that's roughly 300 people.

    Have you ever seen a single guild have a 50 man on EB, another 50 man on DBL, yet another 50 man on ABL#1 and a fourth 50 man on ABL#2 and still have 100 people sitting in queue waiting to get in on all 4 maps?

    You kinda missed the point.

    Some people will form alliances and guilds that require long hours, etc and /gkick those that don't meet the requirements, pulling in those that play more often, with the aim of reaching 500 or 1000 active wvw players.

    Currently there is no incentive for a guild to build that way, hence why currently there is no guild that does- along with politics, of course. If you've ever run a guild of many people then you know politics will rip it apart sooner or later- and the sort that want to win at any cost will be the people driving the mega alliance type guilds.

    And after all the negatives I have said about the whole alliance idea, it's still probably worth trying- at least it will shake up the match ups for a while- but doesn't really address the real issues of balance and very stale maps.

  • Djamonja.6453Djamonja.6453 Member ✭✭✭

    @trueanimus.4085 said:

    ALSO... the "alliances" just begs for people to abuse it... imagine... Mag/SOS/JQ/fA/BG/DB alliance vs your alliance.... yeah i can see this already and you know it will happen

    So they're going to make an alliance with 10,000 people? I personally think alliances are going to be capped at 500 people, not 1000 (again, these are people who have WvW marked themselves in that particular guild/alliance before the world was created). If they make an alliance with 500 very active players, they're going to get matched up with worlds that also have similar alliances, and neither alliance will have enough people to dominate their host world, they can't all play 24/7.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.