How to cheat the new alliance system — Guild Wars 2 Forums

How to cheat the new alliance system

Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭

This thread should result in a collection of idea's, people have after reading the proposal , on:
HOW TO FORM AN ALLIANCE THAT WILL WIN
Not to actually do it, but to give ANet time to close these hole's before they can be used.

<1

Comments

  • Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2018

    Forming an alliance out of 2+ account players only

    According to the description the "Strength" of an alliance for forming worlds is estimated based on the players hours in the last tournament.
    So if an alliance recruits only player that have 2+ WvW-ready accounts it can do the following:

    In odd tournaments (1st, 3rd, ...) players should add their primary account to the alliance and only play with it, the more the better and not at all with their secondary account
    in the even tournaments (2nd, 4th, ...) players add their secondary account to the alliance and only play the whole tournament with their secondary account and not at all with their primary account.

    This leads to the totally wrong estimation that in all tournaments this alliance do not add anything to a world (none of the accounts in this alliance played a single hour in the last tournament), i.e. it's fight power is in addition to the otherwise balanced worlds, resulting in this alliance's world has around 25% more manpower than other worlds.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2018

    legit way to do it

    contact existing guilds. see who wants to play with you or tandem on a different timezone to cover coverage.

    best done via google sheets and an average number of wvw players.

    estimate up to 500 to 1000 for allied guilds. including scouts, roamers etc.

    then adjust based on the actual application.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2018

    so you get 500 players more. Nice. its like transferring with 500 man guild when server is open for 1 week.
    Guess this will be the grinding endgame of Gw2 to get legendaries and all cool gemstore items on both accounts ;)

    I do believe that people that are organised enough to do that, wont want 500 more pugs to make queues though.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander/scout/roamer
    Piken link/alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

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

    f.a.q. posted said alliance caps 1k active players.

    give or take

    (world (guilds) (non allied changes every 8 weeks)) = 1k

    so there could be just 1 tier or more.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

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

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    f.a.q. posted said alliance caps 1k active players.

    give or take

    (world (guilds) (non allied changes every 8 weeks)) = 1k

    so there could be just 1 tier or more.

    No it didnt. They said 500-1000 but not sure the final number. The FAQ thread actually only say 500 when mentioning the cap.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2018

    Creating Alliances
    We also want to make sure that existing WvW communities can play together in this new system. A WvW guild will be able to invite other WvW guilds to their WvW Alliance. WvW Alliances function as a party for guilds. When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon.

    mmm ya, was not in faq but on a different thread. was looking for the 500 in the faq. can quote where it is?

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Ryuk.6840Ryuk.6840 Member ✭✭
    edited February 15, 2018

    There can be the poroblem with troll sieges
    But allowing one enemy to hop under your dolyak (after you kill the guards and the partol-chockpoint guard) would allow him to hop in their base with a tranformation-tonic that have some basic defensive moves (not attacks) to protect themself from the guards , or planting bombs (based on his personal supplies) on the supply deposit .
    If there are any type of Siege Engines when the bomb explodes , then a Bar will fill up that increase the Walls to Tier2 or 3 .
    But if you destroy the sieges , then a random Bar will be used to upgrade/install cannons or ''emergency suplies'' that can be stored in the case of your walls/doors is 35% and can be healed only till 50% over and over again .
    If he destroys 3 sieges in a row .... then sieges of the same ''type'' dont cost supply to implant a bomb .
    If he attacks a deposit that dont have suplies + no sieges nearby , damage the walls

    Or you can manually right click ''inspect'' your dolyak , for some 1v1 before he goes into your keep

    Edit: loll or simply we can see the names of the Siege players > enought right click reports/destroy (or 1 leutenand from the mega guilds) on the sieges > the sieges are deconstruted > goes in the ''emergency'' deposit > and slowly on the ''normal''

  • Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭

    @Threather.9354 said:
    so you get 500 players more. ...

    I do believe that people that are organised enough to do that, wont want 500 more pugs to make queues though

    Imagine the combination with time zone planning: 500 additional off-time player.... 😩

  • Klipso.8653Klipso.8653 Member ✭✭✭

    The imbalance in a 7 day match is time zone coverage.
    Making the player limit smaller does nothing to change coverage issues.

    Instead of destroying servers, they should just adjust point scoring depending on enemy presence. More resistance equals more points, less resistance awards less points.

    -Balwarc [ICoa]

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2018

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    Creating Alliances
    We also want to make sure that existing WvW communities can play together in this new system. A WvW guild will be able to invite other WvW guilds to their WvW Alliance. WvW Alliances function as a party for guilds. When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon.

    mmm ya, was not in faq but on a different thread. was looking for the 500 in the faq. can quote where it is?

    They didnt really say more in the FAQ on it other than this:

    Q. How big are alliances in comparison to world sizes?
    500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently (this is only using players we consider active WvW players). Therefore, a single alliance can be a significant size of a world population but not the majority.

    Anyway I dont really see how one can exploit it. If 1 alliance = 1 guild in terms of max possible size, there is no real way to fool an MMR any worse than how guilds can make 500 man hardcore guild today and dominate a matchup. The hours played doesnt matter, you know everyone will be on the same server. You cant fool the system there. In practice and in reality, I dont think maxed guilds has ever happened. At least on EU I havent met a server yet that has a 100 man guild zerg on EB, the same 100 man guild zerg on DBL, the same 100 man guild zerg on ABL1 and also the same 100 man guild zerg on ABL2 - and 100 man from the guild still in queue.

    @Dayra.7405 said:
    Forming an alliance out of 2+ account players only

    According to the description the "Strength" of an alliance for forming worlds is estimated based on the players hours in the last tournament.
    So if an alliance recruits only player that have 2+ WvW-ready accounts it can do the following:

    In odd tournaments (1st, 3rd, ...) players should add their primary account to the alliance and only play with it, the more the better and not at all with their secondary account
    in the even tournaments (2nd, 4th, ...) players add their secondary account to the alliance and only play the whole tournament with their secondary account and not at all with their primary account.

    This leads to the totally wrong estimation that in all tournaments this alliance do not add anything to a world (none of the accounts in this alliance played a single hour in the last tournament), i.e. it's fight power is in addition to the otherwise balanced worlds, resulting in this alliance's world has around 25% more manpower than other worlds.

    Oh there is a simple solution to that - if Anet see a strong guild that goes to 0 activity then goes strong again on the same rooster etc in order to manipulate matchups... delete the guild so that the guildhall is gone, then ban all the main account players in that guild permanently. And after that, delete the other guild and ban all alt account players for 8 weeks.

    After that they are welcomed back to create a new guilds and join WvW again on their alt accounts.

    Problem solved.

    Also Anet should post officially on this forum the total gold worth of accounts lost, so we can all laugh hard.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dayra.7405 said:
    Forming an alliance out of 2+ account players only

    According to the description the "Strength" of an alliance for forming worlds is estimated based on the players hours in the last tournament.
    So if an alliance recruits only player that have 2+ WvW-ready accounts it can do the following:

    In odd tournaments (1st, 3rd, ...) players should add their primary account to the alliance and only play with it, the more the better and not at all with their secondary account
    in the even tournaments (2nd, 4th, ...) players add their secondary account to the alliance and only play the whole tournament with their secondary account and not at all with their primary account.

    This leads to the totally wrong estimation that in all tournaments this alliance do not add anything to a world (none of the accounts in this alliance played a single hour in the last tournament), i.e. it's fight power is in addition to the otherwise balanced worlds, resulting in this alliance's world has around 25% more manpower than other worlds.

    Well the patterning is apparent after a couple of iterations, so yeah, Anet should explicitly prohibit this kind of account swapping and banhammer when they see it happening.

    But even aside from that, it's still just 25% give or take of the world's population, so even if this kind of thing makes it more likely they will be paired with a legit strong alliance, they may be facing off against another such world, so the impact would be less than you can currently get on a server.

    Still, this is probably the most realistic method of trying to game the new system that I've seen put down. It's also a good reason why Anet needs to cap the alliance closer to 500 than to 1000, so that even 2 strong alliances don't comprise more than 50% of a given world.

  • Players should try to make this work. If guilds 'turtle' to wipe out lower guilds because they are scared of a challenge, this will always fail.

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

    @boolah.1325 said:
    Players should try to make this work. If guilds 'turtle' to wipe out lower guilds because they are scared of a challenge, this will always fail.

    agreed. weak willed i suppose

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • People concerned about alliances keep ignoring a key FAQ point:

    Q. How big are alliances in comparison to world sizes?

    500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently (this is only using players we consider active WvW players). Therefore, a single alliance can be a significant size of a world population but not the majority.

    If alliances are allowed to be 1000 players, then at worst, a single alliance would represent half of a team in the new system's match up. If they were the only elite 1000-player guild, then they would dominate that match up... but in the next match up, the alliance would be split up. And it's unlikely that there's going to be only a single strong alliance.

    I'm sure people will figure out ways to stack alliances for the first match up. I just have seen anyone offer a way in which those stacked alliances can be sure to dominate any subsequent match up.

    "With great power comes not-so-great utility bills."

  • Drinks.2361Drinks.2361 Member ✭✭✭

    I'm not really worried about having to fight a 'stacked' alliance, but what I am worried about is if that alliance won't fight. We've got a situation in T1 where a group that isn't strong enough to win in the field can just turtle under ACs in keeps until the other team gets bored & logs out.

    Cross you're fingers & hope that Anet brings back mechanics that promote PvP rather than PvWall

  • Ubi.4136Ubi.4136 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2018

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    People concerned about alliances keep ignoring a key FAQ point:

    Q. How big are alliances in comparison to world sizes?

    500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently (this is only using players we consider active WvW players). Therefore, a single alliance can be a significant size of a world population but not the majority.

    If alliances are allowed to be 1000 players, then at worst, a single alliance would represent half of a team in the new system's match up. If they were the only elite 1000-player guild, then they would dominate that match up... but in the next match up, the alliance would be split up. And it's unlikely that there's going to be only a single strong alliance.

    I'm sure people will figure out ways to stack alliances for the first match up. I just have seen anyone offer a way in which those stacked alliances can be sure to dominate any subsequent match up.

    Yes, 1 alliance could make up 40-50% of a world population - Anet has said about as much.
    I bolded the important part: nothing gives the impression they would break up an alliance once it's made. In fact, it runs contrary to what they are saying.
    They think no one alliance could be the new BG, but if an elite alliance does appear and becomes the new top dog, Anet isn't going to tell them they can't be allied anymore and break them up.

    Carnished Toast (Yum)
    Lost in the Maguuma (TC)

  • people keep on talking about how alliances will be worse then the current servers. care to prove it? worlds will be reshuffled every 8 or so weeks, and you cant join a new world or get rewards or whatever until your current matchup is finished. that pretty much takes care of band wagoning. there is still the question of band wagoning to alliances. do you think alliances will want a bunch of unskilled players that do nothing more then add numbers? its possible. I'm thinking its doubtful. guilds tend to pick the best, or at least the competent. assuming band wagoning isn't an issue any more, what else is there? stacked alliances. how many stacked alliances do you think there can be? wouldn't having a bunch of stacked alliances make for a balanced matchup across all worlds? assuming ofc the alliances fight each other often enough to sort of protect the smaller guilds on said world, which there isn't any evidence that they wouldn't. people want fights, more over guilds want fights. server politicians don't, and they will get shafted as they should be.

    @Dayra.7405 said:
    Forming an alliance out of 2+ account players only

    According to the description the "Strength" of an alliance for forming worlds is estimated based on the players hours in the last tournament.
    So if an alliance recruits only player that have 2+ WvW-ready accounts it can do the following:

    In odd tournaments (1st, 3rd, ...) players should add their primary account to the alliance and only play with it, the more the better and not at all with their secondary account
    in the even tournaments (2nd, 4th, ...) players add their secondary account to the alliance and only play the whole tournament with their secondary account and not at all with their primary account.

    This leads to the totally wrong estimation that in all tournaments this alliance do not add anything to a world (none of the accounts in this alliance played a single hour in the last tournament), i.e. it's fight power is in addition to the otherwise balanced worlds, resulting in this alliance's world has around 25% more manpower than other worlds.

    wouldn't this whole scenario be fixed after the first few matchups, once data has been collected? also i'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "this alliance do not add anything to a world" and "this alliance's world has around 25% more manpower".

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

    How to cheat the system.. stack a bunch of active pug commanders to work round the clock in one alliance, along with organized guilds in the alliance, achieving domination in all time zones.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    Maguuma: Free ppt, come and get it!

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

    hehe most of our examples are not exploits but good strategy.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Wow Anet just keep on pushing the zerg.
    Everything they do to PvE make it so that you have to zerg in WvW to stay alive!

    More an more condi, but what ever happened to the one which was supposed to punish you if you ran in large numbers?!
    The devs need to stop catering to NA and the zeg mentality. Though all these game patches have made EU server become the same. Only a few guilds try not to zerg.

  • Adzekul.3104Adzekul.3104 Member ✭✭✭

    The highest scoring alliance will have 24 hour coverage and no or minimal queues at any given time. The smartest alliance formers will want a balanced list of guilds and players from across the world to achieve this.

  • Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 16, 2018

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    also i'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "this alliance do not add anything to a world"

    That's what the Alliance linking System estimates

    and "this alliance's world has around 25% more manpower".

    That's the reality.

    And that they are highly different is the cheat.

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    wouldn't this whole scenario be fixed after the first few matchups, once data has been collected?

    My experience with ANet tells me, if it is not fixed in the initial release it will stay much to long.

    Do you remember the trolls building useless siege everywhere? ANet refused to swing the ban-hammer and instead developed the new troll-save upgrade / supply system that came to the game when no one remembered the trolls anymore, such that in the end many people just hated the new system that seem to come out of nothing.

    And don’t get me wrong I am in favor of alliances (they are overdue since mega-server in PvE) the sense of the thread is to make the initial release as good as possible.

  • Euryon.9248Euryon.9248 Member ✭✭✭

    Posted this in another thread but it should be here too.

    Someone said that Anet suggested that random players would be preferentially placed on worlds where their guildmates were placed.

    1 alliance, 5 guilds, each guild filled to max with hardcore wvw-players (this is hypothetical assuming you can get 5 entire guilds of 500 hardcore players). Only 100 of each guild actually select that guild as their wvw guild, those are the actual alliance 500. The other 400 people in those guilds select NO guild for wvw, so they are "random" players. Alliance gets placed on a world, now those 2000 random players will be preferentially placed on that same world due to guild affiliations, within world pop cap limits. Voila, 2500-man (or close enough) alliance.

    Anet should NOT consider non-wvw guilds as a factor in random world placement. Either pick the guild you want to play with as your wvw guild, or be subject to completely random placement.

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

    @Euryon.9248 said:
    Posted this in another thread but it should be here too.

    Someone said that Anet suggested that random players would be preferentially placed on worlds where their guildmates were placed.

    1 alliance, 5 guilds, each guild filled to max with hardcore wvw-players (this is hypothetical assuming you can get 5 entire guilds of 500 hardcore players). Only 100 of each guild actually select that guild as their wvw guild, those are the actual alliance 500. The other 400 people in those guilds select NO guild for wvw, so they are "random" players. Alliance gets placed on a world, now those 2000 random players will be preferentially placed on that same world due to guild affiliations, within world pop cap limits. Voila, 2500-man (or close enough) alliance.

    Anet should NOT consider non-wvw guilds as a factor in random world placement. Either pick the guild you want to play with as your wvw guild, or be subject to completely random placement.

    Indeed such a way would be pretty bad. I highly doubt this is how it works. I'm guessing priorities for individual players will be fairly simple - WvW guild first (alliance is the same thing), after that its all MMR based random allocation even if you are just in a single guild. Having a preference when not setting WvW guild would be chaos.

    I do see it leaving one tiny little problem though - nationality. How exactly does that come into the priorities? Now, you could argue that they are on the same few servers anyway and thus stand a very high chance of ending up together, but in theory you could use that to get a preference to land with friends. in your case in addition to setting no WvW guild, they would set themselves as all "spanish" or something even though they are not. After all, how does Anet prove they are not?

    Hm. That may actually be a pretty big problem, lol.

  • They should have never allowed a 500 person coalition, that is really really really really really really really dumb. Max for a server group should be 50 on a matchup, and even then...

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

    there is this thing called world cap. =)

    oh my friend is there. full oh nos

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Ubi.4136Ubi.4136 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    there is this thing called world cap. =)

    oh my friend is there. full oh nos

    World caps are not going to be a hard number. They have even said 1 world could have 25% less population than another. I want to be hopeful for what they are trying to do, but I imagine it's going to look like everything else and turn in to a kitten.

    Carnished Toast (Yum)
    Lost in the Maguuma (TC)

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

    only if players choose to forfeit =) but those kinds of players want to be carried by easy fights.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    create alliances of secondary free accounts?

  • Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2018

    @Aeolus.3615 said:
    create alliances of secondary free accounts?

    Let them be linked to other worlds, but never play them to weaken these worlds?
    But can hit yourself as well. And if they aren't played they add not much player-hours.

  • Swamurabi.7890Swamurabi.7890 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 20, 2018

    I can see three ways to game the system if max guild is 500 and max alliance is 1000.

    1. Have all the GW2 commanders in one guild/alliance.
    2. Have the timezone with the fewest players form an alliance.
    3. Have an alliance of two guilds. One guild covering EBG 24/7 and blue BL for two timezones (6 maps of 80 players or 480 players). The other guild covers Green BL 24/7 and Blue BL for the other two timezones. (480 players). Three maps covered 24/7. Pugs go to DBL.
  • By discussing ways to "cheat the system" while the system is still being built all your doing is giving anet more stats paterns and behaviors to look for in the automated match paring algorithm.

    It's way too early to discuss a system that isn't even in production yet.

  • Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭

    @Koman.7064 said:
    By discussing ways to "cheat the system" while the system is still being built all your doing is giving anet more stats paterns and behaviors to look for in the automated match paring algorithm.

    Yes, thats the goal!

    It's way too early to discuss a system that isn't even in production yet.

    Given this gaol, I think it is just in time.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dayra.7405 said:

    @Aeolus.3615 said:
    create alliances of secondary free accounts?

    Let them be linked to other worlds, but never play them to weaken these worlds?
    But can hit yourself as well. And if they aren't played they add not much player-hours.

    well u can run several clients on the same machine, theres risk of bots starting to apear in alliances :\

  • Brother.1504Brother.1504 Member ✭✭✭

    Players will always leverage any game system for the max advantage and profit, even to the point of breaking the system. I don’t think it’s possible to create a system immune to this fact. Hopefully Anet doesn’t develop this new paradigm with a one and done mentality. They will need to monitor each match, respond to feedback, and make thoughtful corrections when appropriate. And for the love of Balthazar we need more Devs actually playing the mode regularly. Eyes on the ground.

  • Oh, this can't go wrong in the slightest. /popcorn

  • One thing I wonder about is how hard will it be for those of us in small guilds who pop in to ride the WvW fun for a while to join in after the changes. If anything I guess it is a way to boost the multi-guild system.

    Personally I'd like to see a third WvW setup...where there are three keeps with lords and the goal is to kill the other alliance's lord. The map resets after two lords are removed. Massive GvG action there!

    Wolf Moonstar
    Dragon Council, Third Seat: Jade Sea Haven (Jade) of Ehmry Bay
    My Ryzen Rig

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @moonstarmac.4603 said:

    Personally I'd like to see a third WvW setup...where there are three keeps with lords and the goal is to kill the other alliance's lord. The map resets after two lords are removed. Massive GvG action there!

    So... Alterac Valley?

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • @LetoII.3782 said:

    @moonstarmac.4603 said:

    Personally I'd like to see a third WvW setup...where there are three keeps with lords and the goal is to kill the other alliance's lord. The map resets after two lords are removed. Massive GvG action there!

    So... Alterac Valley?

    lol haven't touched WoW in 9 years but yeah, something like that....or classic Alliance Battles from GW1

    Wolf Moonstar
    Dragon Council, Third Seat: Jade Sea Haven (Jade) of Ehmry Bay
    My Ryzen Rig

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 22, 2018

    You should see what AV has become before wishing it here. Both sides rushing past one another in a dps-the-lord race. It's barely PvP -_-

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

<1
©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.