Alliance system addition suggestion (Rivals)

One thing that I would like to see added if possible would be a rival system. This would need to be considered early as this is deeply rooted in the algorithm, which is why I am suggesting this now. For example, I have a WvW guild that is on one server, and I have a friend that runs another. We have a friendly rivalship between our guilds, competing against each other when servers align. It would be nice to see this be an option to set rivals like alliances. For this to not be abused to punish easily target guilds, both sides should have to agree to this rivalship, with ability to drop it at any time (of course waiting till world recreation to take effect). This could create more fun for players, challenging other guilds to fight and giving the players more of what they want, with little chance for easy abuse as it would be easy to annul or dissolve if they changed their minds. I believe this would have even greater impact long term as when the game reaches maintenance mode, this could keep the game alive longer due to the fun that it could add to the players that are still around long after the mainstream players leave. That is thinking WAY out, but it shows that it an option that is worth at least considering while designing the system, even if not part of the initial overhaul. Please let me know what others think as I would absolutely LOVE to see this put in. I've been getting even more into WvW lately, and have been glowing my guild just for it. As many concerns as many have about this restructure, I believe it will make this game mode much more alive and rewarding for all, and hope this suggestion could help that just a bit more.

(line breaks please)

I couldn't find what you wanted this "rival system" to actually do ?

@"joneirikb.7506" said:(line breaks please)

I couldn't find what you wanted this "rival system" to actually do ?

WvW wintrade.

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@"joneirikb.7506" said:(line breaks please)

I couldn't find what you wanted this "rival system" to actually do ?

And what's the point of willing in WvW? Literally nothing, so no point in that. The point is to face off against people you like to have battles with.

@thatdarnkatz.7168 said:

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@"joneirikb.7506" said:(line breaks please)

I couldn't find what you wanted this "rival system" to actually do ?

They said that the reward will probably change, but first of all they have to test the new system.So, with the current rewards could maybe be not useful to trade, but who knows about the new rewards.

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@thatdarnkatz.7168 said:

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@"joneirikb.7506" said:(line breaks please)

I couldn't find what you wanted this "rival system" to actually do ?

And that's kind of why I'm suggesting this NOW and not later. This would be a massive design consideration to prevent abuse, and if planned for in advance, could prevent easy abuse of this system. Ignoring possibly win trading repercussions due to rewards (which can be solved) is this something that anyone else is interested in? WvW is basically community driven at this point, as the battles are always over the same things every single day. I am looking for a way to keep things driven by us in a way that people could actually get what they want much like a certain server that I am on will just drop out of a certain tier to go fight the groups they like in a lower tier to the point that massive guilds just take a week off when we hit that tier. This is what started the idea.

Allowing players to chose enemies leads toward wintrading.I mean i accept that there could be possibilities to prevent exploiting but, why should they risk?

@"Shirlias.8104" said:Allowing players to chose enemies leads toward wintrading.I mean i accept that there could be possibilities to prevent exploiting but, why should they risk?

I'm guessing that you REALLY like the idea of winning. WvW hasn't been about winning for years, it's been about the battles, not the end result. How is win trading an issue when the only reason to win is knowing you are better than the others. On top of that, you wouldn't be picking your only opponents, nor does it have to be the same every time. It could simply take it into consideration into the algorithm as an additional weighting mechanism, not as a simple "Well, they want to fight, let's just only ever match them up". It would be preferential, not deterministic. WvW winning should be worth something. Glory. Gold and item rewards should not be needed. For those that think that materialistic rewards are needed, will not have any rivals, and therefor won't actually use this system. We won't have "the best server in NA" any more, because we won't have servers. Where are you going to win trade to? Nowhere.

Who decides what the rivalries are? What if they can't agree? Won't that make match-ups stale again which we're trying to avoid with the new system? It seems a step back instead of a step forward.

Materialistic rewards were introduced because the SPvP and WvW playerbase were not so large.

I do agree that ppl should play in order to have fun, but in years of MMO i happened to see that mmo players are compulsive creatures unable to play for fun, and instead people which need a rewardThat's why the reward tracks, legendary armors, legendary backpack, ascended equipment, etc...

However, the current situation is this.

• The current WvW will go soon.
• It will be replaced with a new system based on alliance between guilds
• After have tested this new system, Devs will introduce different and probably new rewards.
• Because of rewards, players will try to organize themselves in order to get em in the easiet way, which for somebody includes cheating/exploiting.

I am simply trying to focus on eventually exploits/cheats which could be possible with the new system.Where or even how are players going to wintrade? I am still not sure, but giving them more freedom could be the front entrance for more exploits.

So, I understand your point but i wonder... could it lead to any exploit?Maybe a dedicated map with no rewards ( just to test group vs group ) could do the thing, but I doubt they will ever consider something like this.

How about putting bounties on players that cap objectives / kill enemy players? Bounty scales with how many objectives the player caps / enemies the player kills without dying.

@jacksmith.6028 said:Who decides what the rivalries are? What if they can't agree? Won't that make match-ups stale again which we're trying to avoid with the new system? It seems a step back instead of a step forward.

Who would decide? Both of the alliances. It would have to work like an alliance. Once sends invite to Alliance (Or rival) the other accepts. Both can absolve it the same way as an alliance could.

I like the rivals idea. But I think we need to recognize the limitations of it.

Your alliance and an enemy alliance both opt into the "rivals" option. This does not mean you will always be fighting each other. All it would mean is that you will never be paired with that alliance on the same world.