Alliances: Friends vs Skill

I want to talk about something important regarding alliances; assuming alliances will still be a thing. That something is friends vs skill... And I feel it's important because the two don't necessarily always go hand in hand. Just from an honest perspective. So, based on my understanding. The "Alliance System" wants to make playing with friends/certain guild mates easier. Besides the whole population imbalance etc. Though, how would you account for these two factors of "Friends" & "Skill"? (Assuming that Alliance's are attempting to establish some "skill" based ranking system for the worlds that are created.) How should "friends" fit into this system?

• Example: A world wins a match primarily due to skill/outsmarting their opponents. Instead of winning (like currently) ultimately because of a higher coverage population.

Please discuss :3

I don't remember hearing about skill-based ranking system. To me, it seems like the same conflict already exists at times when it comes to recruiting for a guild. So I imagine things won't be all that different.

Well if I have neither then I should get my own alliance.

D:

@"Whiteout.1975" said:I want to talk about something important regarding alliances; assuming alliances will still be a thing. That something is friends vs skill... And I feel it's important because the two don't necessarily always go hand in hand. Just from an honest perspective. So, based on my understanding. The "Alliance System" wants to make playing with friends/certain guild mates easier. Besides the whole population imbalance etc. Though, how would you account for these two factors of "Friends" & "Skill"? (Assuming that Alliance's are attempting to establish some "skill" based ranking system for the worlds that are created.) How should "friends" fit into this system?

• Example: A world wins a match primarily due to skill/outsmarting their opponents. Instead of winning (like currently) ultimately because of a higher coverage population.

Please discuss :3

“ Will you build hard-core and casual worlds?

No. The goal is to balance worlds by population. The matchmaker, at this time, is unconcerned with trying to match skill.”

@"Swagger.1459" said:“ Will you build hard-core and casual worlds?

No. The goal is to balance worlds by population. The matchmaker, at this time, is unconcerned with trying to match skill.”

So if your team wins matches and move up tiers with balanced populations between worlds. Will that be because of skill or an "unconcerned" matchmaker?

• For example: Does this mean a player can just choose a WvW Guild, not really participate, but essentially just get carried to whatever awaits them through that guild/alliance? I'm just curious.

• For example: Does this mean a player can just choose a WvW Guild, not really participate, but essentially just get carried to whatever awaits them through that guild/alliance? I'm just curious.

Yes that’s what would happen.

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"Swagger.1459" said:“ Will you build hard-core and casual worlds?

No. The goal is to balance worlds by population. The matchmaker, at this time, is unconcerned with trying to match skill.”

• For example: Does this mean a player can just choose a WvW Guild, not really participate, but essentially just get carried to whatever awaits them through that guild/alliance? I'm just curious.

I was quoting Raymond Lukes, the Dev.

“Does this mean a player can just choose a WvW Guild”... Since when does the player get to decide what guild they will be in?

Well, it would stand to reason that if a player does “not really participate”, then they don’t progress their rank, get tickets, badges of honor, wvw chests or reward track progress. And if that player does “not really participate” to help their guild and alliance they could get kicked. Right?

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:“ Will you build hard-core and casual worlds?

No. The goal is to balance worlds by population. The matchmaker, at this time, is unconcerned with trying to match skill.”

• For example: Does this mean a player can just choose a WvW Guild, not really participate, but essentially just get carried to whatever awaits them through that guild/alliance? I'm just curious.

Maybe. It is a good thing to think about, I was thinking the same myself. I just tried to remember from experience that it really just depends on the standards of whatever guilds are out there. Some standards of course being higher than others. I'm just not really sure that would be fair to other players as a whole; if that did happen is all.

I was thinking maybe have a default system where if a player doesn't participate they get dropped from their WvW guild. Maybe even that particular world.

Of course we would have define some respectable form of "participation" here though.

I don't mean the actual guild though. Just the "WvW" player status in it.

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:“ Will you build hard-core and casual worlds?

No. The goal is to balance worlds by population. The matchmaker, at this time, is unconcerned with trying to match skill.”

• For example: Does this mean a player can just choose a WvW Guild, not really participate, but essentially just get carried to whatever awaits them through that guild/alliance? I'm just curious.

But theoretically, the more... strict the guild is, the more likely the guild will be successful..

And while that is not true for every case, a guild that has a good core leadership that ‘knows what they are doing’ (go figure what that is lol) and requires training, attracts others that feel this way, will likely be ‘successful’.

A guild may be ‘successful’ by being casual though. And if they are in an alliance, if that alliance leader doesn’t want the casual guild, then the guild will be kicked from the alliance which would impact the guild being in (possibly) a different world during the next ‘season/pairing/world creation.

@"Whiteout.1975" said:I was thinking maybe have a default system where if a player doesn't participate they get dropped from their WvW guild. Maybe even that particular world.

Of course we would have define some respectable form of "participation" here though.

Guilds will continue to police themselves as they see fit. No need for the devs to get involved with guild politics.

@Swagger.1459 said:

@"Whiteout.1975" said:I was thinking maybe have a default system where if a player doesn't participate they get dropped from their WvW guild. Maybe even that particular world.

Of course we would have define some respectable form of "participation" here though.

I agree with that statement. I'm just not sure that it's solely "guild politics" at this point as much as it is WvW politics let's say.

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:I was thinking maybe have a default system where if a player doesn't participate they get dropped from their WvW guild. Maybe even that particular world.

Of course we would have define some respectable form of "participation" here though.

Here is more info...

“ Playing with Guild Mates

We want to make sure that playing with WvW guild mates is easy in this new system. Guilds will be able to specify if they are a WvW guild. This essentially means the World Restructuring system will consider that factor at the start of each season when assigning the guild to a world. On an individual player level, once a player's guild has specified they are a WvW guild, the individual player will be able to set ONE of their guilds as their personal WvW guild. When World Restructuring happens at the start of a season, as long as you have specified your WvW guild, you will be assigned to the same world as everyone else in your WvW guild, guaranteeing you will be able to play with your guild mates.

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.”

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:I was thinking maybe have a default system where if a player doesn't participate they get dropped from their WvW guild. Maybe even that particular world.

Of course we would have define some respectable form of "participation" here though.

Thanks, I remember reading this. This is the one thing that really stood out to me personally out of all that was mentioned before. It just still seems a little vague on what's right or wrong here despite what they want. For instance, should being able to set a personal WvW guild require a guild permission... Kinda like how you need permissions to create teams? Because you are basically joining a team here when setting yourself as WvW player under that guild. I just think Anet needs to clarify all this a bit further personally.

The main thing I see here is a potential issue with participation. More so than your typical afk at spawn in WvW. Does Anet really want guilds/alliances to be a potential gateway to not so great participation, but still reward growth? Growth in status, maybe wealth or whatever it is to the come? Or should participation be encouraged more so for the sake and dignity of WvW as a game mode? Guess we will find out (if alliances ever come).

@Whiteout.1975 said:The main thing I see here is a potential issue with participation. More so than your typical afk at spawn in WvW. Does Anet really want guilds/alliances to be a potential gateway to not so great participation, but still reward growth? Growth in status, maybe wealth or whatever it is to the come? Or should participation be encouraged more so for the sake and dignity of WvW as a game mode? Guess we will find out (if alliances ever come).

Unfortunately, the devs can’t solve the “human element” variability issue. Matchups, at any time of day or night, will be more balanced or less balanced, but will never be perfectly balanced. Players will play when they want to play, and that’s how it will continue on. The only things guilds and alliances can do is manage their guilds and alliances, and those will be left for players to handle with autonomy.

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:The main thing I see here is a potential issue with participation. More so than your typical afk at spawn in WvW. Does Anet really want guilds/alliances to be a potential gateway to not so great participation, but still reward growth? Growth in status, maybe wealth or whatever it is to the come? Or should participation be encouraged more so for the sake and dignity of WvW as a game mode? Guess we will find out (if alliances ever come).

I completely agree. I think part of the problem is that matches are 24/7 for a week, but mostly the fact that they are 24/7. 24/7 just doesn't even attempt to care about you at the very least eating/sleeping irl lol. I think the mode would be better with a more realistic time frame if it can be done. Which I'm sure there is a way. Though, I do recall there was a post somewhere from Anet saying how they were running into problems because matches are 24/7. Not sure where the post is at this moment. However, it's pretty clear to me, at least in my opinion that 24/7 needs to go and they need to find a more realistic number to strive for and structure around that value. My opinion is I think attempting to structure around 1 hour matches is more realistic, but is that completely ideal? idk for sure. I do know that it is more realistic than 24/7 though lol.

Decided to hunt the post down I was referring to earlier: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/85879/future-plans-competitive/p1

Basically what I've been wanting for WvW for a long long... Oh so very long time. Population balanced with plans to actually make "winning mean something". Along with plans for better rewards. Sounds absolutely amazing... Great news @Anet! Though, I don't see that happening with "24/7" matches. With 24/7 there is just too much room for real life to take away from any truly competitive nature otherwise to be had in a match. This should go without saying, but everybody's time is different and can/does change at any moment. Just gotta figure out a fair match time. Like I said I think matches should be approximately 1 hour for WvW, but hey.

If Anet can encourage and establish quality participation system for WvW. I think that will get them a lot farther with "World Restructuring" than without. If people lose... Well, they generally won't feel as bad because quality participation was encouraged and likely experienced. Similar to if you win, that would just feel better too knowing you actually won as a team because you actually played and participated as a team. And it should also go without saying that you can't have quality population balance without quality participation.

Anyways, I would really focus on the participation element if I were Anet and ways to make that a more enjoyable experience for all sides involved, but hey maybe that's just me :)

@"Whiteout.1975" said:Decided to hunt the post down I was referring to earlier: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/85879/future-plans-competitive/p1

Basically what I've been wanting for WvW for a long long... Oh so very long time. Population balanced with plans to actually make "winning mean something". Along with plans for better rewards. Sounds absolutely amazing... Great news @Anet! Though, I don't see that happening with "24/7" matches. With 24/7 there is just too much room for real life to take away from any truly competitive nature otherwise to be had in a match. This should go without saying, but everybody's time is different and can/does change at any moment. Just gotta figure out a fair match time. Like I said I think matches should be approximately 1 hour for WvW, but hey.

If Anet can encourage and establish quality participation system for WvW. I think that will get them a lot farther with "World Restructuring" than without. If people lose... Well, they generally won't feel as bad because quality participation was encouraged and likely experienced. Similar to if you win, that would just feel better too knowing you actually won as a team because you actually played and participated as a team. And it should also go without saying that you can't have quality population balance without quality participation.

Anyways, I would really focus on the participation element if I were Anet and ways to make that a more enjoyable experience for all sides involved, but hey maybe that's just me :)

a tier on all sides must have atleast 40 at all times.

that is the minimum for wvw

This thread sort of went in a different direction than I was expecting from the OP, but to answer the question I thought the OP was asking, I'll say I would much rather play with like-minded ppl than skilled ppl. Fighting and losing is just part of the game, it's the refusal to fight that I can't abide . . .

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"Swagger.1459" said:“ Will you build hard-core and casual worlds?

No. The goal is to balance worlds by population. The matchmaker, at this time, is unconcerned with trying to match skill.”

• For example: Does this mean a player can just choose a WvW Guild, not really participate, but essentially just get carried to whatever awaits them through that guild/alliance? I'm just curious.

move up? Teams reset and move players around.

@"Gop.8713" said:This thread sort of went in a different direction than I was expecting from the OP, but to answer the question I thought the OP was asking, I'll say I would much rather play with like-minded ppl than skilled ppl. Fighting and losing is just part of the game, it's the refusal to fight that I can't abide . . .

lol well I hope that a good thing. I completely agree though, I'm in the same boat of playing with like-minded people over skill. What I'm referring to when I say "skill"... I'm basically referring to like skill as team together. Not from an individual to individual basis. Like "oh that team is skilled". So when players win a match through this World Restructuring System I was wondering how that would look as a team. Will the "team" be considered "skillful" if certain people are still carried too much? OR will you just win due to random chance this time, not so much population imbalance and skill as a team gets disregarded ultimately because of it?

I think it's important that people feel their accomplishments when they actually deserve them because that just makes sense to me. So I'm just curious :)

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"Swagger.1459" said:“ Will you build hard-core and casual worlds?

No. The goal is to balance worlds by population. The matchmaker, at this time, is unconcerned with trying to match skill.”

• For example: Does this mean a player can just choose a WvW Guild, not really participate, but essentially just get carried to whatever awaits them through that guild/alliance? I'm just curious.

Are you familiar with moving up ranks for example like in sPvP? Because that's basically similar to what I was thinking of. You do good... You move further up because you are good.

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"Swagger.1459" said:“ Will you build hard-core and casual worlds?

No. The goal is to balance worlds by population. The matchmaker, at this time, is unconcerned with trying to match skill.”

• For example: Does this mean a player can just choose a WvW Guild, not really participate, but essentially just get carried to whatever awaits them through that guild/alliance? I'm just curious.

move up what though? Alliances shuffle players around every reset. So what is there to move up? thats the point I was making.

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"Gop.8713" said:This thread sort of went in a different direction than I was expecting from the OP, but to answer the question I thought the OP was asking, I'll say I would much rather play with like-minded ppl than skilled ppl. Fighting and losing is just part of the game, it's the refusal to fight that I can't abide . . .

How would skill in the way you are defining it here, be determined by the computers that would run the matchmaking system you want?

I am not sure how any computer can objectively determine player group skills in the way you describe.