Jump to content
  • Sign Up

World Restructuring / Alliances


Strider Pj.2193

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@"kmfart.7480" said:The answer is "Yes". Anet posted an update about it last summer on these forums. (They prolly had that restructuring going on, causing a lack of communication for a while).

So... you mean the throw away comment after their live event?

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/85879/future-plans-competitive/p1

When they said ‘oh.. btw, it’s still happening’ ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why do people keep saying that swiss is first because the tech from it will be used for Alliances. I remember them saying sPvP swiss first but am not recalling any connection in the tech. Maybe in the devs, but I can't see how the coding for swiss would tie into determining how to group people for an alliance or does someone recall a post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to have hope. Now I just about out of it. Alliances may come, but I'm almost to the point that I don't care. I'll keep playing WvW as long as I find it fun. Soon as it isn't I log off the game. While not a great way to measure, but one that's obvious: The fun kept me in where I'd wrap around diamond a few times, now I don't pass gold very often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Celebrimbor.7210" said:They are running a business. They need to make money to keep running the business. WvW probably doesn't make them enough money to spend resources on developing it further.

Agreed, but I don't understand how people assume "WvW" doesn't generate revenue for ANET? All their revenue comes via the Gem Store purchases, selling cosmetic and account upgrades.

WvW exclusive players likely don't need as many shared inventory slots as others, but bank tabs, character slots, material storage - I imagine they would be equally as important.

Outfits, Gliders, Mount Skins (Warclaw only obv), Armor and Weapon Skins, Dyes, Gathering Tools - all something a WvW exclusive player might be interested in buying. The only exception I can think of would be Chairs, since they can't be used in WvW.

And we're only talking about WvW-exclusive players here. I imagine a significant chunk of people who WvW also PvP and/or PvE.

Perfect case in point, I just dropped 1200 gems to get a Warclaw skin since I'm spending almost all my time in WvW these days. True, that doesn't compare to the 8 or so PvE mount skins I've acquired for all the other mounts, but it isn't nothing, and I wouldn't have bought a skin for the Warclaw if I were just a PvE player. No doubt PvE generates the most Gem Store revenue by comparison, but I wouldn't say WvW exclusive players bring nothing to ANET.

If anything I'd say the sPvP exclusive crowd would be the least interested in Gem Store upgrades, since they only need to be LV 1 to participate, and don't need mount skins, material storage, or tools, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Turkeyspit.3965 said:

@"Celebrimbor.7210" said:They are running a business. They need to make money to keep running the business. WvW probably doesn't make them enough money to spend resources on developing it further.

Agreed, but I don't understand how people assume "WvW" doesn't generate revenue for ANET? All their revenue comes via the Gem Store purchases, selling cosmetic and account upgrades.

WvW exclusive players likely don't need as many shared inventory slots as others, but bank tabs, character slots, material storage - I imagine they would be equally as important.

Outfits, Gliders, Mount Skins (Warclaw only obv), Armor and Weapon Skins, Dyes, Gathering Tools - all something a WvW exclusive player might be interested in buying. The only exception I can think of would be Chairs, since they can't be used in WvW.

And we're only talking about WvW-exclusive players here. I imagine a significant chunk of people who WvW also PvP and/or PvE.

Perfect case in point, I just dropped 1200 gems to get a Warclaw skin since I'm spending almost all my time in WvW these days. True, that doesn't compare to the 8 or so PvE mount skins I've acquired for all the other mounts, but it isn't nothing, and I wouldn't have bought a skin for the Warclaw if I were just a PvE player. No doubt PvE generates the most Gem Store revenue by comparison, but I wouldn't say WvW exclusive players bring nothing to ANET.

If anything I'd say the sPvP exclusive crowd would be the least interested in Gem Store upgrades, since they only need to be LV 1 to participate, and don't need mount skins, material storage, or tools, etc.

Yeah, have to agree this argument doesn't hold up. Granted I PvX but most of my stuff was bought due to WvW. And even above, Shared Inventory spots, maxed out and most of it is stuff for WvW. Food/Util buffs, siege of all types, could honestly need more space and would buy today if they upped the max again. If they released new elites, would be buying more character spots since I would want to create at least 1 more of each new elite, and that doesn't then count expanded bags spots on those toons. Bank tabs are full of ascended sets for various WvW builds. Please don't discount that WvW do make purchases as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:I ONLY WvW and PvP, I have every finisher, almost all outfits, glider skins, warclaw skins, gem harvesting kits, many Salvage-o-Matics, all bag slots unlocked on all accounts, many extra blank slots, maxed shared inventory slots etc etc. Why is there this notion that people who PvP/WvW don't spend money on the game?

Yep.

I don’t have quite that much, but have my share as well.

It seems to be the script to ensure PvE gets the lion’s share of the attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@EremiteAngel.9765 said:While we wait for Alliances, I really hope they consider reducing the number of servers from 12 to 9 as there are just not enough players to fill every time zone evenly.And the one-sidedness of many matchups across certain timezones are just discouraging for the outnumbered side.How is that going to stack timezones where people on the 12 servers today dont stack? You're going to force players from the removed 3 servers to play in specific timeslots?

If the answer is no, you're only going to stack already stacked timezones. Because thats often when people are online and play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@EremiteAngel.9765 said:While we wait for Alliances, I really hope they consider reducing the number of servers from 12 to 9 as there are just not enough players to fill every time zone evenly.And the one-sidedness of many matchups across certain timezones are just discouraging for the outnumbered side.How is that going to stack timezones where people on the 12 servers today dont stack? You're going to force players from the removed 3 servers to play in specific timeslots?

If the answer is no, you're only going to stack already stacked timezones. Because thats often when people are online and play.

This. @Dawdler.8521 is correct. Removing tiers won’t help timezones. It will populate maps more in some. But it won’t change the disparity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether they condense servers or do Alliances the devs need to take a much more active role in policing WvW populations.

They failed us before despite pressure externally (and even internally). Not sure if they were just lazy or if they just like seeing the revenue spike every time they open a certain server that can’t be named.

Better incentives (like daoc had) for underpopulated servers would also be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dralor.3701 said:Whether they condense servers or do Alliances the devs need to take a much more active role in policing WvW populations.

They failed us before despite pressure externally (and even internally). Not sure if they were just lazy or if they just like seeing the revenue spike every time they open a certain server that can’t be named.

Better incentives (like daoc had) for underpopulated servers would also be nice.

Considering that server has been open maybe three times in the last 2 years, I think they got a lot more revenue from all of the other bandwagons.

Blaming it on one server would be a mistake as the problem exists on both EU and NA as EU has felt the bandwagon pain as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Dralor.3701 said:Whether they condense servers or do Alliances the devs need to take a much more active role in policing WvW populations.

They failed us before despite pressure externally (and even internally). Not sure if they were just lazy or if they just like seeing the revenue spike every time they open a certain server that can’t be named.

Better incentives (like daoc had) for underpopulated servers would also be nice.

Considering that server has been open maybe three times in the last 2 years, I think they got a lot more revenue from all of the other bandwagons.

Blaming it on one server would be a mistake as the problem exists on both EU and NA as EU has felt the bandwagon pain as well.

Right, I don’t blame any players or server. The devs have the responsibility to referee the game and they have failed to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the whole point of Alliances was to match up using Guilds instead of servers. There will be more time-zone specific guilds (eg OCX guilds in NA) than there are servers. Therefore Alliances SHOULD allow the devs to "balance" time zones better by putting the major guilds for each time zone on different sides.

Obviously some Guilds are/will become very populated, but how does the max Guild population compare to max Server population? If Guild population is much lower then stacking should be less of an issue because big guilds can be set on opposing sides where Servers can't be subdivided.

If I'm right, Alliances should provide the tools for ANET to fix two of the major player issues in WvW at the moment... and that can't be a bad thing.

So when will we see positive news and launch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Yuffi.2430" said:I thought the whole point of Alliances was to match up using Guilds instead of servers. There will be more time-zone specific guilds (eg OCX guilds in NA) than there are servers. Therefore Alliances SHOULD allow the devs to "balance" time zones better by putting the major guilds for each time zone on different sides.

Generally speaking, yes. Of course, an alliance of almost entirely OCX or SEA could effectively strongly influence any world they are assigned to, leaving it very challenging for other worlds to ‘compete’ for overall score.

Obviously some Guilds are/will become very populated, but how does the max Guild population compare to max Server population?

We don’t really know. We can speculate. Max guild population is 500. Server size is not accurately known.

If Guild population is much lower then stacking should be less of an issue because big guilds can be set on opposing sides where Servers can't be subdivided.

Agreed.

If I'm right, Alliances should provide the tools for ANET to fix two of the major player issues in WvW at the moment... and that can't be a bad thing.

That is certainly the hope.

So when will we see positive news and launch?

And there is the key question.... many are tired of soon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...