Patreon: - How I Think Alliances Should Have Been Handled

[Whiteout.1975]

I stopped myself from making this post a couple of years ago because I thought to myself, "Eh, Anet adding only a system (Alliances). Anet is not even making a full-on game or full-on expansion. How much longer can it take?" Yet, here we all are, years later, still waiting . . . I guess that is what "soon" means. Anyways, done with that small rant. I making this post regarding an idea involving how I still think Alliances could have progressed much faster. The idea is overall simple:

Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators items such as Gems, Artwork, and/or whatever is perceived fair, what matches their contribution, in/out of the game. I would have gladly donated to the cause. I am not making this post anymore complicated than that. That is all, thanks for reading.

[Fish.2769]

Is the exciting and new Gem Store additions not enough to sink your money into...?

[XenesisII.1540]

Think you mean crowd funding? Patreon is like a sub?

Also I don't think they had a problem with funding as you all seem to think. They had a bunch of side projects in the works if you don't remember, so they obviously had development power to improve wvw over all those years, they chose not to make it a priority ever. Whatever developments they made, most of it was under appreciated, because frankly it wasn't much to begin with, and a lot of it were things they wanted not what the players wanted, so I would guess they made even less effort after.

But sure, run a crowd funding for it, they just better be ready to actually develop and improve wvw if they do so, and not be like hey guys alliances is still coming along, also we have a new game we're now developing stay tuned!.

[Whiteout.1975]

@"XenesisII.1540" said:Think you mean crowd funding? Patreon is like a sub?

Also I don't think they had a problem with funding as you all seem to think. They had a bunch of side projects in the works if you don't remember, so they obviously had development power to improve wvw over all those years, they chose not to make it a priority ever. Whatever developments they made, most of it was under appreciated, because frankly it wasn't much to begin with, and most of it were things they wanted not what the players wanted, so I would guess they never made even less effort after.

But sure, run a crowd funding for it, they just better be ready to actually develop and improve wvw if they do so.

Patreon can be set up for different tiers to greater reward people who donate especially more than others. Although, all donators usually get some kind of reward. I do not care much on the platform used. However, initially, that is why I jumped towards mentioning Patreon.

Personally, no, I did not forget about the past side projects. My issue with those projects is that they were kept "secret," for the longest time, from the player base. I want to know where my money is going this time EXACTLY, as much as the next guy/gal should. Other than that, I agree with everything else you said.

[knite.1542]

Do you actually have faith that anet would deliver if some hypothetical goal set by them was met?

[Whiteout.1975]

@"knite.1542" said:Do you actually have faith that anet would deliver if some hypothetical goal set by them was met?

The amount of "faith" I posses, large or small, holds very little if any weight in the overall desired outcome of Alliances. Sure though, I'll still bite. If the goal set by them "was met," as you said, then in all fairness, yes, I should have reason to believe at that point Anet would deliver. Regardless, people, no matter where they stand, have the option to donate however much or not at all. If they find this option too risky, then they simply don't donate then. However, I find this option more appealing than doing nothing at all as we all theorize on what could be. Not to mention, all while I have the option to buy gems, dress "cool," or whatever and continuing playing anything else, in-game, but Alliances.

[Justine.6351]

You presume it is a matter of money rather than a matter of interest on their part.

If only a couple of devs are interested in even touching it, that's not going to go very far I would imagine.

Throwing out money isn't always a solution.

[Whiteout.1975]

@"Justine.6351" said:You presume it is a matter of money rather than a matter of interest on their part.

If only a couple of devs are interested in even touching it, that's not going to go very far I would imagine.

Throwing out money isn't always a solution.

No, I firstly presume it is a matter of interest because they brought up "Alliances" to the player base. Merely stating that "money isn't always a solution" does not prove it was not part of the solution either. Additionally, the intention is not to just continue to "[throw] out money". The money is intended to go in a specific direction, being Alliances. Enough money could potentially help them put on a bigger team if need be. Besides if one man can come this far:

Then surely a few devs should be able to put together a system (not even a full game) together. Otherwise, what the fuck.

[Sovereign.1093]

There is china flu, which caused disruption in everyone's money making scheme. So, if you plan to do a sub when most ppl are trying to survive or don't have work, you will end up with an empty game.

A good business model must be seen from the point of view of the environment. Your market, the means ppl make money, etc.

[Whiteout.1975]

@Sovereign.1093 said:There is china flu, which caused disruption in everyone's money making scheme. So, if you plan to do a sub when most ppl are trying to survive or don't have work, you will end up with an empty game.

A good business model must be seen from the point of view of the environment. Your market, the means ppl make money, etc.

Alright, then people should not donate if it is not convenient for them any more than they continue to buy unessential gems as we speak.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:There is china flu, which caused disruption in everyone's money making scheme. So, if you plan to do a sub when most ppl are trying to survive or don't have work, you will end up with an empty game.

A good business model must be seen from the point of view of the environment. Your market, the means ppl make money, etc.

Alright, then people should not donate if it is not convenient for them any more than they continue to buy unessential gems as we speak.

Anet needs a mode where you need to compete because there players will spend gold for necessities and gems to gold.etc.

Also it shouldn't be something that you must use cash directly. Like an option we have now but I give it 40% more likely people to spend cash if they like the mode.

I.e. old school tourneys. Because we wanted to buy those sieges. Upgrade those structures etc.,

Now anet needs to do something like this. Something meaningful. Something that gives us feelings for the game.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"Justine.6351" said:You presume it is a matter of money rather than a matter of interest on their part.

If only a couple of devs are interested in even touching it, that's not going to go very far I would imagine.

Throwing out money isn't always a solution.

No, I firstly presume it is a matter of interest because they brought up "Alliances" to the player base. Merely stating that "money isn't always a solution" does not prove it was not part of the solution either. Additionally, the intention is not to just continue to "[throw] out money". The money is intended to go in a specific direction, being Alliances. Enough money could potentially help them put on a bigger team if need be. Besides if one man can come this far:

Then surely a few devs should be able to put together a system (not even a full game) together. Otherwise, what the kitten.Yeah, and then compare how many crowdfunded things have failed or had millions put into them and then nothing to show for it.

[Whiteout.1975]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"Justine.6351" said:You presume it is a matter of money rather than a matter of interest on their part.

If only a couple of devs are interested in even touching it, that's not going to go very far I would imagine.

Throwing out money isn't always a solution.

No, I firstly presume it is a matter of interest because they brought up "Alliances" to the player base. Merely stating that "money isn't always a solution" does not prove it was not part of the solution either. Additionally, the intention is not to just continue to "[throw] out money". The money is intended to go in a specific direction, being Alliances. Enough money could potentially help them put on a bigger team if need be. Besides if one man can come this far:

Then surely a few devs should be able to put together a system (not even a full game) together. Otherwise, what the kitten.Yeah, and then compare how many crowdfunded things have failed or had millions put into them and then nothing to show for it.

. . . And then compare how many crowdfunded things have succeeded with something to show for it.

[enkidu.5937]

Ppl already donate with transfer costs in the current model.

As far as I understood it (or not^^), alliances will bring (A) the opportunity to stack up to 500 ppl (which can already be done now by stacking ppl into a guild, so its just some kind of QoL addition) and (B) restrictions to the transfer system (that are urgently needed).

So this crowd funding would have to be on par with the continous revenue from transfer costs to make it appealing for Anet, gl with that ^^

[SexyMofo.8923]

Lol. We all know that money would have been wasted on side projects.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"Justine.6351" said:You presume it is a matter of money rather than a matter of interest on their part.

If only a couple of devs are interested in even touching it, that's not going to go very far I would imagine.

Throwing out money isn't always a solution.

No, I firstly presume it is a matter of interest because they brought up "Alliances" to the player base. Merely stating that "money isn't always a solution" does not prove it was not part of the solution either. Additionally, the intention is not to just continue to "[throw] out money". The money is intended to go in a specific direction, being Alliances. Enough money could potentially help them put on a bigger team if need be. Besides if one man can come this far:

Then surely a few devs should be able to put together a system (not even a full game) together. Otherwise, what the kitten.Yeah, and then compare how many crowdfunded things have failed or had millions put into them and then nothing to show for it.

. . . And then compare how many crowdfunded things have succeeded with something to show for it.Yeah like Camelot Unchained, which people on this forum said killed WvW in 2015.

Wait.

[primatos.5413]

At least it seems to have killed roaming. Roaming dead :(

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

I used to crowd fund, it was called buying gems, as a 100% WvW player, I also bought the game and the expacs.

They stated back when this was all still fresh that most of the system was already in place, as it's a modification of the existing system. They stated that they more or less just needed to make a GUI for it and they wanted to study server populations so they had data to work with, as if they didn't already have that from years of game play already. This is just another example of people acting like it is more work for this system than a new triple A game. When really it's a job a single person could have completed by now....What people don't understand is that NOT EVEN A SINGLE PERSON HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS. I had hopes I was wrong, but at this point it's clear no one has been working on it and they are just hoping over time people forget it was ever talked about. And considering the number of old school players on my list that has logged-in in the past few months is shrinking faster and faster, that might actually happen.

The direction GW2 is going in the super casual mindset, with only scraps given to WvW, I mean come on, this system is less work than a SINGLE living story update. So we don't even really get scraps anymore to be honest. But what I am waiting for is them to start adding pay to win items, I can see it coming already.

[Sovereign.1093]

Eotm mwahaha. Revive this and kill wvw

[Swagger.1459]

@"Whiteout.1975" said:I stopped myself from making this post a couple of years ago because I thought to myself, "Eh, Anet adding only a system (Alliances). Anet is not even making a full-on game or full-on expansion. How much longer can it take?" Yet, here we all are, years later, still waiting . . . I guess that is what "soon" means. Anyways, done with that small rant. I making this post regarding an idea involving how I still think Alliances could have progressed much faster. The idea is overall simple:

Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators items such as Gems, Artwork, and/or whatever is perceived fair, what matches their contribution, in/out of the game. I would have gladly donated to the cause. I am not making this post anymore complicated than that. That is all, thanks for reading.

Name all the established MMOs that turn to crowd funding for continued development?

[knite.1542]

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"knite.1542" said:Do you actually have faith that anet would deliver if some hypothetical goal set by them was met?

The amount of "faith" I posses, large or small, holds very little if any weight in the overall desired outcome of Alliances. Sure though, I'll still bite. If the goal set by them "was met," as you said, then in all fairness, yes, I should have reason to believe at that point Anet would deliver. Regardless, people, no matter where they stand, have the option to donate however much or not at all. If they find this option too risky, then they simply don't donate then.

You don't really need to 'bite', the question isn't bait, it is just a question. Either way, the only reason I ask is because anet doesn't have the greatest track record of doing what they say they are going to do. I remember a time when they listed 2nd generation legendary weapons as a selling point of the Heart of Thorns expansion and then once they realized they couldn't deliver that, they silently changed the Heart of Thorns FAQ page, removing any mention of legendary weapons, and only addressed it after they got called out by the community.

Things like that are why I believe that, even if arenanet were to do something like this, I don't think they would deliver if the goal was met.

edit: Also, not trying to be a negative nancy, just being realistic. Anet clearly has little to no interest in alliances, or wvw in general.

[Excursion.9752]

Alliances are alive and well you just have to spend money to get gems and switch to a server. So in short its already being funded. And I believe until Anet can figure out a way to monetize alliances we will not see it implemented.

[Sovereign.1093]

I doubt alliances will happen if there is no announcements. It's not really worth taking seriously until they do tournaments.

[Whiteout.1975]

@"enkidu.5937" said:Ppl already donate with transfer costs in the current model.

As far as I understood it (or not^^), alliances will bring (A) the opportunity to stack up to 500 ppl (which can already be done now by stacking ppl into a guild, so its just some kind of QoL addition) and (B) restrictions to the transfer system (that are urgently needed).

So this crowd funding would have to be on par with the continous revenue from transfer costs to make it appealing for Anet, gl with that ^^

We do not know what/where these donations are used in funding in its entirety. The majority could still be supporting side projects and/or the typically focused advancements made in PvE, such as expansions, raids, or what have you. The OP offers a more focused method or direct intentions toward alliances . . . But I cannot ever hope to compete with one's own belief system of where they believe the money with go, that's a personal problem.

Alliances started out as a concept, but was and still is subject to change as Anet originally claimed. Ultimately, it is a system that intends to create a more balanced population system, yes.

Transfers are a much more limiting approach. I should not need to get into "why" on this one. However, something like the crowdfunding or subscription-based (subscriptions can be simply 30 days even and then end) are free to donate basically anytime, until the desired amount is reached. And for people who do not wish to transfer, this creates a more easy/alternate/direct method of donating to the intended cause. A method that may easily hold more value to them.

Considering what I've said, I appreciate your offer "luck," but I may easily find myself saying "good luck" to transfers if the situation ever did arise.

[Whiteout.1975]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"Justine.6351" said:You presume it is a matter of money rather than a matter of interest on their part.

If only a couple of devs are interested in even touching it, that's not going to go very far I would imagine.

Throwing out money isn't always a solution.

No, I firstly presume it is a matter of interest because they brought up "Alliances" to the player base. Merely stating that "money isn't always a solution" does not prove it was not part of the solution either. Additionally, the intention is not to just continue to "[throw] out money". The money is intended to go in a specific direction, being Alliances. Enough money could potentially help them put on a bigger team if need be. Besides if one man can come this far:

Then surely a few devs should be able to put together a system (not even a full game) together. Otherwise, what the kitten.Yeah, and then compare how many crowdfunded things have failed or had millions put into them and then nothing to show for it.

. . . And then compare how many crowdfunded things have succeeded with something to show for it.Yeah like Camelot Unchained, which people on this forum said killed WvW in 2015.

Wait.

Well I was never one of those people if that makes you feel better. However, I rather not get into attempted murders vs attempted suicides if we are still comparing here.