Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Do you care if the supposed " Alliance " system comes out?


Ya Ya Yeah.7381

Recommended Posts

Both. Wasn't asking for it, but since everything else got put behind it, would prefer it launch so we can get to other changes, but many of those are impacted by how alliances mix things up. That said, I more expect this will be a free 'feature' for the upcoming expansion so wouldn't expect it till then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@ASP.8093 said:

@subversiontwo.7501 said:You still have groups of 1, 5, 15 and 50 entrenched in their own submodes, but where is 10, 25, 30 etc.? PvX, havoc/fwd-op etc. were the first to leave the game over these issues as they depended more on the system.

What the heck is "PvX" in this context?PvX guilds are guilds that are both into PvE and PvP.

Yup, I am a PvXer. If in GW2 I will more than likely go to WvW to roam/havoc and scout and ride some zergs. But if my side has it covered and we don't need peeps I might go do some sPvP or try some of the current metas. Use to Fractal but group feel away from that. So as Subversiontwo said it peeps that might opt to do other things in game but still WvW. Once upon a time was just a WvWer but you can only care so long and without changes its grows on you and you have to mix it up or leave to another game. Ktrains in the past were also a cause of burnout. You would spend hours building up a spot and sieging it up to have a zerg show and then when you make the callouts no one shows so those hours of time were just a waste. What was worse was when your ktrain would reply don't worry we will recap it after they have left. Note this was back before structures ranked up and were worth more, which is why I will always go back to reasons for defense and the tier system helps that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I care but have no hope x)I just want anet to stop breaking communities with relink. Just delete some servers and make everyone that lost it's server chose one for free. make the full pull not at a certain amount of players but at a difference gap (25% more players than other servers are full) idk something like this. and please, check server population more than once a week, you should check it everyday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6 Hundred Dollar Man version of Alliances...with the same effect on long-term WvW community.

Hmm...

  1. Let's open all servers except the Top 5 Ranked WvW servers for EU & NA with a free transfer.
  2. Let's allow Only Paid accounts without a chosen home server to choose ANY server at ANY time.
  3. Let's do this Quarterly...because businesses have financial cycles to report profit.

Oh...very important.

Keep Server Linking because it gives ANet a control point to prevent players from avoiding their anti-stacking tactics already in place.

Seriously...this should boost Anet's income temporarily & players get to stack only once on an account if they pay for it. :trollface:


In the end...nothing changes...and the long-term WvW community will continue to suffer.

Unbalanced WvW Match-Ups due to Over-stacked Population (Server or Alliance) will continue un-changed.

Solutions based on Team Creation are NOT as effective as solutions based on Match-Up Design...imho

Instead of trying to fix Unbalanced WvW Match-Ups with Team Creation...why not just directly fix the Match-Up Design.

World Linking has already failed & Alliance Linking will fail for the same reason....Team Creation.

Can we instead replace the Fixed 3 way Match-Up between servers that are pigeon-holed into Gold, Silver, and Bronze Tiers with a better Match-Up Design?

Let's just do the 600 Hundred Dollar version of Alliances & call it a day...instead of throwing good development time & money after a proven flop.

The Six Million Dollar Man Opening and Closing Theme (With Intro) HD Surround

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question is if Anet is no longer a company but there's a scared janitor that never left because of the pandemic. Desperately hunting for food in what used to be a busy workplace and smash buttons and beating their head on things just happened to make the content of 2020 we have so far. Can this janitor get hungry enough to create alliances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was long time thinking that alliances would not bring anything. It would just be another name for "server". Also, I was thinking that anet tried to introduce alliances through the backdoor by lowering the population cap for each server. However, the transfer history of the last months made me change my mind. Players switch so much around and uncover the problems of the current system that I believe alliances could actually calm the situation down.

That having said: I dont think they will come anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idk.Game feels bad to play, things get changed so often for the worse, builds get randomly buffed and nerfed with no regard for actual game balance, and of course, LAG.

At this point there are so many problems that Alliance system being introduced will be the last thing anyone wants, not because we don't want it, but because there are so many things that needs fixing asap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:Alliances will make the bandwaggoning even worse. So it would be better if they never come

How? The current tranferring is a total mess. We have the second link in a row 2 full EU-server linked. We have an unlinked server (dzagonur) falling from full to high within days without any hope of change until October.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@gloflop.3510 said:

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:Alliances will make the bandwaggoning even worse. So it would be better if they never come

How? The current tranferring is a total mess. We have the second link in a row 2 full EU-server linked. We have an unlinked server (dzagonur) falling from full to high within days without any hope of change until October.

so: 'big guild X' and 'guild Y' announce their alliance, guild Y takes in lots of new player 'looking for fights'. done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:Alliances will make the bandwaggoning even worse. So it would be better if they never come

How? The current tranferring is a total mess. We have the second link in a row 2 full EU-server linked. We have an unlinked server (dzagonur) falling from full to high within days without any hope of change until October.

so: 'big guild X' and 'guild Y' announce their alliance, guild Y takes in lots of new player 'looking for fights'. done.

Not that I am not siding on good or bad here. But alliances will favor those that are more organized. I think to the point that over time alliances will become their own servers since ANet will have to decide to cap guilds or be faced that the server is one entire guild. Which might mean everyone else become the pug militia on these non-mega guild servers. Again hard to say how that will play out till it does, and then whether that is good or bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how alliances will make anything better. First of all I haven't really seen anything but speculation about it so it is hard to even say much.But I have played a mmo before which had alliance system for large scale pvp. You know what happened? One strong alliance basically dominated everything and it took literary years before it finally broke apart only to be replaced by another. And their downfall was just due to their boredom and internal drama. People still tried to bandwagon only now it meant you had to get into one of those guilds and that meant you were left to their mercy. Most small guilds didn't even play the mode like ever because it was just pointless if you weren't part of the 2 or 3 big alliances. Different game, different systems but I wouldn't bet on players themselves regulating WvW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a bit bigger question is: "Does Anet care?"

The only thing I care about at this point is what Anet has done. They've gotten so many people's hopes up, yet, only to let the community wander around in the dark along with a brief amount of unreliable clues that cycle right back into that darkness. This is a cruel, unusual, and unprofessional route for any otherwise respectable company to take, in my opinion. Also, no, I do not think I am too dramatic by stating that. Anet is honestly not honoring people's time spent wandering over Alliances when Anet already receives a fair amount of that time invested in their game. I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:Alliances will make the bandwaggoning even worse. So it would be better if they never come

How? The current tranferring is a total mess. We have the second link in a row 2 full EU-server linked. We have an unlinked server (dzagonur) falling from full to high within days without any hope of change until October.

so: 'big guild X' and 'guild Y' announce their alliance, guild Y takes in lots of new player 'looking for fights'. done.

Not that I am not siding on good or bad here. But alliances will favor those that are more organized. I think to the point that over time alliances will become their own servers since ANet will have to decide to cap guilds or be faced that the server is one entire guild. Which might mean everyone else become the pug militia on these non-mega guild servers. Again hard to say how that will play out till it does, and then whether that is good or bad.

Yeah, that sort of is what the system implies, right? Consider that there will sort of be 3 layers. You will have purpose-built Alliances or Guilds of Alliance size becomming the nave of a Battlegroup (Server), you will have socially-knitted Alliances or Guilds of Alliance size (ie., server communities) becomming the naves of lower tiered Battlegroups (Server) and then you will have everybody else being filler for each Battlegroup.

The vision in the announcement listed multiple Alliances making up a Battlegroup but that wasn't even realistic back then and is less so now.

It isn't all that different from what we have today with the stacked servers; servers with sizable casual guilds, community guilds or server identity; and all the people who never join community Discords et. al. The difference will be in who will have apparent superior access to the tags because someone always does. Under the current system we have issues with players of group C causing group A to transfer (by turning servers full, by turning servers unlinked, by turning maps queued etc.) while also driving players of group A (or B ) from the game by having equal or better access when transfering. Servers being full or costing money to get on means that someone gets left out.

Some anecdotes:

Imagine being a tag, having an overpopulated server with constant queues so playing with your friends is difficult. You talk to your friends and decide to rustle up the money to transfer somewhere. You get the money and transfer but one of your friends falls behind a bit. In the meantime 2000 other players transfer to you. Your new server now has constant queues to when you tag, your friend is still not here yet, frustrated getting money or can't even transfer because the new server is full. Your friend quits and so do you. The mode now has one less tag. Repeat.

Imagine being a tag and wanting to (re-)start a guild to help you command. Your friends are scattered over 10 different servers because they've joined other guilds that have died. You realize that to play together everyone will have to pay. Some friends are willing, others are not. You can't recruit your group back together. Your project fails before it even starts. You lose motivation even though you were willing to tag and share that content with everyone else as long as your friends could be included. The mode now has one less tag. Repeat.

Imagine being a tag, with a guild you have worked hard to put together. You have created a community around you and your guild is the pillar of a wider community. Random players flock to your server because you're such a nice guy to be around. You want to recruit to keep your guild running. Your server is full. Half your guild ends up on your link. Half your guild has to transfer every relink. Then your server gets unlinked. Half your guild can not play with the other half because you are such a popular guy being nice and providing all that content. You transfer to another server or quit the game. Either way, the server has one less tag. Repeat.

All these examples are also why people should care, as per the thread title, because unless you are in a group that creates its own content, this is your content bleeding as well. Not to mention actually finding something appropriate to match up with. Good enemies are as important as good friends.

Many people voting "no" here are actually so stupid that they do not understand that they are being counterproductive to their own position because it is not unhinged from the other. A naive selfish position that takes other people's tags for granted can and will backfire. There is no choice between server commanders and guild commanders here. There is the choice to support your guilds that birth commanders that later share their content to the server or not supporting them.

The Alliance system is different in providing both alternative methods and caps to transfers that swings advantage back into the hands of groups A or B and through that encourages players in group C to enter into groups A or B or settle with a level of content that reflects their decisions on how to play. There's not necessarily something inherently wrong in being unaffiliated (casual, anonymous etc.). The issues comes when those players are enabled to interfere with the other players who try to do something more, build something, create something etc. That is what the current system does, it interferes.

There is certainly a good and bad here, with the bad driving players who want to build (community) and create (content) from the mode and game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah. Don't care anymore. Actually, I haven't logged into GW2 for months (maybe a year?) because this was being talked about for so long and it still hasn't happened. I'm glad I made the right decision to walk away to do other, better things because I'd still be waiting for this game to actually do something worth talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

All these examples are also why people should care, as per the thread title, because unless you are in a group that creates its own content, this is your content bleeding as well. Not to mention actually finding something appropriate to match up with. Good enemies are as important as good friends.

I apologize for sub-quoting but its more from you having good examples and I don't disagree. I am going back a game here though that also had an alliance system and one of the biggest issues was making sure there were adequate tools to form and to dissolve an alliance. A guild that was accepted into an alliance became so toxic that it made people just not want to play while guild officers had to go thru steps to remove the added guild which took a while. Hopefully the toolset being planned for can account for that type of situation since....if it happens one place it very well may happen again elsewhere.

@subversiontwo.7501 said:Many people voting "no" here are actually so stupid that they do not understand that they are being counterproductive to their own position because it is not unhinged from the other. A naive selfish position that takes other people's tags for granted can and will backfire. There is no choice between server commanders and guild commanders here. There is the choice to support your guilds that birth commanders that later share their content to the server or not supporting them.

I don't know if I would fault them without knowing the why. It's been a long while now and in gaming this long of a release schedule can be trying. On top of that when you know such a change is significant people may stop requesting other changes that are not on the same scale but might be worsened or improved based on alliances and how it affect's game-play. WvW had already waited behind sPvP, which to any non-sPvPer might have asked, why am I dependent on changes to another game mode!? Most players won't equate B2P as more limiting in staffing and won't connect it takes longer for releases. So some people voting NO might just be at the point that they set their expectations too high and still want other changes. I can't see how this wouldn't be a ++Feature free with an expansion, and personally without proof it seemed at the time they engaged the playerbase I think they were thinking about an expansion and needed the 'what's the WvW expansion' look like part of the conversation. But then again I will have to ask why I am wearing this aluminum hat and I could be way off base. Either way I will side with we need more WvW changes versus less and will disclose as in the past that I come from Warhammer Online and we had lots of maps to fight across and people playing literally till they pulled the plug on the last night of the last day in the last hour. WvW / RvR is endgame and should get love since it is player driven content that will take a life of its own.

  • Grimjester ~ Choppa 'Order's End'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I hope alliances will never be released. Not because I'm mean or spiteful, but I actually believe alliances would be the end of WvW.What do many people fight for? So much is about server loyalty and the community.So I'm a member of three different WvW guilds, one for casual play, one for GvG and one for friday and saturday nights when a certain commanderturns up which I like to play with.With an alliance you can be certain my GvG guild will not form an alliance with the casual one and the commander guy which they dislike due to his playstyle.So, I'd have a 1 in 3 chance to be in any group with any of them, and since there would have to be several shards of any of the factions there'd probablybe a hell of an organizing chaos of several red, green and blue factions for each map.WvW's main draw for me is the community, and alliances would be the end of it.I would have NO problem with developers coming out and saying: "The person who announced alliances has long left the company and our leadership and game direction is no longer the same. So we've thought about this and it is just not a good idea and we'll be scrapping this. We'll try to improve population imbalance some other way."I am sick and tired of the "Alliances when?" memes I must admit ;) Let's put them to rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"MLinni.6109" said:Actually I hope alliances will never be released. Not because I'm mean or spiteful, but I actually believe alliances would be the end of WvW.What do many people fight for? So much is about server loyalty and the community.So I'm a member of three different WvW guilds, one for casual play, one for GvG and one for friday and saturday nights when a certain commanderturns up which I like to play with.With an alliance you can be certain my GvG guild will not form an alliance with the casual one and the commander guy which they dislike due to his playstyle.So, I'd have a 1 in 3 chance to be in any group with any of them, and since there would have to be several shards of any of the factions there'd probablybe a hell of an organizing chaos of several red, green and blue factions for each map.WvW's main draw for me is the community, and alliances would be the end of it.I would have NO problem with developers coming out and saying: "The person who announced alliances has long left the company and our leadership and game direction is no longer the same. So we've thought about this and it is just not a good idea and we'll be scrapping this. We'll try to improve population imbalance some other way."I am sick and tired of the "Alliances when?" memes I must admit ;) Let's put them to rest.But this is sort of the point. In a very simplistic way of looking at it, you've stacked all the things - the GvG guild, the casual guild, the "certain commander" with you as the glue between them. Alliances are supposed to break up and shuffle things. Maybe other guilds like that "certain commander" and want to form an alliance. Maybe the GvG guild want to join 2-3 other GvG guilds in their own little fight alliance. Maybe the casual guild just doesnt care and can be freeform balanced onto another world to make more equal populations. If one person can sit and hold everything back... alliances would never work.

The "other way" to improve balance is already in effects - thats the link system. There is no other way to break apart monolithic servers except making the chunks smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Dawdler.8521" said:But this is sort of the point. In a very simplistic way of looking at it, you've stacked all the things - the GvG guild, the casual guild, the "certain commander" with you as the glue between them. Alliances are supposed to break up and shuffle things. Maybe other guilds like that "certain commander" and want to form an alliance. Maybe the GvG guild want to join 2-3 other GvG guilds in their own little fight alliance. Maybe the casual guild just doesnt care and can be freeform balanced onto another world to make more equal populations. If one person can sit and hold everything back... alliances would never work.

The "other way" to improve balance is already in effects - thats the link system. There is no other way to break apart monolithic servers except making the chunks smaller.

Yes, as I tried to point out simplistically, I think a huge chunk of the playerbase is interested in the community more than being partitioned into red, green and blue most evenly. If I cannot play with the people I want to I wouldn't be interested in playing at all. Maybe I am grossly overestimating the size of that part but one can only hope ANET will make the correct decision when deciding whether to go forward with alliances.Also you can bet your behind that people will just bandwagon to the winning side anyway leaving tilted factions like before. Only at the cost of a (to be determined) part of the playerbase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MLinni.6109 said:I think a huge chunk of the playerbase is interested in the communityWell people have claimed that died half a decade ago...

Either way I dont think you have much to worry about. At this point, it's probably safe to say that alliances was presented as a theoretical idea rather than Anet doing active prototyping behind the scenes and giving us some hints of what's going on. I'm guessing that as soon as they went into details, they realized the idea was practically unfeasible - too many unknown variables, too much things needed to be recoded. They just dont want to admit they jumped the gun so they've been leaving us hanging.

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...