After 8 years of calls for help WvW sees hiring

[Yuffi.2430]

Personally, I welcome someone working on WvW.Cynically, however, I take note of the 8th bullet point in "What you will do" so we will have to see what actually happens.

[Ronin.4501]

I have to laugh at the players here still holding out hope for Alliances. Seriously, the Alliances idea was bad from the start. Instead of players stacking servers you'll have players stacking alliances. You'll end up with 2-3 strong alliances and 20+ crap alliances. Same kitten different day.

As for any WvW position, it likely entails cleaning up the messes the PvE devs create everytime they make a change in PvEland which in turn creates yet another god-awful imbalance in WvW. With that seemingly happening every other update, who'll have time to work on anything else? Again, same kitten different day.

[LetoII.3782]

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

arena net will really need to take the right decisions this time and commit to them. because they will finally get a big competitor: the mmo/rpg 'new world' from amazon.

Oof no, you're behind on the news a few months. New World did a belly flop beta and is back to the drawing board for the forseeable.

didn't amazon pulled out the game to fix all the issue it was having (inculding content and gameplay issues) for a better next year launch?

They did the same thing with Crucible then quietly scrapped the whole project.Bezos having a money burning party over der xD

[Yuffi.2430]

@"Ronin.4501" You're seeing "Alliances" as "replacement Servers" and that's not the case. Alliances is actually about guilds as a base unit for WvW.I agree that some players would try to stack in a good guild (so they can be part of a successful alliance) however players themselves control guild membership in a way that doesn't happen with servers.If the Alliances WvW update ever comes to be, Anet will use guilds and alliances of guilds to make the population for each side in WvW. This is a much more flexible system because guilds vary so much in size and this granularity will allow Anet to create more even population sizes for match-ups. This is something that has been seen as a major need in WvW for years.

I foresee many more complaints about "elite" guilds requiring specific builds, or kicking players who are inactive or incompetent.There will likely be some large open or pug guilds, and some dedicated guilds (probably smaller). In theory each existing server could make a Guild with that name and continue the situation as it is, but I doubt this will happen. There will still be the drama of guilds leaving alliances and going elsewhere, so in that sense there will be more of the same. BUT the big difference is that we as players will have a lot more control over who is in each Guild/Alliance. Anet will still set the links between alliances and guilds, and this is where it is important the system used works properly.

For example, a secondary benefit of Alliances, if Anet get the algorithms right, is the matching system could pit fight based alliances against other similar guilds/alliances so these players will get more of the play style they enjoy, and similarly match PPT guilds against other PPT guilds. Small guilds and single players will fill the gaps. The stats to do this are already available to Anet.

In theory, Alliances (which is really Guilds vs Guilds) should give us more enjoyable matches and more even overall populations. This IS a thing worth hoping for (we've been asking for this for years). Of course, in reality, it actually needs to happen to be of benefit to players, and as you say it needs to be balanced separately from PvE (although there are signs that Anet is possibly moving to make this work?).

GW2 is the game I've spent the most time playing, and I still enjoy playing. I'd like to continue to enjoy WvW, so you'll have to forgive me if I, and others, choose to hope against all expectation and current evidence.

[Ronin.4501]

@Yuffi.2430 said:@"Ronin.4501" You're seeing "Alliances" as "replacement Servers" and that's not the case. Alliances is actually about guilds as a base unit for WvW.I agree that some players would try to stack in a good guild (so they can be part of a successful alliance) however players themselves control guild membership in a way that doesn't happen with servers.If the Alliances WvW update ever comes to be, Anet will use guilds and alliances of guilds to make the population for each side in WvW. This is a much more flexible system because guilds vary so much in size and this granularity will allow Anet to create more even population sizes for match-ups. This is something that has been seen as a major need in WvW for years.

I foresee many more complaints about "elite" guilds requiring specific builds, or kicking players who are inactive or incompetent.There will likely be some large open or pug guilds, and some dedicated guilds (probably smaller). In theory each existing server could make a Guild with that name and continue the situation as it is, but I doubt this will happen. There will still be the drama of guilds leaving alliances and going elsewhere, so in that sense there will be more of the same. BUT the big difference is that we as players will have a lot more control over who is in each Guild/Alliance. Anet will still set the links between alliances and guilds, and this is where it is important the system used works properly.

For example, a secondary benefit of Alliances, if Anet get the algorithms right, is the matching system could pit fight based alliances against other similar guilds/alliances so these players will get more of the play style they enjoy, and similarly match PPT guilds against other PPT guilds. Small guilds and single players will fill the gaps. The stats to do this are already available to Anet.

In theory, Alliances (which is really Guilds vs Guilds) should give us more enjoyable matches and more even overall populations. This IS a thing worth hoping for (we've been asking for this for years). Of course, in reality, it actually needs to happen to be of benefit to players, and as you say it needs to be balanced separately from PvE (although there are signs that Anet is possibly moving to make this work?).

GW2 is the game I've spent the most time playing, and I still enjoy playing. I'd like to continue to enjoy WvW, so you'll have to forgive me if I, and others, choose to hope against all expectation and current evidence.

I'm going to guess you haven't been playing this game for more than a few years if you truly believe that allowing players to create alliances will balance out WvW populations. First, it's the players (and guilds) that have been causing the population imbalances and server stacking from the very start. I still remember when War Machine left SBI and literally 97% of the active WvW population followed. For a few months thereafter, SBI would be lucky to see 5-10 players across all borderlands (we still had Bannok/Djixie pugmanding in EBG). Guilds leaving a server and creating population imbalances has occurred regularly in the 8+ years that the game has been in existence. The only major difference now, which leads me to my second point, is that there really aren't that many WvW guilds left. The WvW population is largely built on pugs these days, with a few large guilds and slightly more medium and small guilds sprinkled about. The notion that all these random players are going to somehow form cohesive alliances that balance out the population is simply inconceivable. And even if you were able to manage to cobble together a few decent alliances, you'd still be leaving a much larger portion of the population to then put together the remaining alliances which would be anything but an alliance. I think Anet realized that Alliances was a bad idea from the start, which is why we haven't heard anymore about it for years.That being said, like you, I do still hold out hope that things can be turned around in some fashion or another. If I didn't I wouldn't still be playing the game. However, my level of hope has significantly dropped after years of neglect and mismanagement by the WvW team (and Anet in general).

[subversiontwo.7501]

@"Ronin.4501" said:I'm going to guess you haven't been playing this game for more than a few years if you truly believe that allowing players to create alliances will balance out WvW populations. First, it's the players (and guilds) that have been causing the population imbalances and server stacking from the very start. I still remember when War Machine left SBI and literally 97% of the active WvW population followed. For a few months thereafter, SBI would be lucky to see 5-10 players across all borderlands (we still had Bannok/Djixie pugmanding in EBG). Guilds leaving a server and creating population imbalances has occurred regularly in the 8+ years that the game has been in existence. The only major difference now, which leads me to my second point, is that there really aren't that many WvW guilds left. The WvW population is largely built on pugs these days, with a few large guilds and slightly more medium and small guilds sprinkled about. The notion that all these random players are going to somehow form cohesive alliances that balance out the population is simply inconceivable. And even if you were able to manage to cobble together a few decent alliances, you'd still be leaving a much larger portion of the population to then put together the remaining alliances which would be anything but an alliance. I think Anet realized that Alliances was a bad idea from the start, which is why we haven't heard anymore about it for years.

For me it is quite surprising that you are able to piece all those things together and still can not understand the sum of what they amount to.

The fact that all these players who do not build community can obstruct the players who do want to build community is what is driving the guilds and players in them away. It is what is driving the commanders away and that is why we will just see more and more players clinging to fewer and fewer commanders until everything that is left amounts to "anything but an alliance". That is what we have now or head to.

What you describe, as some players being able to form communities while others are not, is a good thing. It means that at least someone can have/do something (and it suggests to those who do not try that they should try). It means that anyone can try because there are no arbitrary obstacles in the way of trying (like having to give Anet your money just to try to do something for their game). The "anything but an alliance" will at least be a recruitment pool, something you can build a community from since all those players without guilds or alliances then are free to recruit among. This way new communities can be born. If they do not want to be recruited into anything then they do not deserve to be apart of something and they can stay in "anything but an alliance" for all they like, it becomes their choice.

All of this is the reason guilds quit but it is also the reason why guilds transfer. You say that guilds have always transferred but guilds have always transfered to A) match up B ) escape dead weight on their own server and C) avoid matching up with dead-weight servers. They do all that to get and create content. You can look at the servers today and make up your own mind about if they are successful or not.

Now, I'm not overly familiar with NA, but if this War Machine left SBI, it is quite likely that what made him leave was to get away from players who felt entitled to his content and stood in the way of him being able to form squads with his friends, get on maps with his friends or let them come to his server. If 97% of the population followed him that only reaffirms that. I don't know, but your description makes it sound like he left to get away from the likes of you.

War Machine probably didn't want 97% of the server to follow him around anymore than other popular players want 97% of their servers to follow them around when they transfer away from them. However, under the current system they can not stop them. They can just transfer again when things get bad, so they do. They can be toxic to drive them away, so they are. They can be exclusive to keep them out, so they close and they can just stop caring and ride the wave out like ArenaNet and the "anything but an alliance"-players they funnel into the mode, so here we are.

"Alliances won't fix anything" sounds like "anything but an alliance" to me.

[Yuffi.2430]

@"Ronin.4501" You still don't seem to get the basic idea behind Alliances.At the moment Anet tries to "balance" the WvW matches using combinations of one or two (or very occasionally three) servers. They have two general sorts available - big population and small population. There is little scope for rough adjustments let alone fine tuning.

The concept of the Alliance update is that Anet would be able to use guilds (of which there are many more and which vary much more in size) to "balance" the populations for each side. You are right that there will be all sorts of guilds, and some will have purpose and drive and others will be groups that play together.

You are however completely wrong when you suggest that it will be up to the players choice of guild/alliance to balance populations. I expect that, if Alliances ever happens, Anet will move individual guilds and alliances around a lot as a consequence of player movement and transfers. However, and this is the key thing you don't seem to have understood yet, WHERE the guilds/alliances get moved to will not be a choice we get. For example, if a match-up becomes very one sided in population because of people moving to a particular guild, Anet can move that guild to the side with the lowest population and rebalance the match-up.

Of course, a lot will depend on what the algorithms actually do, and that depends on whether alliances is ever fully realised. But as I said before, it should give a better overall balance of populations leading to more even matches and more fun for most players. This is what we continue to hope for.

[Ronin.4501]

@"subversiontwo.7501" said:What you describe, as some players being able to form communities while others are not, is a good thing. It means that at least someone can have/do something (and it suggests to those who do not try that they should try). It means that anyone can try because there are no arbitrary obstacles in the way of trying (like having to give Anet your money just to try to do something for their game). The "anything but an alliance" will at least be a recruitment pool, something you can build a community from since all those players without guilds or alliances then are free to recruit among. This way new communities can be born. If they do not want to be recruited into anything then they do not deserve to be apart of something and they can stay in "anything but an alliance" for all they like, it becomes their choice.

All of this is the reason guilds quit but it is also the reason why guilds transfer. You say that guilds have always transferred but guilds have always transfered to A) match up B ) escape dead weight on their own server and C) avoid matching up with dead-weight servers. They do all that to get and create content. You can look at the servers today and make up your own mind about if they are successful or not.

Now, I'm not overly familiar with NA, but if this War Machine left SBI, it is quite likely that what made him leave was to get away from players who felt entitled to his content and stood in the way of him being able to form squads with his friends, get on maps with his friends or let them come to his server. If 97% of the population followed him that only reaffirms that. I don't know, but your description makes it sound like he left to get away from the likes of you.

War Machine probably didn't want 97% of the server to follow him around anymore than other popular players want 97% of their servers to follow them around when they transfer away from them. However, under the current system they can not stop them. They can just transfer again when things get bad, so they do. They can be toxic to drive them away, so they are. They can be exclusive to keep them out, so they close and they can just stop caring and ride the wave out like ArenaNet and the "anything but an alliance"-players they funnel into the mode, so here we are.

"Alliances won't fix anything" sounds like "anything but an alliance" to me.

If anything, the communities that were created in this game (almost entirely built around servers) have long since died, and the notion that after 8 years they're suddenly going to start reforming because of Alliances is...rather unrealistic.

And maybe things are very different on the EU servers, but the primary reason you hear guilds leave one server for another on the NA servers is "better fights". And if you pay attention long enough, you'll see those very same guilds tend to transfer servers every few months because they never seem to be able to find these "better fights".

And War Machine was not a single player but rather a HUGE guild with 400-500 players. And they left because they had held SBI as the top WvW server for several months and wanted to see if they could bring up one of the bottom ranked servers, Kaineng. And when they got bored of doing that they ultimately left GW2 behind, leaving both SBI and Kaineng in shambles. You seem to believe that the majority of players in this game are noble and caring and wanting to establish a community; I on the other hand, see the larger part of the WvW community as players who care primarily about themselves and possibly their guildmates and getting their loot, but things such as server pride have long since gone by the wayside. Again, maybe the players on the EU servers fall more under your description, but over here on the NA servers I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any sort of a cohesive community within the WvW population.

@Yuffi.2430 said:@"Ronin.4501" You still don't seem to get the basic idea behind Alliances.At the moment Anet tries to "balance" the WvW matches using combinations of one or two (or very occasionally three) servers. They have two general sorts available - big population and small population. There is little scope for rough adjustments let alone fine tuning.

The concept of the Alliance update is that Anet would be able to use guilds (of which there are many more and which vary much more in size) to "balance" the populations for each side. You are right that there will be all sorts of guilds, and some will have purpose and drive and others will be groups that play together.

You are however completely wrong when you suggest that it will be up to the players choice of guild/alliance to balance populations. I expect that, if Alliances ever happens, Anet will move individual guilds and alliances around a lot as a consequence of player movement and transfers. However, and this is the key thing you don't seem to have understood yet, WHERE the guilds/alliances get moved to will not be a choice we get. For example, if a match-up becomes very one sided in population because of people moving to a particular guild, Anet can move that guild to the side with the lowest population and rebalance the match-up.

Of course, a lot will depend on what the algorithms actually do, and that depends on whether alliances is ever fully realised. But as I said before, it should give a better overall balance of populations leading to more even matches and more fun for most players. This is what we continue to hope for.

Let's think for a moment about what you're saying. Anet will balance the match-ups. Anet, who can't balance classes, can't balance population, can't balance a teeter-totter, but they're somehow going to balance Alliances??? And let's assume for a moment that they DID balance things the way you say, by moving guilds around at their whim. Do you really think the community would accept that? Outside of perhaps the top tier of alliances you'd have a MASS exodus from the game by the remaining WvW players. I'll say it again. I think the notion of Alliances is dead and buried and never ever coming back.

[Chaba.5410]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

arena net will really need to take the right decisions this time and commit to them. because they will finally get a big competitor: the mmo/rpg 'new world' from amazon.

Oof no, you're behind on the news a few months. New World did a belly flop beta and is back to the drawing board for the forseeable.

They got Colin Johansome on the job now though!

[Jski.6180]

Till classes are fixed for wvw with wvw in mind both over stacking and understacking of classes there no way new content will fix things.

[Yuffi.2430]

@"Ronin.4501" Why would people leave? Their whole guild is still together, the only thing that would change is which color you spawn at.There IS a lot of work to do in WvW:

• Separate WvW from PvE so it can have separate balance updates (Anet have at least started this)
• Find a way to balance populations more in match-ups (Alliances update should give the tools to do this)
• Fix the broken classes

Visible progress has been very slow on any of these, but the fact that Anet are recruiting someone specifically for WvW should be a good sign.What actually happens depends on the priorities Anet assigns internally - that's the "Other tasks may be assigned" clause. It is possible (although unlikely) that Anet could assign WvW duties to the PvE workers (who presumably have a similar clause in their job description). I think I'd prefer a small dedicated team who understand the game mode and keep us informed of progress.