Would 'alliances' really work?

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Zok.4956 said:

server-links were a band-aid for population imbalance. but they did not really solve the population imbalance problem (because of massive bandwagoning after each server relinks) and they have created new problems (links and massive bandwagoning after server relinks destroy the remaining server communities).

Agreed. It needs to be changed. They are unwilling to limit transfers more than they have, and ‘unlinking’ would be even more detrimental to the mode.

For this reason, I do not trust Anet blindly to solve the problem of population imbalance with alliances before Anet shows us all the details of how it works and I can see it with my own eyes.

I guess I would agree on ‘trusting’ Anet.

I am also a realist: they haven’t let us ‘see’ anything game wise prior to its release, )unless you include the DBL ‘test’ where they actually asked for suggestions then did not incorporate and of the suggestions. They released it as is..) so I wouldn’t expect we are going to get ‘more details’ than the Three posts on it from Anet that are visible along with the answers to the most common responses.

For me, given I spend most of my WvW time running alone, or with small groups, I am perfectly OK with Alliances as it has been explained.

It’s far from perfect. But it is worth swapping to it to see where it takes us.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Zok.4956" said:A lot of details about the alliance system are not communicated yet and we can not be sure if and how it will be implemented in the end. But there is a high risk that it could kill the game mode finally, instead of revitalizing it.Except what you describe as a critical flaw is... well... competition.

Not even if only a single alliance exist would this be an issue - that's only 1 out of 4-5 matchups. And the worlds fighting them would still be the "best" among zero-alliance worlds by way of the matchup tiers (assuming the alliance world is top server).

[Cuks.8241]

I still think server pride would be a better way to go. This can serve everyone, guilds and solo casuals alike. Hey, they can even implement it in a way that would attract people that don't play WvW.One idea, similar to what I saw in an old Korean grind game. Server instances that could be shaped by the top WvW guilds. It would be public to anyone on the server, visitors welcome. Top WvW guilds on the server would own and shape estates, similar to guild halls. They could add merchants and mini-games that would bring revenue to the owner guilds.Guilds would be loyal to the server because you couldn't be on the top overnight. Guilds would spread over the servers.

[Zok.4956]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Zok.4956 said:A lot of details about the alliance system are not communicated yet and we can not be sure if and how it will be implemented in the end. But there is a high risk that it could kill the game mode finally, instead of revitalizing it.Except what you describe as a critical flaw is... well...

competition

.

A competition who can game the system best or a competition who is more organized and can dominate its alliance/guild members and steamroll unorganized servers/players better?

As long as we do not have all the details (and see the whole system) its only speculation if there will be critical flaws that Anet has not adressed/solved.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Zok.4956 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Zok.4956 said:A lot of details about the alliance system are not communicated yet and we can not be sure if and how it will be implemented in the end. But there is a high risk that it could kill the game mode finally, instead of revitalizing it.Except what you describe as a critical flaw is... well...

competition

.

A competition who can game the system best or a competition who is more organized and can dominate its alliance/guild members and steamroll unorganized servers/players better?Yes.

It's the same as sPvP and people grouping. They get an advantage, they win. But then incidently... they are more and more likely to meet other such groups.

We dont have the details because the system doesnt exist, but we know the idea behind of it and this particular aspect has nothing to do with what Anet is addressing or solving - it's all on players. And the idea isnt that players create just one supreme alliance to win over everything. It's that there is 20, 30, 40+ alliances.

If you think players wont go creating a ton of tiny alliances because they think they are the best and everyone else suck, just look at the guilds today. Why dont they just leave their own guilds and create a single 500 man guild that dominate everything?

[Svarty.8019]

@"kamikharzeeh.8016" said:and most guilds aren't fielding more than 25-30 people on their guildruns, so not sure what u refer to by "giant guilds" @"Svarty.8019"

Well ye, I'm not talking about "most guilds", I'm talking about the giant ones, and, if you haven't noticed, there are more of them than there were.

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

really not, i think some german guilds are bigger, and some pvE guilds have bigger numbers, but those aren't fighting guilds, numbers don't count too much therefore.

if u count together all WSR guilds, okay, that is like 50+ roughly guessed.

[Gudradain.3892]

@Zok.4956 said:

@Gudradain.3892 said:You need more worlds and smaller worlds to create an healthy and interesting competitive scene.

The mode is WvWvW and three servers fighting against each other or together will always be more or less unfair. Which is fun sometimes. But for a healthy competitive scene you need fair fights.

You can have GvG and 1v1 in WvW but these are only segments of the game mode.

No. I'm quite sure you just need more competitors to create healthy competition. Given enough competitors, it doesn't matter what the competition is because you will be able to match opponents of similar levels together.

On the other hand, if you don't have enough competitors it's impossible to create any healthy competition. Chess for example is a very competitive game. But, if there was only 12 players in the world, would it even be competitive?

[Kylden Ar.3724]

@SniffyCube.6107 said:shame we'll never find out if they work or not

Cause you can't spell Al-lie-ances with LIE! (Yeah, doesn't really work, but... whatever.)

Alliances when!?

We know it's not coming. We just want them to come out and admit it.

[Zok.4956]

@Gudradain.3892 said:

@Zok.4956 said:

@Gudradain.3892 said:You need more worlds and smaller worlds to create an healthy and interesting competitive scene.

The mode is WvWvW and three servers fighting against each other or together will always be more or less unfair. Which is fun sometimes. But for a healthy competitive scene you need fair fights.

You can have GvG and 1v1 in WvW but these are only segments of the game mode.

No. I'm quite sure you just need more competitors to create healthy competition. Given enough competitors, it doesn't matter what the competition is because you will be able to match opponents of similar levels together.

No, that is definitely not enough.

You need rules for fair fights for a healthy competition.

Three servers fighting against each others at the same time can often be fun, but it is not fair. Never was. That is the reason, why in team sport (i.e. soccer) usually only two groups fight against each others in a match/game. And to be fair there must not be any population imbalances. Thats why in team sport (i.e. soccer) there is a fixed and equal amount of players on both sides and removing one or more players from one side is used as a penalty (because it is usually a big disadvantage).

In New World, for example, this is solved in a way that there are only two groups fighting each other at the same time and before a battle begins the groups collect/invite players until the groups are full (50 players per group), so the fights/battles will always be 50v50.

And then: Do you remember the time when Anet tried to go into eSports with sPVP? There was a competitive scene for a while. But then Anet did not really understand how to balance the different classes (hint: balancing also is important for fair and skill based fights) and that was one of many reasons why that was a big failure.

Alliances in GW2 are not a solution for this. To have fair fights in WvW the mode has to be changed so much that it would be more or less a new game mode.

[Gudradain.3892]

Yes, 3 way fights might never be completely balanced but that is not the problem. It's how the game mode works and it's fun like that. The problem is that we don't have enough competitors to create healthy competition.

Match Up are often not a close fight. One server is often much stronger or much weaker than the other servers. Given enough servers, you would always find servers that are closely related in strength. Given only 12 servers, it's practically impossible to match a server against others of similar strength.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Zok.4956 said:

@Gudradain.3892 said:

@Zok.4956 said:

@Gudradain.3892 said:You need more worlds and smaller worlds to create an healthy and interesting competitive scene.

The mode is WvWvW and three servers fighting against each other or together will always be more or less unfair. Which is fun sometimes. But for a healthy competitive scene you need fair fights.

You can have GvG and 1v1 in WvW but these are only segments of the game mode.

No. I'm quite sure you just need more competitors to create healthy competition. Given enough competitors, it doesn't matter what the competition is because you will be able to match opponents of similar levels together.

No, that is definitely not enough.

It is enough. What you describe is ‘fair competition’ (to you)

You need rules for fair fights for a healthy competition.

There are rules, they just aren’t the ones you want.

Three servers fighting against each others at the same time can often be fun, but it is not fair. Never was. That is the reason, why in team sport (i.e. soccer) usually only two groups fight against each others in a match/game. And to be fair there must not be any population imbalances. Thats why in team sport (i.e. soccer) there is a fixed and equal amount of players on both sides and removing one or more players from one side is used as a penalty (because it is usually a big disadvantage).

This isn’t ‘team sports’. It’s realm v realm v realm. Always was designed to be. It you want ‘even’ matches sPvP exists for you. And there has been talk of more of a 10v10 mode in sPvP.

WvW will NEVER meet your definition of ‘fair’. It’s a 24 hour mode and unless you don’t care who actually plays with you, it will never be ‘fair’ in the way you describe. Alliances would be closer than what we have now.

In New World, for example, this is solved in a way that there are only two groups fighting each other at the same time and before a battle begins the groups collect/invite players until the groups are full (50 players per group), so the fights/battles will always be 50v50.

It sounds as if you might be happier playing that game when (or if) it comes out.

Alliances in GW2 are not a solution for this. To have fair fights in WvW the mode has to be changed so much that it would be more or less a new game mode.

It was never intended to be a ‘solution’ as in a ‘50v50’ mode. That was NEVER an intention of WvW.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Zok.4956" said:In New World, for example, this is solved in a way that there are only two groups fighting each other at the same time and before a battle begins the groups collect/invite players until the groups are full (50 players per group), so the fights/battles will always be 50v50."Solved" in the sense that the NW pvp scene will probably crash and burn within 2-3 months because they wont be able fill both sides with players.