Jump to content
  • Sign Up

World Restructuring


Gaile Gray.6029

Recommended Posts

Part of the problem of the new alliances forming in the current system is they're doing it in between relinks, and so we have to wait almost two months before things get reorganized, plus the imbalance of pugs on every server especially those affected by the mass transfers. In the new system no one is going to form an alliance in the middle of the season, then move in between worlds because that will happen for them automatically and for free at the end of the season. There's also no real reason to have anything lower than 1800 gem cost to transfer, so that should also help hold mass transfers until the system does it at the end of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that wvw that support alliance is that it will significantly reduce imbalance while giving people freedom to play with people they want to.

However, the same risk still apply which is guild can still stack on the alliance like how they stack on server now. Thus, whether it really significantly reduce imbalance is yet to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Marcel.1857" said:E.g. you have 1k players but only 200 can join the wvw since of the map caps ( 50 ea map for e.g.). So there would be 2 positive affects first the map of the enemy could be filled the same way since 50 ppl is way lower then the actual one and also helps to reduce the lags occurring if 3 server smash each other e.g. in stone mist.

That makes absolutely no sense. Whether you have two 500 man alliances or one 1000 man alliances, you still dumped the same amount of people into WvW. What you suggest only reduce the caps, letting less players play - which goes against the point you're trying to make, to get more people to play together.

Will alliances make guilds to clean the rooster? Maybe. Is that so bad? If you have 15 active players in your 84 man guilds
maybe it's about time
. Lots of guilds have inactive players, that's fine. But it's not like you need someone that hasnt logged on for like 2 years. I'm sure you can loose
some
of those 69 players. Send them a mail, thank them for their time, encourage them to look you up if they ever start playing the game again cause you can always reinvite them.

Or you could bypass the inactive "fat" completely simply by making a specific alliance guild. In theory, if it works like we suspect and if WvW rep is seperate from guild rep it should be incredibly simple.

Create a new guild, invite the 15 active players. Set that guild as your WvW guild and/or join an alliance with that guild. Never rep it, only rep the old guild. Boom done deal. You now have an alliance guild that only take 15/500 slots.

The idee behind is that if they get back to play they would need to wait 2 month till you can play together again, what i would be pissed of if i would be them. Amt there is no problem about that since you play on one server and the full state is determinate by play hours of the active player in wvw .

And i see no problem in decreasing the cap because i never seen a guild with more then 50 ppl raiding together. Only public leads but a lower cap would mean the other bl need to be played to since on my server the red bl is nearly death and the public commander don´t want to play on it so there will be a need if the other bl would be full. And smaller guilds would have more chances to contest the enemy blobs since 25 vs 80 is no way to kill with the actuall meta so 25 vs 50 would be more interesting and rise the chance to compete. And the 1000 alliance player won´t be a problem since i wont thonk there would be more than 200 on the same time. At least if you want to rise in the server ranking you need 24h per day player so it would be 200 player on the maps * 4 6h shifts = 800 Player considering there would be some playing less so i would need 1k players to have 24h players. But yeah you are right actual it is 320players can play the same time wvw and if you play it yourself you exatly know how bad anets server perform if you have a 80x80x80 fight. And atm it´s lokal servers like all play the same time with the new system you can choose the players yourself and which o clock thy would play so you can build a 24h shift on that but well you would need players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Liston.9708 said:Will probably come down to how finite the size of an alliance is as well. Not holding out hope if it is as large as the # that grouped on kain or sor.

I don't know about Kain, but I'd be shocked if the massive SoR bandwagon that took a link server and skyrocketed it to the top of Tier 1 isn't significantly larger than a single alliance can hold.

If one single 500-man alliance (one-fifth of a world) can dominate the entire state of NA wvw, then we have far too many worlds for the number of people playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well > @BlueMelody.6398 said:

@Liston.9708 said:Will probably come down to how finite the size of an alliance is as well. Not holding out hope if it is as large as the # that grouped on kain or sor.

I don't know about Kain, but I'd be shocked if the massive SoR bandwagon that took a link server and skyrocketed it to the top of Tier 1 isn't significantly larger than a single alliance can hold.

If one single 500-man alliance (one-fifth of a world) can
dominate
the entire state of NA wvw, then we have far too many worlds for the number of people playing.

To be honest i think it was told that the world will consist of such an alliance estimate 500player max and player anet puts there too so. But yeah if you got 500 hardcore player playing 12h per day i guess they would be able to dorminate the server rank but only if there would be no world with the same ppl ^^.

But in this point there will it be just like now linked server vs unlinked server.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With how small WvW is becoming. You don't need hardcore players, even 500 experienced old players that play couple hours per day would make a huge impact. I am sure anet has statistic on how many active and experienced players are out there but I believe they think such scenario would not occur. Much like how people think that people will stop stacking if they realise is boring, well, people still stack. You can't change a human nature of wanting to win at all cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@XenesisII.1540 said:Part of the problem of the new alliances forming in the current system is they're doing it in between relinks, and so we have to wait almost two months before things get reorganized, plus the imbalance of pugs on every server especially those affected by the mass transfers. In the new system no one is going to form an alliance in the middle of the season, then move in between worlds because that will happen for them automatically and for free at the end of the season. There's also no real reason to have anything lower than 1800 gem cost to transfer, so that should also help hold mass transfers until the system does it at the end of the season.

We'll eventually see how players game the ability to pay to transfer but yeah all transfers in the new system should be 1800 gems, no exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a good idea. Nevertheless I'e like to ask you if yoy have considered the language issue:Current worlds + entering on WvW is the only way spanish players can find & meet other spanish players on a guaranteed way, and if you blow up our world, dont know how spanish guild could recrute more new spanish players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SkyShroud.2865 said:With how small WvW is becoming. You don't need hardcore players, even 500 experienced old players that play couple hours per day would make a huge impact. I am sure anet has statistic on how many active and experienced players are out there but I believe they think such scenario would not occur. Much like how people think that people will stop stacking if they realise is boring, well, people still stack. You can't change a human nature of wanting to win at all cost.

This is no longer just a possible scenario but one that is becoming a reality. Anet need to consider skill balance otherwise the restructure will just fall apart within first 6 months of its release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@eduminator.7845 said:I think it is a good idea. Nevertheless I'e like to ask you if yoy have considered the language issue:Current worlds + entering on WvW is the only way spanish players can find & meet other spanish players on a guaranteed way, and if you blow up our world, dont know how spanish guild could recrute more new spanish players.

They have already said that preferred language will be a factor in grouping players onto worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be cool if we could have up to 5 different alliances like how we can be in 5 different guilds including chats for each one as well. What I mean by this is a guild can make an alliance either by being the leader of the alliance or joining into one. 1 full alliance would be at most 10 guilds (or whatever anet thinks is best). Every guild can create an alliance emblem which will be represented when they are the leader of an alliance. This way you have a little bit more freedom with who you want to be allied with instead of being trapped in one alliance with 1 guild you like and the rest of the guilds having problems between each other. I remember that happening in gw1 when we were apart of the top luxon alliance where drama started between some of the guilds in it which spoils the fun lol. All I'm getting at is this way makes it so you can choose exactly who you want to be allied with instead of being stuck in one that not everyone gets along with each other.

Example on what I'm trying to say:possible guild tag: [bOOM] (picture your tribe)

Alliance 1: (A1 chat)Alliance Leader: [bOOM] (your tribe) (Represents [bOOM]'s alliance emblem)Allies:

  1. [bOMB]

Alliance 2: (A2 chat)Alliance Leader: [FROG] (Represents [FROG]'s alliance emblem)Allies:

  1. {BOOM] (your tribe)
  2. [DIP]
  3. [TACO]
  4. [bAT]
  5. [sOUL]
  6. [bAM]
  7. [DASH]
  8. [ZOOM]
  9. [ZIP]
  10. [DIVE]

Alliance 3: (A3 chat)Alliance Leader: [bOOM] (your tribe) (Represents [bOOM]'s alliance emblem)

  1. [TACO] (same from alliance 2)
  2. [TAPE]
  3. [sUN]
  4. [MOON]
  5. [DISH]

Alliance 4: (A4 chat)Alliance Leader: [sEEK] (Represents [sEEK]'s alliance emblem)

  1. [bOOM] (your tribe)
  2. [sOUR]

Alliance 5: (A5 chat)Alliance Leader: [bOOM] (your tribe) (Represents [bOOM]'s alliance emblem)

  1. [NAIL]
  2. [sTAR]
  3. [bOLT]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sovereign.1093 said:they can always make a poll.

can you read english? y or n.

if you can read, you can write.

also, if majority of players can read and write english then there.should be no issue.

this way, you have a basis. =)

do the poll in game.

I think in NA there no issue but in EU , on many national server people dont understand and talk at all english.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooo ok ya I'm sure whatever Anet comes out with concerning alliances will be great. I was just putting an Idea out there relating back to past experiences I have had. I just don't like drama and try to avoid it if I can lol. I think that idea of not having an alliance leader is neat because it makes it more like a group of guilds working together which is fine with me lol. I'm just SUPER EXCITED we're getting alliances because they're a blast I lived in Alliance Battles in GW1 lol. You guys don't see it but I'm doing a happy dance lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SkyShroud.2865 said:I totally support 5 alliances, this is matter of consistency principle. Why can players be part of 5 different guilds while can't be part of 5 different alliances of different guilds?

PS: Gw2 players sure are super casual and inconsistent.

Because under the new system it wouldn't make sense to have more than one alliance. Each link will bring a new mix of alliances and the whole purpose is to use this to make balanced matches. Having more than one alliance per person would skew the metric for balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...