Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Alliance Design That Stops The QQ


Swagger.1459

Recommended Posts

@"dynomite.5834" said:Small teams/solo roaming isn't WvW though; it's more open world PvE. The concept of "WvW" always was large, epic, huge multi-player battles. This would be a big change for Anet.

Small teams/solo roaming is a playstyle choice in WvW though. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_versus_World

"WvW battles generally fall into a spectrum between one-on-one combat and zergs.

Zerg

In most WvW, there is some form of zerg where large numbers of players congregate to capture objectives. Zergs are usually led by 1 or more commanders. This allows friendly players who are not part of the zerg to know the current position of the zerg.The role of an individual player in a zerg is not clearly defined; however, they tend to follow standard RPG archetypes:

  • Front-line / Tank
  • DPS
  • Support
  • CC

The combat among zergs can also be divided into open field and wall fighting, where the latter describes the situation of one team fighting from the top of the walls of a tower, keep or castle. Front-line role occurs in open area combat. It is usually filled by tank professions such as Guardian, Warrior or Revenant. They can push the line or flank the enemy zerg in an open area fight. In the case of wall fighting, front-line role is at a minimal.Number of players in a zerg may vary, but is usually between twenty and forty players. A small "zerg" (10 players or less) is called a group, A normal zerg (20+ players) is called zerg, and a large zerg (40+ players) is called a blob.

The name comes from Starcraft, a 1998 video game in which Zerg were a playable race known for swarming enemies with masses of cheap, weak units, defeating them with sheer numbers rather than skill.

Roamer

Roamers are usually individuals or very small groups that go behind enemy lines to achieve objectives that would normally be impractical or impossible for a zerg. They include:

  • Killing or deterring enemy stragglers and reinforcements
  • Defending and destroying supply caravans
  • Capturing enemy camps
  • Tagging (or tapping) - Attacking an enemy keep sufficiently that it (and its waypoint, if any) becomes contested
  • Providing intel about enemy zerg size and position
  • Creating diversion for enemy zerg
  • Roamers generally require high survivability and escapability.

Scouts (Scouting)

Scouts are those individuals who tend to look out for or babysit one or more objectives. Scouting an objective may vary from Keeps, Towers, Camps, or even enemy zergs. Scouts should focus on broadcasting enemy movements and aiding in the defense of key objectives.

  • Tend to stay and keep lookout for a specified objective even if there are fights happening in the same map.
  • Responsible for upgrading an objective and keeping it safe.
  • Should call for assistance if an enemy zerg hits their objective.
  • Slows enemies from taking the objective via   Siege Disablers and use of defensive siege.
  • Responsible for keeping the siege refreshed in the objective.
  • Provides precise intel on numbers and siege placement if the objective is tagged or is being attacked.
  • In many cases, scouts may also help run dolyaks to the objective in order to upgrade and resupply it.

To provide rewards to a scout, the commander can share participation for the WvW Reward Track if the person has joined the squad, and the squad has a minimum of 5 members.

Successful scout reports should be abbreviated while still conveying relevant information. A good call out will have enemy numbers, server or guild group, nearest relevant objective, possible siege status, and other relevant information. Scouts should also keep in mind whether it's best to use Team chat (/T) or Map chat (/M) when making a call out. "


8 PvP "Blob" maps with a capacity of up to 100 players per side, or 300 total players on a map. Which is equivalent to two 50 person Squads per side, or six 50 person Squads total. Mostly structure capture objectives as it is now. Up to 2,400 players can occupy these 8 maps at any given time.

6 Pvp/PvE maps with a capacity of up to 50 players per side, or 150 total players on a map. Which is equivalent to one 50 person Squads per side, or three 50 person Squads total. Mostly open area capture objectives, events and meta events. Up to 900 players can occupy these 6 maps at any given time.

The map designs cater to many different playstyles. Players can choose where they want to play. These designs are actually a huge QoL improvement, not a detraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.

As usual with any of these blue sky proposals, there are bits some people are going to like and bits they aren't. If it ever got as far as any kind of official ANet-directed discussion thread the sheer detail involved would bog the whole thing down in endless nit-picking debate, exactly as has happened every other time this has been tried in the last six years. One person's dream scenario is another's nightmare as we've seen over and over on these forums.

The plain fact, though, is that there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that anyone with the ability to make any of this happen has the slightest interest, let alone intention, of doing so. There's already a plan in play for the wholescale re-imagining of WvW and that has taken, what, a year and more to get nowhere close as yet even to pre-alpha testing. It's all very well to say that this new proposal uses systems and mechanics that are already in the game but as anyone who's played these last half-dozen years must have noticed, these are not the kind of developers who simply think of an idea and slot the pieces together. Every new development takes many months. One this size would take years at the rate these teams work - even assuming there actually was a WvW "team", which a lot of people no longer believe to be the case.

As someone said above, this is a decent proposal for GW3, if there is one. As far as GW2 is concerned, we have what we have and maybe one day we'll have the Alliance system as currently imagined. If that doesn't work then it's probably game over for WvW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Tiny Doom.4380" said:Well, you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.It's all very well to say that this new proposal uses systems and mechanics that are already in the game but as anyone who's played these last half-dozen years must have noticed, these are not the kind of developers who simply think of an idea and slot the pieces together. Every new development takes many months. One this size would take years at the rate these teams work - even assuming there actually was a WvW "team", which a lot of people no longer believe to be the case.Also I would consider saying that the suggestion in OP is "systems and mechanics already in the game" is a gross overstatement, lol. They clearly are not. That's like saying well if I paint stripes on my Toyota it'll become a Ferrari with 500hp, no problem easy modification of an existing chassi with wheels. Especially not since the Anet suggested alliance system isnt even in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Tiny Doom.4380" said:Well, you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.It's all very well to say that this new proposal uses systems and mechanics that are already in the game but as anyone who's played these last half-dozen years must have noticed, these are not the kind of developers who simply think of an idea and slot the pieces together. Every new development takes many months. One this size would take years at the rate these teams work - even assuming there actually was a WvW "team", which a lot of people no longer believe to be the case.Also I would consider saying that the suggestion in OP is "systems and mechanics already in the game" is a gross overstatement, lol. They clearly are not. That's like saying well if I paint stripes on my Toyota it'll become a Ferrari with 500hp, no problem easy modification of an existing chassi with wheels. Especially not since the Anet suggested alliance system isnt even in the game.

Exactly - the game, you can tell, was meant for larger battles from the get-go. On an older balance post from the devs said they try balance for groups of 10 or larger. To me, that means they never intended a smaller game play experience; that is sPvP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Tiny Doom.4380" said:Well, you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.It's all very well to say that this new proposal uses systems and mechanics that are already in the game but as anyone who's played these last half-dozen years must have noticed, these are not the kind of developers who simply think of an idea and slot the pieces together. Every new development takes many months. One this size would take years at the rate these teams work - even assuming there actually was a WvW "team", which a lot of people no longer believe to be the case.Also I would consider saying that the suggestion in OP is "systems and mechanics already in the game" is a gross overstatement, lol. They clearly are not. That's like saying well if I paint stripes on my Toyota it'll become a Ferrari with 500hp, no problem easy modification of an existing chassi with wheels. Especially not since the Anet suggested alliance system isnt even in the game.

I never wrote that... "systems and mechanics already in the game"

And this was my statement about the alliance system... “To keep the progress made with World Restructing systems and use it for balancing Factions.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"aspirine.6852" said:While it sounds all good on paper, in the game it will 90% be like one stacked alliance, the second is the ones that didnt make it to the strong group and the third that has all the rest for the two first ones to pick on.

How are you assuming that? Did you really not read through the suggestion? Are you aware that an individual alliance is slated to be 500 players, the same cap as a guild, and the suggestion was to have players shifted every 2 months... and scores hidden and pve maps contribute to the war effort...

Honestly, please read the op again and put it together.

Edit- And to be helpful...

“3 Alliance Factions made up of ALL players pooled together fighting against each other. OBVIOUSLY NA and EU are NOT connected.”

“Alliances, guilds and individual players are reshuffled every 2 months to create 3 new Factions”

“Faction Names change every 2 months.”

Edit 2- And for reference...

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/45856/world-restructuring-update-1/p1

“Alliance size

We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dynomite.5834 said:

@"Tiny Doom.4380" said:Well, you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.It's all very well to say that this new proposal uses systems and mechanics that are already in the game but as anyone who's played these last half-dozen years must have noticed, these are not the kind of developers who simply think of an idea and slot the pieces together. Every new development takes many months. One this size would take years at the rate these teams work - even assuming there actually was a WvW "team", which a lot of people no longer believe to be the case.Also I would consider saying that the suggestion in OP is "systems and mechanics already in the game" is a gross overstatement, lol. They clearly are not. That's like saying well if I paint stripes on my Toyota it'll become a Ferrari with 500hp, no problem easy modification of an existing chassi with wheels. Especially not since the Anet suggested alliance system isnt even in the game.

Exactly - the game, you can tell, was meant for larger battles from the get-go. On an older balance post from the devs said they try balance for groups of 10 or larger. To me, that means they never intended a smaller game play experience; that is sPvP.

I have to ask... what are you taking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 said:

@"Tiny Doom.4380" said:Well, you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.It's all very well to say that this new proposal uses systems and mechanics that are already in the game but as anyone who's played these last half-dozen years must have noticed, these are not the kind of developers who simply think of an idea and slot the pieces together. Every new development takes many months. One this size would take years at the rate these teams work - even assuming there actually was a WvW "team", which a lot of people no longer believe to be the case.Also I would consider saying that the suggestion in OP is "systems and mechanics already in the game" is a gross overstatement, lol. They clearly are not. That's like saying well if I paint stripes on my Toyota it'll become a Ferrari with 500hp, no problem easy modification of an existing chassi with wheels. Especially not since the Anet suggested alliance system isnt even in the game.

I never wrote that... "systems and mechanics already in the game"

And this was my statement about the alliance system... “To keep the progress made with World Restructing systems and use it for balancing Factions.”Oh you're right, it was that subversion dude responding to me earlier. Sorry.

Still, its not really feasable. At the end of the day, it takes alot of work to bring something like WvW toghether - they're not going to change it unless it's from their end the initiative comes. At best we can get QoL improvements. I still want to see what alliances bring (if we ever get there) because IMO there are only two major issues "wrong" with WvW: the way population is handled (hopefully fixed by alliances) and the way PPT is handled. The later is a sad affair since we know how it works when its working good - when all objectives are T0, at reset, and field activity (ie fights) plays a major part of the score). We also know that it all kittens up once objectives reach T3 and gives exponentially higher points for just doing... nothing. But it doesnt require reimagining the game mode to fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Takes them a year just to create 1 new wvw map. But you want them to add 10 new maps.In their eyes creating 10 brand new maps would just be better served in a new pve expansion where they can actually get money for it than give it away for free, which they have to for wvw to not split the map populations by accounts. Even with their current development power mostly behind pve, look how long it takes for them to create 4-5 maps for a new expansion and then smaller maps for living story.

You say smaller maps with smaller 50 population caps, but that does nothing to make it less blobby, it's still enough for a full sized squad to operate in. If you want smaller groups you're going to have to have maps designed for 10-15 per side, like a battleground in other games. Capture points will do nothing, as bloodlust has proven these days to promote little game play, as long as just 1 person is needed per capture point. If you do something like ESO where you need to capture the 3 surrounding areas in order to attack a tower then you might be on to something, but that is also pulled off because of having a bigger map. A lattice system would serve a purpose here in breaking up groups into smaller numbers.

You want to hide scoring but replaced it with nothing.

  1. Scoring has nothing to do with how players are shuffled in alliances unless you plan on tracking how much a player scores in a match and start labeling players as being useful-not useful in sorting of alliance worlds. It is still better to evenly sort by bigger group numbers down to the smallest (through timezones) to get more balanced worlds.
  2. While ppt might not be everyone's cup of tea for playing wvw it is still the main driving force for wvw, it gives most players a purpose however much or little they actually care about it. In other games like dark age of camelot, relics were used to drive players to attack enemy lands, in warhammer capturing full areas would eventually get you to be able to raid the enemy city. You have to give players a reason to play in there whether that be scoring, fighting over powerful items, capturing lands for bonuses, or leaderboards.

Giving identity to the three sides is something I've wrote about a couple times in the past already so not going to comment much on it again. It would be good to have a built in identity for each world instead of just green blue red, especially since the world names are going to change every time as well, which is the last bit of permanent identity a player is going to have stripped and further driving them to not care about what world they are on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 said:

@"aspirine.6852" said:While it sounds all good on paper, in the game it will 90% be like one stacked alliance, the second is the ones that didnt make it to the strong group and the third that has all the rest for the two first ones to pick on.

How are you assuming that? Did you really not read through the suggestion? Are you aware that an individual alliance is slated to be 500 players, the same cap as a guild, and the suggestion was to have players shifted every 2 months... and scores hidden and pve maps contribute to the war effort...

Honestly, please read the op again and put it together.

Edit- And to be helpful...

“3 Alliance Factions made up of ALL players pooled together fighting against each other. OBVIOUSLY NA and EU are NOT connected.”

“Alliances, guilds and individual players are reshuffled every 2 months to create 3 new Factions”

“Faction Names change every 2 months.”

Edit 2- And for reference...

“Alliance size

We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.”

I was not talking about your suggestions, but Anet assumes that the whole thing will create a more balanced population. But like stacked servers now, you will have stacked alliances too, and therefore also the weakest one. Nothing much will change from the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@aspirine.6852 said:

@aspirine.6852 said:While it sounds all good on paper, in the game it will 90% be like one stacked alliance, the second is the ones that didnt make it to the strong group and the third that has all the rest for the two first ones to pick on.

How are you assuming that? Did you really not read through the suggestion? Are you aware that an individual alliance is slated to be 500 players, the same cap as a guild, and the suggestion was to have players shifted every 2 months... and scores hidden and pve maps contribute to the war effort...

Honestly, please read the op again and put it together.

Edit- And to be helpful...

“3 Alliance Factions made up of ALL players pooled together fighting against each other. OBVIOUSLY NA and EU are NOT connected.”

“Alliances, guilds and individual players are reshuffled every 2 months to create 3 new Factions”

“Faction Names change every 2 months.”

Edit 2- And for reference...

“Alliance size

We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.”

I was not talking about your suggestions, but Anet assumes that the whole thing will create a more balanced population. But like stacked servers now, you will have stacked alliances too, and therefore also the weakest one. Nothing much will change from the current system.

There will not be stacked servers because there won’t be any servers to stack. Let me break this down further...

Example...

All NA wvw participants are divided by 3 and assigned to a Faction side to fight for 2 months.

At the 2 month mark the devs reshuffle all players, be it groups of a 500 person alliance, or up to a 500 person guild and individual players... Using the tech that Raymond Lukes is working on now.

Stacking a Faction is not possible because groups or individuals are constantly reshuffled every 2 months.

There score is hidden from players and only kept track of by the devs. The devs use that score information to reshuffle players into new 3 new Factions every 2 months.

There is no transfer function anymore because it’s not needed.

You cannot stack a Faction using my idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

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...