Will Alliance make wvw active 24/7?

[Svarty.8019]

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Nora.9207 said:Suggestions

• Please put back the walls and gates at their previous strength - so we have time to say in TS or Team chat that we are under attack - and our allies can come to defend. this would make objectives a thing of pride again - atm they are being reduced to a karma train

I think the objectives need to be a challenge for a side to capture, otherwise it's just boring. Obviously banging your head on a virtually invulnerable wall isn't fun, but neither is ktraining it with no opposition.

What I believe has occurred is an increase in the SPEED of WvW. The warclaw means we can move around much quicker, attack things faster, and with the walls being weakened, capture them faster. On the other side of the coin, the defenders should be able to get to the objectives faster on their mounts, but there's so little time to do so that it's silly at the moment.

As for alliances, they will change the player base. A LOT of die-hards will leave and it'll be a high-turnaround of players game instead.

[enkidu.5937]

@Ryudnard.2587 said:If the design works, is the goal to make every borderland active at all time of the day?Over the years, ppl left and those remaining players play less, and the remaining time they play is most likely prime time. The first issue can be solved by links / alliances, but not the latter one. Because, if they would stack servers / alliances until off-times are well-covered, they would've overstacked prime time to the point of endless queues.

So, alliances seem to be just a version of server linking, with smaller entities, that are easier to hande when creating balanced servers / matchmakings.

Or kind of a bigger guild version. I wouldn't expect Anet to link alliances with the same attitude, because the creation of all-ppt servers, all-ppk servers, all-nightwatchmen servers, all-roamer servers etc. would not lead to enjoyable matchmakings.

[Cristalyan.5728]

@"Dawdler.8521" said:What's Anet going to do? Tie people to their chairs and tell them to "play your timeslot at exactly 10:48 to 14:11 pacific time OR ELSE!!!"?

No.

The sole purpose of the alliance is to reduce the size of and shuffle monolithic servers so that the numbers can be more equal across the board. Instead of links being (A+B) vs (C+D) vs (E+F) with no options to match anything other than these huge link chunks together, the "links" of the alliances would instead be (A+B+C+D+E+D+F) vs (G+H+I+J+K+L+M) vs (N+O+P+Q+R+S+T) giving alot more flexiblity in how you mix and match it.

The current links is sort of like trying to use pebbles in an hourglass. Fine grain sand is generally a better idea.

It does not solve night or day capping by dedicated crews. It's not intended to.

Although I agree with your rationament, I consider we already have it. But it is ignored by ANet. Where we have it? In EoTM. Where any player for any server having its color can play at any hour, having a reasonable coverage.

Unfortunately, ANet declared EoTM as a dead business. Throwing it from the game, without seeing that the concept is more viable than the WvW we have now.

We have no server rewards for winning. With the Alliance system even the old fashion "server pride" will disappear. What prevents ANet to change the pairing mode in WvW to the pairing mode from EoTM?

[Dawdler.8521]

@Cristalyan.5728 said:

@"Dawdler.8521" said:What's Anet going to do? Tie people to their chairs and tell them to "

play your timeslot at exactly 10:48 to 14:11 pacific time OR ELSE!!!

"?

No.

The sole purpose of the alliance is to reduce the size of and shuffle monolithic servers so that the numbers can be more equal across the board. Instead of links being (A+B) vs (C+D) vs (E+F) with no options to match anything other than these huge link chunks together, the "links" of the alliances would instead be (A+B+C+D+E+D+F) vs (G+H+I+J+K+L+M) vs (N+O+P+Q+R+S+T) giving

alot

more flexiblity in how you mix and match it.

The current links is sort of like trying to use pebbles in an hourglass. Fine grain sand is generally a better idea.

It does not solve night or day capping by dedicated crews. It's not intended to.

Although I agree with your rationament, I consider we already have it. But it is ignored by ANet. Where we have it? In EoTM. Where

any

player for

any

server having its color can play at

any

hour, having a reasonable coverage.

Unfortunately, ANet declared EoTM as a dead business. Throwing it from the game, without seeing that the

concept

is more viable than the WvW we have now.

We have no server rewards for winning. With the Alliance system even the old fashion "server pride" will disappear. What prevents ANet to change the pairing mode in WvW to the pairing mode from EoTM?EoTM is dead because WvW as a gamemode doesnt function under EoTM design. Its not even close to viable as a replacement.

[zinkz.7045]

From what they have specified, alliances won't make much of a difference to activity.

But then alliances are basically a waste of resources full stop that won't solve the issues with the game mode, just another band-aid. It might have worked a bit better years ago when the population was there, but as usual Anet are way too slow.

They'd be better off letting WvW continue to die off and make battlegrounds instead. RvR doesn't work as a game mode, it produces trash tier "PvP" for bad PvE players (and yes that includes the deluded WvW players who think they are "skilled") and has failed everywhere it has been tried, most games sensibly have worked out to not even bother with it.

[displayname.8315]

If the tiers get shrunk to 2 matchups it would be alot more 24/7 action for the GW2 player base. Alliances is more about map balance and overall team balance.

Reducing the number of matchups is what would help with the 24/7.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@displayname.8315 said:If the tiers get shrunk to 2 matchups it would be alot more 24/7 action for the GW2 player base. Alliances is more about map balance and overall team balance.

Reducing the number of matchups is what would help with the 24/7.

And create oppressive queues during prime time hours.

[displayname.8315]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@displayname.8315 said:If the tiers get shrunk to 2 matchups it would be alot more 24/7 action for the GW2 player base. Alliances is more about map balance and overall team balance.

Reducing the number of matchups is what would help with the 24/7.

And create oppressive queues during prime time hours.

Well in NA there's isn't much problem finding an open map anymore. EU would probably need more matchups, think they have more now as it is.

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

@Xaiveer.6832 said:Alliances will only succeed in taking away server pride. The rest is wait and see.

Server pride flew out the window once the matchups changed where there are now groups of servers (1 host, rest guests). Some servers never got to host since.

[RisingDaewn.8703]

Yup, EU has queues during prime time, especially during the weekend, but it's mostly down to Fairweathers, links, events and bandwagoners, at least on a 'Full' host server around T1-3.

The EU has Five Tiers, with a couple of unlinked German servers currently in T5.

[shiri.4257]

@"hunkamania.7561" said:You ever see those threads "which server has the best ocx/sea/EU?". Those people just all want to play together and fight no1 for the most part.

Kinda like the guilds asking the war councils; how many EU, OCX, Sea guilds does your server have?

[MithranArkanere.8957]

Most of the world is water. There's just not enough people at all time zones to have active populations 24/7.

The most we can hope of is having more or less equally distributed populations at all times.

[ArchonWing.9480]

@shiri.4257 said:

@"hunkamania.7561" said:You ever see those threads "which server has the best ocx/sea/EU?". Those people just all want to play together and fight no1 for the most part.

Kinda like the guilds asking the war councils; how many EU, OCX, Sea guilds does your server have?

Code for "How hard can you carry us?"

[shiri.4257]

@"Burnfall.9573" said:Alliance will not make wvw active 24/7.

The question to ask instead is; how will Alliance differ from the downstate event and wvw mount? Absolutely None!!

Alliance is just another disguise in hiding the root cause of problems in wvw with toxicity-the wolf in sheep-clothing in total control of it

Embrace yourself for 24/7 Toxicity

((What solutions has mount and the downstate resolved to address wvw root cause problems? Absolutely None! And you really would think that adding large numbers of players= Alliance will resolve it too? ))

Why not for once deal with wvw rooot cause problems instead of increasing them even more with every balance patches?

Power Creep, +1 shotting, Bad Design/Mechanic, Stealth, Broken Specs/builds, lack of professions identity?

Why Not Resolve Them Instead??

So what's your solution to toxicity? put everyone on a prozac 1 hr before raids?

[zengara.8301]

@shiri.4257 said:

@"Burnfall.9573" said:Alliance will not make wvw active 24/7.

The question to ask instead is; how will Alliance differ from the downstate event and wvw mount? Absolutely None!!

Alliance is just another disguise in hiding the root cause of problems in wvw with toxicity-the wolf in sheep-clothing in total control of it

Embrace yourself for 24/7 Toxicity

((What solutions has mount and the downstate resolved to address wvw root cause problems? Absolutely None! And you really would think that adding large numbers of players= Alliance will resolve it too? ))

Why not for once deal with wvw rooot cause problems instead of increasing them even more with every balance patches?

Power Creep, +1 shotting, Bad Design/Mechanic, Stealth, Broken Specs/builds, lack of professions identity?

Why Not Resolve Them Instead??

So what's your solution to toxicity? put everyone on a prozac 1 hr before raids?

Yeaaah, that post was overall pretty weird xD Hope that it was a metaphor.

I agree on stealth mechanic though, in most games like League that have nerfed it and keep doing so, wont delve deep into why stealth in itself is a bad game mechanic (easy escape button, only mechanic directly targeting your vision, no indication for players other than guessing etc), but in Gw2 the only way to actually corner stealth is if either the caster of stealth fcks up (bad build, or incredible risks), or directly build into countering so opponent wont be able to re-stealth and then burn, only 2 classes can do that as far as I am aware. But then you are sadly easy to kill for basically anything else.A fix to that could be, foe that you strike, will able to see if you, or something like WoW where you see person if you are close get them out of stealth if damage them or simply limits mobility under stealth. All of these lets you do the massive build damage, the last 2 lets you build more mobility and stealth and in exchange you have some sort of answer to stealth other than (they are totally gone, unless if on a bridge or a narrow spot where you can guess where they are going to go) In PvE and SPvP this generally does not matter, (Mobs that stealth, usually wont re-stealth fast enough, you don't get points in stealth) I do believe that there are some problems with it in high tiers as well. But I cant really comment on that fully, not sure in other words, just think its a visual thing so opponents have to guess what you are casting, other than a "bomb".

Power Creep, 1 shot builds have enough counters that it doesn't really make them a problem though- You should be able to see it coming, just play the class then you understand it fully, dodge then kill opponent since they are glass anyways.

[sephiroth.4217]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@displayname.8315 said:If the tiers get shrunk to 2 matchups it would be alot more 24/7 action for the GW2 player base. Alliances is more about map balance and overall team balance.

Reducing the number of matchups is what would help with the 24/7.

And create oppressive queues during prime time hours.

I think Alliances will be a fancy way of saying Megaserver.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@displayname.8315 said:If the tiers get shrunk to 2 matchups it would be alot more 24/7 action for the GW2 player base. Alliances is more about map balance and overall team balance.

Reducing the number of matchups is what would help with the 24/7.

And create oppressive queues during prime time hours.

I think Alliances will be a fancy way of saying Megaserver.

It could turn into that, but I think it will be somewhat better at least at first.

[Justine.6351]

I think the problem won't be solved. It's left to players to decide to play or not.

[snh.7091]

The way I see it there will be no players to try the Alliance system, because by the time they keep their promise everyone will be gone.

It's visible. Servers are becoming more empty by the day. There's barely any commanders and those of us who used to tag don't because of many reasons why it's simply not worth it, from game balance to player ignorance to absolute company negligence. Fewer commanders = less joint action (what makes WvW most fun and what it's really about = teamwork).

There's hardly anything to do, and to veterans, after those 6 years of running the same 3 maps out of which 2 look exactly the same it's getting flat-out boring.

The worst factor are the players themselves who live in some sort of illusion that one day things will turn around. Does it look like it's anywhere near that with them adding a new mount instead of fixing their game by focusing on what is truly broken and stop ruining what isn't?

Wake up.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Inoki.6048 said:The way I see it there will be no players to try the Alliance system, because by the time they keep their promise everyone will be gone.

It's visible. Servers are becoming more empty by the day. There's barely any commanders and those of us who used to tag don't because of many reasons why it's simply not worth it, from game balance to player ignorance to absolute company negligence. Fewer commanders = less joint action (what makes WvW most fun and what it's really about = teamwork).

There's hardly anything to do, and to veterans, after those 6 years of running the same 3 maps out of which 2 look exactly the same it's getting flat-out boring.

The worst factor are the players themselves who live in some sort of illusion that one day things will turn around. Does it look like it's anywhere near that with them adding a new mount instead of fixing their game by focusing on what is truly broken and stop ruining what isn't?

Wake up.Unless we have the exact same argument a year from now with still similar WvW populations.

Wait a second that sounds familiar...

[SkyShroud.2865]

That is subjective. There are guilds where for example, they die once or few times, they bring dragon banner. They die again, they bring bigger numbers plus dragon banner. If can't bring bigger number, they just tag down completely. Of course let's not forget guilds that p2w bandwagon every relink.

If there are guilds doing such thing then I wouldn't be surprised alliance made of such guilds of such mentality. Will it be 24/7 active then? I wonder.

[LetoII.3782]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:That is subjective. There are guilds where for example, they die once or few times, they bring dragon banner. They die again, they bring bigger numbers plus dragon banner. If can't bring bigger number, they just tag down completely. Of course let's not forget guilds that p2w bandwagon every relink.

If there are guilds doing such thing then I wouldn't be surprised alliance made of such guilds of such mentality. Will it be 24/7 active then? I wonder.

One benefit of the smaller cap is having to choose your stack. Do you go full NA and dominate or split among the timezones for easy placement.. Personally I feel the smaller the better, but the path of least resistance is to use a standard guild size of 500..Is 125 players per time zone enough to ensure domination? Seems likely.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:That is subjective. There are guilds where for example, they die once or few times, they bring dragon banner. They die again, they bring bigger numbers plus dragon banner. If can't bring bigger number, they just tag down completely. Of course let's not forget guilds that

p2w

bandwagon every relink.

If there are guilds doing such thing then I wouldn't be surprised alliance made of such guilds of such mentality. Will it be 24/7 active then? I wonder.

One benefit of the smaller cap is having to choose your stack. Do you go full NA and dominate or split among the timezones for easy placement.. Personally I feel the smaller the better, but the path of least resistance is to use a standard guild size of 500..Is 125 players per time zone enough to ensure domination? Seems likely.

Yes, 500 is too big, too easy to abuse, as if people are not stacking timezones already. Just because some vocal minority think people don't do it now doesn't mean they won't ever do it. As long the door is open for such possibility, there will be people eventually doing it. Just like how there are guilds and people p2w bandwagon every relink now.

[Dawdler.8521]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:That is subjective. There are guilds where for example, they die once or few times, they bring dragon banner. They die again, they bring bigger numbers plus dragon banner. If can't bring bigger number, they just tag down completely. Of course let's not forget guilds that

p2w

bandwagon every relink.

If there are guilds doing such thing then I wouldn't be surprised alliance made of such guilds of such mentality. Will it be 24/7 active then? I wonder.

One benefit of the smaller cap is having to choose your stack. Do you go full NA and dominate or split among the timezones for easy placement.. Personally I feel the smaller the better, but the path of least resistance is to use a standard guild size of 500..Is 125 players per time zone enough to ensure domination? Seems likely.

Yes, 500 is too big, too easy to abuse, as if people are not stacking timezones already. Just because some

vocal minority

think people don't do it now doesn't mean they won't ever do it. As long the door is open for such possibility, there will be people eventually doing it. Just like how there are guilds and people

p2w

bandwagon every relink now.

How

exactly is it too easy to abuse?

Guilds will be on the same world in the shuffles. There are 500 man guilds already. Are we supposed to lower that limit and kick people from existing guilds? Oh the PvE players would be so happy about that change.

No. 500 is the absolute minimum they can do. And it's no different from WvW today.

Of course people will stack alliances. There will be strong alliances for sure, if Anet ever gets around to implementing it. Just like there are strong and stacked worlds today. Worlds end up where they are in the tier ladder for a reason, they're not there on random. Again, this is not what the alliance system fixes. It has nothing to do with alliances. The only purpose is to recreate the worlds to roughly equal sizes in the 2 months shuffle by reallocating chunks smaller than the monolithic links.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:That is subjective. There are guilds where for example, they die once or few times, they bring dragon banner. They die again, they bring bigger numbers plus dragon banner. If can't bring bigger number, they just tag down completely. Of course let's not forget guilds that

p2w

bandwagon every relink.

If there are guilds doing such thing then I wouldn't be surprised alliance made of such guilds of such mentality. Will it be 24/7 active then? I wonder.

One benefit of the smaller cap is having to choose your stack. Do you go full NA and dominate or split among the timezones for easy placement.. Personally I feel the smaller the better, but the path of least resistance is to use a standard guild size of 500..Is 125 players per time zone enough to ensure domination? Seems likely.

Yes, 500 is too big, too easy to abuse, as if people are not stacking timezones already. Just because some

vocal minority

think people don't do it now doesn't mean they won't ever do it. As long the door is open for such possibility, there will be people eventually doing it. Just like how there are guilds and people

p2w

bandwagon every relink now.

How

exactly is it too easy to abuse?

Guilds will be on the same world in the shuffles. There are 500 man guilds already. Are we supposed to lower that limit and kick people from existing guilds? Oh the PvE players would be

so

happy about that change.

No. 500 is the absolute minimum they can do. And it's no different from WvW today.

Of course people will stack alliances. There will be strong alliances for sure, if Anet ever gets around to implementing it. Just like there are strong and stacked worlds today. Worlds end up where they are in the tier ladder for a reason, they're not there on random. Again,

this is not what the alliance system fixes

.

It has nothing to do with alliances

. The only purpose is to recreate the worlds to roughly equal sizes in the 2 months shuffle by reallocating chunks smaller than the monolithic links.

How difficult it is to put a first come first serve choosing guild thingy? How difficult it is to reset it and make them choose again a week before recreating the worlds? There is no such thing as "absolute", that "absolute" sense is what you limited yourself with, please don't be confused with a universal truth. I believe if there is a will, there is a way, as long it doesn't go against the universe laws.

I think it has repeated far more than necessary, what you think of stacking is just "strong" or "weak" but what people end up complaining is never about "strong" or "weak". It is always about "more" or "less" which the alliance wanted to resolve. It has been repeated far too many times that 500-men is more than enough to stack a timezone and break the balance throughout all tiers.

You may not have much interest for population balanc but please do understand there are people who want a real population balance.