Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Increase rewards/incentive for WvW commanders, add more special bonuses + lower entry cost


xhyc.2078

Recommended Posts

@"Strages.2950" said:

Perhaps. But if this smoke gets people to feel like they belong again and start giving a kitten, then its an improvement. I'm not putting all my chips into the Alliance system, I know the mode needs a lot of work in other regards. But seeing as it was something that was promised, I know it'll bring people back into the WvW scene. Will it fix everything? Ofc not, but it just might be a reason for people to stick around and gives them a reason to fight again.

That point of view is excessively positive. I very much doubt that Alliances will encourage people to feel "part" of something, given that most of the current bandwagoners will limit themselves to joining the Alliances where the few large guilds (and the remaining commanders with some recognition, deserved or not) settle, and they will remain what they are, bandwagoners. When these guilds or commanders get tired to play, those players will simply move to the next train.

How do I know? Because it is what has happened before and after Arenanet established the Links System.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cambeleg.7632 said:

@"Strages.2950" said:

Perhaps. But if this smoke gets people to feel like they belong again and start giving a kitten, then its an improvement. I'm not putting all my chips into the Alliance system, I know the mode needs a lot of work in other regards. But seeing as it was something that was promised, I know it'll bring people back into the WvW scene. Will it fix everything? Ofc not, but it just might be a reason for people to stick around and gives them a reason to fight again.

That point of view is excessively positive. I very much doubt that Alliances will encourage people to feel "part" of something, given that most of the current bandwagoners will limit themselves to joining the Alliances where the few large guilds (and the remaining commanders with some recognition, deserved or not) settle, and they will remain what they are, bandwagoners. When these guilds or commanders get tired to play, those players will simply move to the next train.

How do I know? Because it is what has happened before and after Arenanet established the Links System.

Excessively positive is perhaps correct. I guess I'm just hopeful that it will help. No other game comes close to the WvW experience in this game, coupled with a fantastic combat system (albeit inherently unbalanced). I want it to work, but at this point I'll be glad to get anything that will shake up the current status quo. Especially if it strives for better balance; population or otherwise. If the Alliance system works as advertised, it should naturally tone down the impact of bandwagoning.

I think a good addition to it would be to heavily increase the price of transfers once the system goes up. You're getting a chance to freely 'bandwagon' by selecting a new guild before each season takes effect (which again, the system would have to account for in match ups), which is why I reckon an actual transfer should cost a whole lot more since it disrupts the 'balance' set in the system. Hell, I'd be glad if there were no transfers at all tbh; I know it wont happen, cause gems make Anet money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SexyMofo.8923 said:Actually, people need to learn how to play without a commander tag. More incentives should go to the solo roamer who’s scouting, flipping camps, and placing sieges to keep the other team occupied.

That exists....with a commander, who can give squad participation to roamers and scouts. But many roamers don't care about that, as it's all about them, kitten the rest of their server. Actually seen roamers express the notion that they want to be able to PvP without relying on team mates....in an online multiplayer game of all things..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strages.2950 said:

I think a good addition to it would be to heavily increase the price of transfers once the system goes up. You're getting a chance to freely 'bandwagon' by selecting a new guild before each season takes effect (which again, the system would have to account for in match ups), which is why I reckon an actual transfer should cost a whole lot more since it disrupts the 'balance' set in the system. Hell, I'd be glad if there were no transfers at all tbh; I know it wont happen, cause gems make Anet money.Transfers exist because the status quo isn't static. If the commander you follow the most leaves the game, why should you be permanently stuck with the same team? If you convince 3 friends to join and they want to play WvW with more intensity than you, why should all four of you be stuck in the casual team you first chose?

The gem cost is in place to reduce transfers. It costs ANet to setup and maintain the infrastructure that allows for transfers. Alliances would be easier to balance (and cheaper to implement) if there were no transfers.

There's no question that some people bandwagon and there's no question that has an impact (sometimes a devastating one) on balance. That doesn't mean transferring is a bad idea; it means it's tricky to control the consequences of limited or unlimited transfers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

There's no question that some people bandwagon and there's no question that has an impact (sometimes a devastating one) on balance. That doesn't mean transferring is a bad idea; it means it's tricky to control the consequences of limited or unlimited transfers.

I saw someone suggest once that transfers should only be allowed the 1 week prior to re-linking. Since nobody knows for sure how the links turn out (or do they?) they would not be able to bandwagon or transfer strategically. This leaves room for those who want to change servers, bring in friends, all the various things you mentioned, but it removes the potential for guilds to react to new links and bandwagon.

Telling a player they have to wait 7 weeks between server transfers is, I think anyways, pretty reasonable, given the impact we see from guilds moving servers right after the re-links.

Problem is, ANET makes money off transfers. Do they make more money than it costs them to implement the transfer? No clue. But if transfers are profitable for them, I find it difficult to believe they are going to work terribly hard at limiting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Turkeyspit.3965 said:

There's no question that some people bandwagon and there's no question that has an impact (sometimes a devastating one) on balance. That doesn't mean
transferring
is a bad idea; it means it's tricky to control the consequences of limited or unlimited transfers.

I saw someone suggest once that transfers should only be allowed the 1 week prior to re-linking. Since nobody knows for sure how the links turn out (or do they?) they would not be able to bandwagon or transfer strategically. This leaves room for those who want to change servers, bring in friends, all the various things you mentioned, but it removes the potential for guilds to react to new links and bandwagon.

Telling a player they have to wait 7 weeks between server transfers is, I think anyways, pretty reasonable, given the impact we see from guilds moving servers right after the re-links.

Currently, the restriction is 1x/week, with an 8-day blackout of skirmish rewards. I think it's likely that increasing either restriction at all is going to hamper bandwagoning. It's also going to hurt people who just want to play with friends (in WvW). Which is more important to the game?(I don't have an answer for that.)

If it's easy for ANet to change those numbers, I would encourage them to experiment with it. Maybe changing it to 1x/month or, as suggested, 1x/link... and then seeing what happens. How much are bandwagoneers affected? How much are others? Who complains? Who love it?

Problem is, ANET makes money off transfers. Do they make more money than it costs them to implement the transfer? No clue. But if transfers are profitable for them, I find it difficult to believe they are going to work terribly hard at limiting them.

The evidence suggests that transfers don't make them money. People convert gold instead. Given that the typical fair-weather WvWer goes to a medium-pop link, it's 500 gems every two months, or 140-180 gold. Dailies alone from that period are worth 120 gold.Plus, if profit were the motive, they never would have introduced restrictions on it in the first place, let alone doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Strages.2950" said:

I think a good addition to it would be to heavily increase the price of transfers once the system goes up. You're getting a chance to freely 'bandwagon' by selecting a new guild before each season takes effect (which again, the system would have to account for in match ups), which is why I reckon an actual
transfer
should cost a whole lot more since it disrupts the 'balance' set in the system. Hell, I'd be glad if there were no transfers at all tbh; I know it wont happen, cause gems make Anet money.Transfers exist because the status quo isn't static. If the commander you follow the most leaves the game, why should you be permanently stuck with the same team? If you convince 3 friends to join and they want to play WvW with more intensity than you, why should all four of you be stuck in the casual team you first chose?

The gem cost is in place to
reduce
transfers. It costs ANet to setup and maintain the infrastructure that allows for transfers. Alliances would be easier to balance (and cheaper to implement) if there were no transfers.

There's no question that some people bandwagon and there's no question that has an impact (sometimes a devastating one) on balance. That doesn't mean
transferring
is a bad idea; it means it's tricky to control the consequences of limited or unlimited transfers.

I said that assuming the Alliance system would be implemented as advertised. Before every re-link/season you'd be able to choose a guild you'd like to represent during the next season. Switching guilds would effectively be a "free transfer" as you'd be paired with that new guild choice (wherever they land) instead of the one you had previously. Commander leaves? Find a new one, get an invite to his guild/alliance.

So if you were to put further barriers after that opportunity, I think they should be a lot more severe in cost if available at all. Will there be a few people affected; not being able to play with that 1 or 2 friends for 7 weeks? Probably. But will we have the massive migration and imbalance that just snowballs match-ups into doom for 2 months? Probably not. The majority of players would benefit, especially the active majority who cares enough to pay attention to relinks and transfer windows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...