Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Prophet of Flames.2783

Members
  • Content Count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Eh you don't allow those to join an alliance under that idea. Not supporting the idea (or any idea regarding alliances) but please just think further before acting all high and mighty to others about their ideas. You're the dummie here. And it might change with enough feedback to how terribly conceived the idea is. Or it might not change and WvW will end as we know it. Enough people are willing to walk, and those left are the toxic guild players who were never carrying WvW anyway. So it either changes, or WvW is left as a deserted game mode that can no longer be played for real.
  2. Very hard if the system puts you in another alliance anyway regardless of indicated pairing preferences. But to your bigger point, you had to go out of your way to still play with the people you're used to playing with. That's our exact problem, there is no reason for this if Anet just abandons this poor idea of Alliances.
  3. Most people have friends in a server spread accross guilds though, so they wouldn't. But that number is mostly based on lack of enthusiasm or active dislike for Alliances in /t chat and generally on the forums and WvW discords. There are few dedicated and very active big WvW guilds in EU, and those are the only people the proposed Alliances system works well for. So if you give an out like this, pretty much everyone will take it but for those people and the people not happy with their current server.
  4. So how come that's the worst matchup I've seen in the whole year then? Must mean it's very world based if you get good WvW! What a surprise. How will that go in Alliances? Exactly the same, because it will still be skewered towards the few good teams/alliances and the rest will be empty/bad/skewered matchups. As long as people don't play for their world unless they get a good pairing, why on earth would they change that behaviour with teams? They will still not play for their team unless they get a pairing that carries them.
  5. Around 75% of the players would do so, and we'd have Worlds again with a few tricks for Guilds to move around easier. It would be better than Alliances, but you'd still have the Alliance bro's crying wolf all the time until they're given full control over pairings via Guilds.
  6. Test it until you have your data and don't run it for a full week for no reason at all. You're not getting more data if the first couple of days are already ridden with bugs. You're more than likely just skewering your data because many players that would be there in a normal week, are jumping ship, completely invalidating matchups.
  7. You've already explained how this can be fixxed without breaking the very foundation of WvW in the process and giving undue power to big Guilds though (what Alliance will do essentially). You don't let players immediately transfer, lock them out of transfers on their account after doing that a few times for say a year or so, or just don't announce the server links so it'll be pure guesses and not worth it anymore. Also, this phenomonon is pretty much non-existent on EU anymore, so basically they're screwing us with a bad new system to police some American guilds. Sounds like a bad idea.
  8. 80% of the map controlled by green whenever I care to check, the other two at 100 or lower points per tick. Every border map outnumbered by default. Also known as the worst skewered matchup I have seen in at least a year.
  9. Yet you put players (guilds) in full control of bandwagoning and make it easier and cheaper. How will it fix this? On top of that "bandwagoning" is hardly an issue in EU servers. There's only so many times entire groups of people are willing to move from one server to the next.
  10. Sure it is. The "they" you originally replied to, people who do not play WvW primarilyin a guild as a GvG mode and who will be left behind with Alliances. I never said roamers, that's what you make it to be. I very clearly described the players we are talking about in the post you replied to. They aren't roamers or not roamers, they're not any type of WvW role. All they have in common is that they don't like guilds as a primary way of playing WvW, be it the time investment, the smaller community, the demands on activity or being there for raids or train
  11. This is not true for most European servers. Most tags are run by random guilds or even non-representing people and many more are run under WvW guilds but those people often switch between those guilds or just have that guild but aren't very tied to it in any way. It's people who run tags, for their world/community, not guilds. Guilds run tags more often than not for their guild alone. Wether that's for strategic reasons or elitism, it matters not, it gives you nothing unless you're in that particular guild. All that will remain are guild exclusive tags for the majority of it, and a lot of r
  12. You seem to think only roamers and scouts aren't in dedicated WvW guilds, while in reality, it's up to about 80% of players on a world, depending on the world and how community based (rather than guild based) it is. Those people play regularly with other people they know by name, they talk with in squad chat, map or even team chat or whispers. They join blobs and tags, sometimes run open tags themselves. They're not just "roamers and scouts". Now those people lose everything with the current proposal of what Alliance is going to look like, and they're understandably upset. They get shafted
  13. What's with all the hyper salty defending of alliances. If people say they're outnumbered a lot you (who doesn't have a clue if that's true or not) immediately jump them and say 'no you're not, look better roamer'. Because of course, you, who aren't in their pairing, know better wether they're outnumbered a lot. Stop going to extreme lengths to defend this bad system.
  14. I've seen more incorrect maps (belonging to different pairing and with different captured objectives until I actually map there and get the map I'm supposed to be on) than correct ones, and every map has at least 1-2 incorrectly captured objectives at a time for me since the beginning of this meta. Wasn't expecting them to fix something that weird and potentially deep in the code during the beta though and it's indeed persisting very well.
  15. Continuously changing groups of people and some guilds that will have no way to build a longer lasting clear identity because they don't stay under the same banner/team/name for long periods (months/years) of time in large amounts. Right now if you're into WvW you often know which big guilds are on a certain server for example. Teams? No clue. Maybe you learn after a while. Then they switch teams. Cool. Zero identity, confirmed.
×
×
  • Create New...