Whiteout.1975

Even worse.The simps don't want to pay females for their content but still expect a date.

So, Hacks are the main problem? Go figure. Next, will be Traveler's Runes are an excuse for speed hacks, teleports are an excuse for teleport hacks, etc. Oh wait . . . Do we really want sacrifice or disrupt game mechanics for the sack of something ("hacking") that is not willingly supported in the first place? Correct me if I am wrong, but this is the context I am getting through mention of "stealth" here. They could somehow alter stealth for the sake of hacking, maybe. None the less, hacking remains the problem with other potential outlets/claims to "cover" this main problem. I would prefer to go for the head of the snake here, but this is just my two cents.

The color of my enemy's blood. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have a shit idea. Instead of just one downstate, as per usual. Let there be two downstates . . . Wait, no, make that at least three downstate phases. So one downstate will lead right into another and so on till . . . defeated? (Ignoring the possibility players are insta rez'd by five allies in a fight to which they already were outnumbering enemies) Since downstate, as is, adds so much extra depth to combat apparently.

Perhaps a bit bigger question is: "Does Anet care?" The only thing I care about at this point is what Anet has done. They've gotten so many people's hopes up, yet, only to let the community wander around in the dark along with a brief amount of unreliable clues that cycle right back into that darkness. This is a cruel, unusual, and unprofessional route for any otherwise respectable company to take, in my opinion. Also, no, I do not think I am too dramatic by stating that. Anet is honestly not honoring people's time spent wandering over Alliances when Anet already receives a fair amount of that time invested in their game. I'm done.

"are the 'content' "Nice question. I would say that balance patches are apart of the content of WvW, but not necessarily "the content for wvw." I don't know what the content of WvW fully will entail now, or is to entail in the future, but I/ we should all know that current WvW "content" isn't just solely attributed to "balance patches." We have Reward Tracks and now a Warclaw, trying to avoid going any deeper here. So, no, balance patches are not the content for WvW, but they may be attributed to WvW balance depending on the implementation. Just pointing this out for fun, but couldn't one ask the same leading question for say . . . PvE? Perhaps even replace the word "balance" for "bugs" if it helps. Often, far more times than not, balance patches are attempts to "fix" errors made in the previous balance patches. This situation easily begins to invite a phrase, that is well thrown around, known as "quality content." For instance, I could bake a shit-filled pie and top that with one beautiful cherry, but it's still just a shit-filled pie. Or . . . I could make maybe a chocolate creme pie and be happy with that. In this case, I could care less about what side of the coin everyone lands on. I just care what I'm being served. Have a great day.

GW2 has expansions, they have a gem store which takes the place of a monthly sub. You can already donate to them by using the gem store. It's not a matter of money, they obviously had money to invest and development power to use, they just chose to use it on side projects which eventually got cancelled, and Mike running off to form another studio. I disagree. The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended.I hear it's not because of money, but then I remember layoffs . . . So, in fairness, I wonder. Paying the employees, art supplies, technical equipment, overall studio bills (including the rights to the property) . . . I'm not going to pretend like I know how much comes out to. The vast majority of things put forth, including some coming from Anet, do not happen. Do you really think I'd be surprised regarding this time? If they follow what I initially said in the OP, or a similar system, they can reward people for how much they do donate accordingly. Have a goal date, if they don't reach it in time, refund people. Refunds are nothing new as the times' people have been upset about HoT or PoF content. Of course, we wouldn't know if they would happen though, just more negatively theorizing. Okay, so you are describing refunds in the case of a finished product here. If Alliances come, as advertised, then I wouldn't expect a refund. If the method in the OP was used then you are still rewarding the player for being a donator.I mean I don't donate to a cancer patient and then demand a refund because they died, sadly. I understood the potential risks of doing so.Also, similar to that logic, I should be refunded every time I have to change my WvW gear after a balance patch because I was unsatisfied. Of course, however, I don't speak for the company and what they do is for them to decide. Completely disagree on the first sentence. Yes, I want them to take WvW seriously, but that will not happen with more players in WvW. More players actively playing WvW just shows the company that those players already value that service/part of the game. I agree with the rest. Do you know what doesn't help either? Is when I see/hear conversations like this all the time: Player 1: "Man, I hate that Anet still hasn't brought out Alliances."Player 2: "Yeah bro, what gives? Something like that should have been finished by now. Pisses me off."Player 1: "This game sucks!"Player 2: "Yeah . . . So . . . See you on for reset tomorrow?"Player 1: "Of course, sure thing man, also don't forget to buy more siege ahead of time, hahaha" . . . LOL True. Don't know about this last one though lol. Plenty of people need to stop paying for services they will never truly value. No matter where they transfer, WvW will still be a WvW without Alliances. I'm convinced that current WvW is just a demo version of its true self. Different game companies monetize their game differently. Anet chose to monetize this game as follows... "We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions.".Yeah, "non-pay-to-win." Nothing I've said is suggesting "pay-to-win" rewards. So, cool? Disagree. When someone or some entity, rather, states what they are raising money for (Alliances in the case) they are making their intentions known. Whether the money heads in that direction OR whether an individual/group believes them is not only a personal problem but another story. I hope that makes things more clear on what I mean by that if I was not before. Crowdfunding is a generalized term. Yes, it is crowdfunding, but I was referring to a more specific method/system of going about it, initially. Yes, I am asking for the potential funding of a major feature of the game. And the day you @Swagger.1459 you work at Anet is the day you can tell more accurately tell me: "[T]hat's not gonna happen." Provided you don't pick up traditional company values of bad player communication. Yes! Kickstarter, that's the one I forgetting to mention before. Thanks for reminding me :+1:

GW2 has expansions, they have a gem store which takes the place of a monthly sub. You can already donate to them by using the gem store. It's not a matter of money, they obviously had money to invest and development power to use, they just chose to use it on side projects which eventually got cancelled, and Mike running off to form another studio. I disagree. The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended. I hear it's not because of money, but then I remember layoffs . . . So, in fairness, I wonder.Paying the employees, art supplies, technical equipment, overall studio bills (including the rights to the property) . . . I'm not going to pretend like I know how much comes out to. The vast majority of things put forth, including some coming from Anet, do not happen. Do you really think I'd be surprised regarding this time? If they follow what I initially said in the OP, or a similar system, they can reward people for how much they do donate accordingly. Have a goal date, if they don't reach it in time, refund people. Refunds are nothing new as the times' people have been upset about HoT or PoF content. Of course, we wouldn't know if they would happen though, just more negatively theorizing. Okay, so you are describing refunds in the case of a finished product here. If Alliances come, as advertised, then I wouldn't expect a refund. If the method in the OP was used then you are still rewarding the player for being a donator. I mean I don't donate to a cancer patient and then demand a refund because they died, sadly. I understood the potential risks of doing so.Also, similar to that logic, I should be refunded every time I have to change my WvW gear after a balance patch because I was unsatisfied.Of course, however, I don't speak for the company and what they do is for them to decide. Completely disagree on the first sentence. Yes, I want them to take WvW seriously, but that will not happen with more players in WvW. More players actively playing WvW just shows the company that those players already value that service/part of the game. I agree with the rest. Do you know what doesn't help either? Is when I see/hear conversations like this all the time: Player 1: "Man, I hate that Anet still hasn't brought out Alliances."Player 2: "Yeah bro, what gives? Something like that should have been finished by now. Pisses me off."Player 1: "This game sucks!"Player 2: "Yeah . . . So . . . See you on for reset tomorrow?"Player 1: "Of course, sure thing man, also don't forget to buy more siege ahead of time, hahaha" . . . LOL True. Don't know about this last one though lol. Plenty of people need to stop paying for services they will never truly value. No matter where they transfer, WvW will still be a WvW without Alliances. I'm convinced that current WvW is just a demo version of its true self.

Name all the established MMOs that turn to crowd funding for continued development? That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective. Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . ."What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not. My question is valid. Anet made like around $50,000,000 USD last year, and you want them to now ask for donations to develop wvw??? Name an existing MMO that's taking in MILLIONS that then turns to the community for hand out donations to add content??? Hmm? And you think that looks good for a business?... And that's exactly what you are proposing, and crowd funding is only done for start up studios to produce a "someday" game... How much of that money was put into Alliances so far?Everything you just said makes Anet look bad for having so much money and still no Alliances to show for years now. That hurts them before anything I've suggested here, so congrats. Also, I never explicitly said: "hand out donations." I basically said, have a Pateron that rewards people back based on how much they donate accordingly. However, if they want a strict free hand out donation method . . . They can go ahead. That is just not my preferred method and you just further illustrated why already.

The amount of "faith" I posses, large or small, holds very little if any weight in the overall desired outcome of Alliances. Sure though, I'll still bite. If the goal set by them "was met," as you said, then in all fairness, yes, I should have reason to believe at that point Anet would deliver. Regardless, people, no matter where they stand, have the option to donate however much or not at all. If they find this option too risky, then they simply don't donate then. You don't really need to 'bite', the question isn't bait, it is just a question. Either way, the only reason I ask is because anet doesn't have the greatest track record of doing what they say they are going to do. I remember a time when they listed 2nd generation legendary weapons as a selling point of the Heart of Thorns expansion and then once they realized they couldn't deliver that, they silently changed the Heart of Thorns FAQ page, removing any mention of legendary weapons, and only addressed it after they got called out by the community. Things like that are why I believe that, even if arenanet were to do something like this, I don't think they would deliver if the goal was met. edit: Also, not trying to be a negative nancy, just being realistic. Anet clearly has little to no interest in alliances, or wvw in general.Okay, I just have gotten tired of sitting around, waiting on the world to change. I just thought I would mention an approach that could potentially help. I hope that is understandable.

You are probably right. I only brought the topic up because I get tired of seeing what WvW could have been (Alliances). Current WvW feels like I'm playing some unrefined version of the game. Almost, like a Game-Demo in a sense, back when they used to have those more so. It completely destroys my urge to play as a result. Under respectable matching circumstances (was hoping Alliances would help with this) I believe I would love tournaments too.

Name all the established MMOs that turn to crowd funding for continued development? That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective. Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . ."What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

No, I firstly presume it is a matter of interest because they brought up "Alliances" to the player base. Merely stating that "money isn't always a solution" does not prove it was not part of the solution either. Additionally, the intention is not to just continue to "[throw] out money". The money is intended to go in a specific direction, being Alliances. Enough money could potentially help them put on a bigger team if need be. Besides if one man can come this far: Then surely a few devs should be able to put together a system (not even a full game) together. Otherwise, what the kitten.Yeah, and then compare how many crowdfunded things have failed or had millions put into them and then nothing to show for it. . . . And then compare how many crowdfunded things have succeeded with something to show for it.Yeah like Camelot Unchained, which people on this forum said killed WvW in 2015. Wait.Well I was never one of those people if that makes you feel better. However, I rather not get into attempted murders vs attempted suicides if we are still comparing here.

We do not know what/where these donations are used in funding in its entirety. The majority could still be supporting side projects and/or the typically focused advancements made in PvE, such as expansions, raids, or what have you. The OP offers a more focused method or direct intentions toward alliances . . . But I cannot ever hope to compete with one's own belief system of where they believe the money with go, that's a personal problem. Alliances started out as a concept, but was and still is subject to change as Anet originally claimed. Ultimately, it is a system that intends to create a more balanced population system, yes. Transfers are a much more limiting approach. I should not need to get into "why" on this one. However, something like the crowdfunding or subscription-based (subscriptions can be simply 30 days even and then end) are free to donate basically anytime, until the desired amount is reached. And for people who do not wish to transfer, this creates a more easy/alternate/direct method of donating to the intended cause. A method that may easily hold more value to them. Considering what I've said, I appreciate your offer "luck," but I may easily find myself saying "good luck" to transfers if the situation ever did arise.

In my opinion, the problem is not so much trolling. People will always attempt this in some manner. Rather, the problem is often the ease of trolling. Anyone can easily throw crap siege down to waste supply.Honestly, I wouldn't get too mad though. The biggest troll is the fact that WvW is ultimately a numbers game. Enjoy :+1:

No, I firstly presume it is a matter of interest because they brought up "Alliances" to the player base. Merely stating that "money isn't always a solution" does not prove it was not part of the solution either. Additionally, the intention is not to just continue to "[throw] out money". The money is intended to go in a specific direction, being Alliances. Enough money could potentially help them put on a bigger team if need be. Besides if one man can come this far: Then surely a few devs should be able to put together a system (not even a full game) together. Otherwise, what the kitten.Yeah, and then compare how many crowdfunded things have failed or had millions put into them and then nothing to show for it.. . . And then compare how many crowdfunded things have succeeded with something to show for it.

Alright, then people should not donate if it is not convenient for them any more than they continue to buy unessential gems as we speak.

I wonder how their cousin, the Warclaw, feels about this.

No, I firstly presume it is a matter of interest because they brought up "Alliances" to the player base. Merely stating that "money isn't always a solution" does not prove it was not part of the solution either. Additionally, the intention is not to just continue to "[throw] out money". The money is intended to go in a specific direction, being Alliances. Enough money could potentially help them put on a bigger team if need be. Besides if one man can come this far: Then surely a few devs should be able to put together a system (not even a full game) together. Otherwise, what the fuck.

The amount of "faith" I posses, large or small, holds very little if any weight in the overall desired outcome of Alliances. Sure though, I'll still bite. If the goal set by them "was met," as you said, then in all fairness, yes, I should have reason to believe at that point Anet would deliver. Regardless, people, no matter where they stand, have the option to donate however much or not at all. If they find this option too risky, then they simply don't donate then. However, I find this option more appealing than doing nothing at all as we all theorize on what could be. Not to mention, all while I have the option to buy gems, dress "cool," or whatever and continuing playing anything else, in-game, but Alliances.

Patreon can be set up for different tiers to greater reward people who donate especially more than others. Although, all donators usually get some kind of reward. I do not care much on the platform used. However, initially, that is why I jumped towards mentioning Patreon. Personally, no, I did not forget about the past side projects. My issue with those projects is that they were kept "secret," for the longest time, from the player base. I want to know where my money is going this time EXACTLY, as much as the next guy/gal should. Other than that, I agree with everything else you said.

I stopped myself from making this post a couple of years ago because I thought to myself, "Eh, Anet adding only a system (Alliances). Anet is not even making a full-on game or full-on expansion. How much longer can it take?" Yet, here we all are, years later, still waiting . . . I guess that is what "soon" means. Anyways, done with that small rant. I making this post regarding an idea involving how I still think Alliances could have progressed much faster. The idea is overall simple: Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators items such as Gems, Artwork, and/or whatever is perceived fair, what matches their contribution, in/out of the game. I would have gladly donated to the cause. I am not making this post anymore complicated than that. That is all, thanks for reading.

if you would take server hate away, you would be left with half of your server fighting vs. each other in voice or team chat, or in their minds at least. The usual stuff is "ppl dont play the way I want", or "my apporach is the only right one, nothing else works", or the usual elitist behaviour of ppl that are unable to teamplay in a big scale mode "my guild is the best" / "our linking partner is garbage". The percentage of elitists has massively increased over the years, since most casuals that want to teamplay already left because of that. Thats why server hate is mandatory so your server would at least temporarily team up vs. a mutually hated enemy. I agree that mutual hatred can bring people together. Yet, those people must share that hatred for them to come together over it. However, as you might be able to decern from this poll, not everyone possesses this hatred and still enjoys WvW to some extent. Also, I know many players/friends, besides myself, who have had their more than fair share of respectful fights where no hatred was felt. Therefore, I find the word "mandatory" at odds with their/my experience. Do not mistake my position too much, however. I do understand that perceived or outright disrespectful actions can fuel a certain hatred, but only to the extent of those who actually fueled it.

(This post is meant to allow for possible understandings of server hate and left to the public to determine if it is valid under participating opinions.) One might have heard the phrase or general idea that "winning/losing matches do not matter in WvW." If this is the case, then why does server hate exist in your opinion? In other words . . . Do you think server hate is justified?Please omit attacking specific server(s) and present your opinion as a generalized one. This post intends to invite some potential root causes in hopes of reaching a better, respectful resolution/understanding. Thank You.

Everything you have listed is what I used to love in this game mode. The problem I ran into, eventually, over the years, is what might be described as a sense of worthlessness. I feel like just another number with no real value to the game. When people/friends appreciate my efforts is one thing. Yet, I don't feel that from GW2. When I am in WvW I don't feel like I'm truly achieving anything worthwhile in-game. Let me describe it in another sense . . . I/we could maybe go play a game of hide and go seek, let's say. We might both have fun for some time perhaps . . . But that doesn't lead anywhere further. Then I/we naturally would get bored and just stop playing for a while.This is my issue with WvW. Yet, I still enjoy what you've listed; honestly, I think it's great you still feel that way. However, let me dig deeper into the issue. For me, I could, and I would have fun with friends in other games too. I still chat with friends from GW2 these days, but elsewhere (like Discord or another platform). These two situations I happen not to need WvW (or Gw2) for; this has been going on for years now personally. So what do we got left? "Trying different builds against others" and "Coming up with weird ways to win in fights." I used to love these things very much, so I can relate. The problem I have is that the fights feel like they do not matter. I believe why I have this "worthless" feeling in WvW. For me, I need a real sense of progression via competition. WvW carries this sort of "for shits and giggles" way about it; not exactly "competitive." This general carelessness ultimately conflicts with my desire for real competition. I was hoping Alliances (if they ever come) would create this real sense of honest competition. Yet, because fights, win or lose, don't matter ultimately, I lost my incentive to play. I hope that makes sense, and I respect where you're coming from @Sovereign.1093.