Alliances - Perspective from a crucial demographic

[KryTiKaL.3125]

12 minutes ago, Counterakt.9106 said:

 If worlds are not balanced how can you ensure alliances are balanced. Everyone is going to try and stack alliances. In fact, worlds are more democratic. A group of people can't say who gets in vs who stays out. But with alliances good players are going to stack and there is nothing anet can do about that.

 

The theme I am hearing is Guilds/Alliances just replace servers as if it is just natural. There is a huge difference between guilds/alliances and Servers. You don't have to appease anyone to get into a server. with alliances you are giving a few people power over entire alliance. You don't honestly think that is going to end well, do you? I can guarantee a ton of drama and toxicity from that. That is not good for the wvw community. All the server discords I am in, I can already see people getting left behind due to lack of space. This is going to affect new players who haven't fully established themselves a lot more than veteran players who can easily adapt, because no good alliances will take them and they will never get good because they don't get to play with good alliances. This is a vicious cycle.

Guilds make up the bulk of server population imbalances. Why do you think any time the "bandwagon" server has changed it has been because of guilds migrating to it?

Also it is much easier to balance guilds with a matchmaking system to be against one another based on their performance during any given matchup than it is to balance servers where guilds are stuck there unless they pay money to transfer or need to somehow carry the rest of the server up through the currently not great WvW tier system.

You mention toxicity but thats...already a thing, it will always be a thing, guild politics happen and drama happens around it more often than not. Also you're claiming this will have an affect on new players who haven't fully established themselves yet the system is described to be placing them based on their performance or if they are inactive or new they can choose where they want to go anyway.

From what we know so far, if there are lesser performing guilds out there then they will be paired accordingly with other guilds in similar positions. I have a feeling roamer centric guilds are likely to get placed against one another initially whereas the large zerg fight guilds are going to get paired against each other as well. I don't see how that is a bad thing because it will still be accounting for the individual players and placing them accordingly as well.

[killforbeers.7534]

We shall see.. for now it seems as mentioned here servers turn into guilds; for example, you already see MAG guild. Additionally, I think like some here that it will turn into the toxic guilds where if you don't only rep them you are kicked, you do not agree you're kicked, you don't show up at a certain time to fight in WvW... you're kicked.  Anet mentioned they will keep an eye on WvW so lets see what happens when "if" they noticed that really 500 players in one area is a combo of the main guild and their sister guilds. So It could be like one big BG vs MG vs JQ members and the pugs, solo, roamers, smaller groups end up in the "pug" guild". This happened in RIFT where they have guilds telling their members to quickly join a side before the match started and the rest that can't make it they end up in the automatic losing side. Oh well we shall see how it works and I hope ANET fixes or help avoid a monopoly environment. I will keep roaming and I do like the idea of a dedicated smaller group of players but even that is hard as many do not roam solo and not much havoc groups around. I can't even join or start a havoc roaming group because a good majority of players stick with the Zergs. So Zergs end up taking a camp because no roamer or havoc around to do so.  I really would love for this to work and no more dead zone hours. That is the nice part so far what I like about this so far.

[displayname.8315]

1 hour ago, killforbeers.7534 said:

We shall see.. for now it seems as mentioned here servers turn into guilds

Here is the clip of the dev's Q&A.  At 14 mins he talks about your concerns.  The "battle" guild as he calls it is for matchmaking purposes.  Nobody will control servers or have a say in the matchmaking.  Solo pugs gets to pick their match "to a certain extent".   

 

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1120947701

The biggest disadvantage of being solo is "there is some room left for solo's as a server is created, but they will fill up fast and the server will lock".  So if you want a guarantee to play with your crew better join up.

Edited September 12, 2021 by displayname.8315

[ASP.8093]

4 hours ago, Counterakt.9106 said:

 If worlds are not balanced how can you ensure alliances are balanced. Everyone is going to try and stack alliances. In fact, worlds are more democratic. A group of people can't say who gets in vs who stays out. But with alliances good players are going to stack and there is nothing anet can do about that.

The current status quo: each team is assembled out of two pieces, a "host" server and a "link" server.

 

The future: each team is assembled out of multiple alliances (each of which is smaller than a "server" is right now) and a pool of free players; this bigger set of smaller "puzzle pieces" makes it easier to do viable matchmaking.

 

If 500 people want to make the ultimate fight-guild alliance? Ok. They'll probably do well in the weekly fights. They will be teamed with plenty of other players who they don't get to pick, and have no special leverage over. And every ~8 weeks they'll get a new team with different people.

 

Under the new system, it is harder to "stack" a team than under the old system, because THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR FORCING ANY GROUPING LARGER THAN A 500-PLAYER ALLIANCE.

[Counterakt.9106]

52 minutes ago, ASP.8093 said:

Under the new system, it is harder to "stack" a team than under the old system, because THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR FORCING ANY GROUPING LARGER THAN A 500-PLAYER ALLIANCE.

In the current system, guilds and people can move freely between servers. In alliances, people can hand pick their 500. In the anet blog they talk about better rewards for servers who come out ahead. So there is more at stake than bragging rights. If you think you see a lot of stacking and siege humping now, it is going to just get worse many fold. If you are in the hard core alliance you probably will love it, everyone else is gonna hate it.

[Counterakt.9106]

5 hours ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

You mention toxicity but thats...already a thing, it will always be a thing, guild politics happen and drama happens around it more often than not. Also you're claiming this will have an affect on new players who haven't fully established themselves yet the system is described to be placing them based on their performance or if they are inactive or new they can choose where they want to go anyway.

Reg. toxicity I found a way to be out of the guild politics and drama while also having a sense of community at the server level and unfortunately that is going to be taken away. Your point about lesser performing players matched up in their level is the problem I am seeing. They will never see higher level gameplay and it will be harder for them to improve or get involved deeper in the game. If this happened to me in the early days I would have had a very different impression of the game and would have been bored. 

Imagine 500 bronze invaders vs 500 bronze invaders matchup. I really hope they don't do it that way.

 

Reg. stacking, lets wait and watch. Players are going to find a way to stack.

 

[ASP.8093]

38 minutes ago, Counterakt.9106 said:

In the current system, guilds and people can move freely between servers.

Go to your World Select screen and try it. 👍

[Dawdler.8521]

55 minutes ago, Counterakt.9106 said:

Reg. stacking, lets wait and watch. Players are going to find a way to stack.

Your world has already stacked probably 3000+ players. Are you saying 3000+ is a smaller number than 500?

Just doing a quick sanity check here.

[Counterakt.9106]

33 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Your world has already stacked probably 3000+ players. Are you saying 3000+ is a smaller number than 500?

Just doing a quick sanity check here.

Out of curiosity, what server do  you belong to?

Also, for the record, Mag is probably the least stacked of all the top servers. Just that the average pug plays more and more consistently because it is pug friendly.

[Dawdler.8521]

23 minutes ago, Counterakt.9106 said:

Out of curiosity, what server do  you belong to?

Also, for the record, Mag is probably the least stacked of all the top servers. Just that the average pug plays more and more consistently because it is pug friendly.

I am on FSP. 

Calling it the "probably the least stacked" still means it's stacked you know. 

Quote

Imagine 500 bronze invaders vs 500 bronze invaders matchup. I really hope they don't do it that way.

Well that just tell me you dont grasp the concept of alliances. Because there will be no such thing as a "500 bronze invaders vs 500 bronze invaders matchup". There's no such thing as an alliance matchup period. The matchups are between worlds which contain the same players as we have now. The same guilds. Hell, even the same "alliances" because today there are groups of guilds bandwagoning together.  Are there "500 bronze invaders vs 500 bronze invaders" today in your matchup? Yes? No? Didnt think so.

Hell I bet there wont even be that many capped alliances. Most of them will probably only be a handful of large guilds and then filled out with some smaller "support" guilds just like worlds today, only smaller chunks. Because players are players and players cant agree on anything. We see that every day between "fight guilds". If there's going to be an alliance commander strong enough to keep a group of 500 players together at peak effeciency then gratz - that's what WvW is all about. We shape it.

[Tiawal.2351]

22 hours ago, Counterakt.9106 said:

We are not loyal to a guild, we are loyal to the server.

 

Leave the servers alone, leave the people who don't choose an alliance alone, leave the pugs alone.

 

Not all guilds get in thanks to the 500 member limit 

 

Guild or server (aka "World") means the same thing: the people you share a common goal with. Now they have to fit in a 500 members sized guild. This may seem small, but you will see in a few months, that 500 is huge, even 50 is huge: inevitable some will want to leave it, and find a new place, where they fit in better. The new system will allow that, every 2-3 months or so afaik.

 

We can't have the cake and eat it as well. IF there is no fun activity, there is no point of WvW. The afk in a corner type social clubs could live in Lion's Arch as well; WvW is meant to be active, with non-stop fights.

 

I won't mind of course if Anet creates a reservation for those who want to be left behind. At least for a while, until they want to move. Because those who enjoy an active WvW will be in the new system.

 

Also while I love the concept of servers (world, realms, whatever), because unites people more and gives reason to invest more time and emotions, than just a simple 20 minutes or 2 months battle royale type match; still, as we have seen for years already, being part of a side that is constantly losing and has no way to fight back, is very boring -- for both sides (for the "winners" as well).

This can't be just fixed by players. Could be, but nobody will invest that much time and effort (and likely money too) to do it. The time of the likes of Titan Alliance can't be sustained for long, has to come from the game itself. There is a need for a working system, a new beginning.

[Austin.2048]

On 9/12/2021 at 7:13 AM, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Friend, it changes nothing.

 

You can take 500 of your friends on Maguuma that wants to. You can put them in a guild and call it Maguuma. You can not take those who do not want to be Maguuma. It's easy.

 

On 9/12/2021 at 7:46 AM, Counterakt.9106 said:

Back to my original point, what is wrong with leaving the pugs alone in their own servers. Guilds were the only ones who always complained about server transfers. Just keep balancing guilds, leave the pugs alone.

Mate, your whole argument hinges on Maguuma being a pug server. Those cloud pugs in mag you are talking about are also the same pugs from the raiding or roaming guilds you are also talking about so trying to push your own interests against the majority of the Maguuma alliance will not work to the benefit of your preference of play.  As for server loyalty, it died after the burnout of playing wvw seasons. My plain observation tells me that server movements have been more fluid after the wvw seasons ended and no one talks about server loyalty or have really heated inter-server kitten posting in the last 6 years or so.  We don't have hard data to suggest the majority of players, like you claim, are loyal to the server. 

[Terrier.8732]

 I'm hoping we'll be pleasantly surprised with what the changes bring.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Terrier.8732

[Austin.2048]

On 9/12/2021 at 7:07 AM, Counterakt.9106 said:

1) The guilds that let you do that are usually rally bots, no offence. 

2) Like I said, there is going to be a lot of conflicts, people want to play with their hardcore raid guild also want to just pug around with a few people that you can trust not to get one pushed. They will have to make a choice now. Some of us have more realm royalty than guild loyalty. I might as well come out and say, I am from Maguuma, the only pug server left in the game. I omitted that in my original post because I know this thread will get derailed.

3) I don't know how things work outside of Mag. But I play more hours than the typical guild based player who logs in for two hours for raid and get done. In fact, it is the other way around, pugs like me are the ones who keep content going during off hours, defend home so guilds can login at their rally time and have their little romp.

Mag is not a random PUG server that just suddenly had the best cloud pugs in NA. These PUGs you are talking about are players from skilled roaming groups, and current and former wvw fight guilds in Mag, and transferred veteran wvw players. This is the player demographic of the majority of Maguuma. If you think that these are just random pugs who happen to be on Mag,  try moving putting an alt in another server and start pugging around randomly or tagging up to see the difference. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by alvinjason.3109

[Skynet.7201]

On 9/12/2021 at 7:24 AM, Tiawal.2351 said:

We can't have the cake and eat it as well. IF there is no fun activity, there is no point of WvW. The afk in a corner type social clubs could live in Lion's Arch as well; WvW is meant to be active, with non-stop fights.

It's a shame that a lot of people can't wrap their heads around this concept.

[Yuffi.2430]

I think you are still confusing the idea of "server" and "alliance". There won't be any fixed servers when Alliances goes live, and a single alliance of guilds won't replace them. Each world/team in WvW will be a one-off grouping made up of a mix of bigger and smaller groups. Some might be alliances of guilds, some might be single guilds, some might be individual players. These teams/groups will change over time.

You can't "leave the servers alone" because they won't exist. Pugs will still exist, players will still play individually or in groups, but who you play alongside may change.

[StrangerDanger.3496]

As someone whos didnt touch WvW until about two weeks ago upon returning...and basically boosted a Rev and hopped right in...relating to the OP topic I was thinking just the opposite.  I feel my server has a definite distinct personality to it and I was sorta fearing that the new Alliance system might make it feel like I'm always in a random battle ground version of WvW.

 

One of the things they really need to do with WvW is sort out the warclaw system.  It sucks "round objects" the period of time farming the gear pieces...and I cant even imagine being on the poverty edition of Gw2* playing free in this game mode.  It makes finding the zerg encounter an absolute chore, you become thief snacks when following the zerg and inevitably falling behind.  It was actually unfun for my first week of play.

 

Second, there needs to be a better way for those who maybe are not in a structured WvW guild to find the action.  I know there's a battle icon, and the dorito icons are helpful when in use.  After some experience and the warclaw its not bad you can run around the known hotspots and see if there is anything going on, or afk at a teleport and wait for people to rez there and follow....but there isn't really a good way to see where the battles are happening, if its a guy solo capping getting ganked or if its a massive battle.  

 

From a new player perspective, it all makes WvW unfun to get into, and difficult to participate in...especially when groups have a tendency to teleport to another map on a whim...

 

I suggest a heat map type notification system, and the battle icon should differentiate from battle with less than 10 people total versus the big zergs brawling.  The more people engaged in WvW combat within an area should light up the area and then leave a mark so if someone new jumps in, looks at the map, they can see most of the fighting is around these three points and now has somewhere to go, versus as it is right now and seeing where the doritos are on map, if any, and getting lucky seeing a orange sword icon, which doesn't guarantee that's where the action is by the time they get there.

 

Overall, the WvW here is way better than ESO and other games ive played.  Just that first week or two with no warclaw and being not in a big guild kinda sucks, i can see a lot of free players leaving the game after trying it out with no mount and never knowing really where to go to find everyone.

[Zoser.7245]

I have not played WvW for a while. But i talk with friends that do it almost every day.  Due to our conversations and their concerns as some of them talk different languages  i wonder if Arenanet will include a variable with the origin language of each guild or language preference in the alliance system. Because the mess that can be bundled with random players, PvE players, f2p and guilds that do not have people who understand a letter and less speak another language that their own one playing together with other that only understand other languages can be epic. Especially when people start to get mad and write at the same time in 7 different languages... without understanding what others are writing or even having no interest in it. You cannot force people to write or speak a language they unknown completely and/or be organized, they have the same right to play than any other player.

I also wonder how many players the new system will cost to WvW anyways, because a lot of players follow public commanders in their servers and defend their servers without having to organize themselves since they only play casually, enough players to fill squads 24/7, players that maybe could simply quit if they are not comfortable with the new system that put them randomly with who knows what team if they not organize themselves and prefer the server's community system to play.

Not to mention the people who will be revealing the position of near squads/guilds without knows what is going on in the map due to the language barrier doing its own random things, touching the tactics actuators, etc.

 

There will also be a mess with the organization of the audio channels to be used... A single channel will no longer be useful for everything because people who were previously united speaking the same language on a server with which they identified, can now end up on different teams. So you will need three channels for people that want to be organized. But let's see how players that take this in a more serious manner try to control who is on each team after each reset, because people who speak the same language are sure to enter in all the channels to see what other teams do, to talk with friends, etc.  I know people that will use more than one account if neededs as the social time while playing WvW and talking with its friends is more important than a volatile team alliance and they are not going to stay 8 weeks without being together talking and having fun in Discord even if they are fighting each other, etc.  They would even leave the team channel to prioritize their game friends above the competitive aspect of the game, so, social>competitive for a lot of them and the reason why they prefer WvW over PvP and be with their server's community. The alliance system is not going to remove that relationship while they play WvW.

 

It will be interesting to watch how all that evolves and to watch how this alliances experiment ends. There are big communities not happy with remove servers and instead of split themselves in several teams, they could prefer leave and play together something else that let them stay unifed as a single entity.

 

WvW is fun to play, competitive but also with an important social aspect today. So i hope that Arenanet doesn't fail with the changes this time or it could end as PvP. In this case with 4 hardcore guilds instead of four players and big empty maps.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Zoser.7245

[Xenesis.6389]

1 hour ago, StrangerDanger.3496 said:

Second, there needs to be a better way for those who maybe are not in a structured WvW guild to find the action.  I know there's a battle icon, and the dorito icons are helpful when in use.  After some experience and the warclaw its not bad you can run around the known hotspots and see if there is anything going on, or afk at a teleport and wait for people to rez there and follow....but there isn't really a good way to see where the battles are happening, if its a guy solo capping getting ganked or if its a massive battle.  

 

From a new player perspective, it all makes WvW unfun to get into, and difficult to participate in...especially when groups have a tendency to teleport to another map on a whim...

 

This is why you need to read the map, and chat on scout calls for more information on what's going on in maps, add commanders who usually run zergs to your friends list so you see what map they're on. 

 

When I say read the map, I mean look at what has contested white swords, look at what was recently capped, look at where sentries are gone, look at where dolyaks disappeared, there are patterns to everything. If a keep flips it means a small group, or a zerg took it if oj's show up, if the camp north of that then flips they may head to north camp or the north tower. And if you're really lazy about this then head to ebg where the objectives are closer and easier to find fights.

 

The warclaw acquirement they definitely need to redo that whole thing.

[StrangerDanger.3496]

Absolutely theres a way around the issue.  Im just talking about the new players and those first couple weeks when you wont be buddies with the commanders, know the layout, and really know what to do in WvW....its a jarring entry that has you aimlessly running around on foot for hours trying to find parties, and asking in chat never gets you an invite (your a spy or something) or it gets ignored.  In fact ive only been in a party twice, not even on a healbrand, in a guild with people on screen,  was I getting party invited to parties.

 

Bottom line for people new to WvW, the multitude of map instances, and the layout of everything makes it super difficult to find action and probably drives people out the content more than you think.  Its super fun when you learn the layout, unlock warclaw so you can actually follow a zerg, and get to know people better.  

 

I think an easier to read map that shows where action is currently happening better would do a lot to help people ease into the content....and really, without warclaw, i dont think id be participating anymore in the content.  

 

Just two issues I noticed when recently trying the content for the first time, and loving it after that first weeks issues.

Edited September 17, 2021 by StrangerDanger.3496

[Xenesis.6389]

8 minutes ago, StrangerDanger.3496 said:

Absolutely theres a way around the issue.  Im just talking about the new players and those first couple weeks when you wont be buddies with the commanders, know the layout, and really know what to do in WvW....its a jarring entry that has you aimlessly running around on foot for hours trying to find parties, and asking in chat never gets you an invite (your a spy or something) or it gets ignored.  In fact ive only been in a party twice, not even on a healbrand, in a guild with people on screen,  was I getting party invited to parties.

 

Bottom line for people new to WvW, the multitude of map instances, and the layout of everything makes it super difficult to find action and probably drives people out the content more than you think.  Its super fun when you learn the layout, unlock warclaw so you can actually follow a zerg, and get to know people better.  

 

I think an easier to read map that shows where action is currently happening better would do a lot to help people ease into the content....and really, without warclaw, i dont think id be participating anymore in the content.  

 

Just two issues I noticed when recently trying the content for the first time, and loving it after that first weeks issues.

 

I mean the barrier to entry could be better, we've discussed it in these forums many times, things such as a better tutorial to get players started, rather than just the npc standing in spawn, the warclaw issue. They half heartedly tried to get players to automatically join squads upon entry into maps but most vets probably have that turned off.

 

I understand wanting to get an alert for smaller fights, but part of the strategy is hiding your numbers, so players might not want the map pinging every time 5 or 10 man fights are happening. The first few days are about learning and figuring out stuff, not that much different than going onto a pve meta map and spending time learning the map and events, well other than getting ganked suddenly by 4 roamers, just be sure to have your escape skills ready.

 

 

 

 

[Rob.6315]

Thing is the Op is right in other ways as well, because Anets arbetory 500 person limit you have guilds removing people whom only casually WvW or were there for a mix of things etc.. because 'Alliances are coming' so all the people going 'just join a guild you like running with' that doesn't work, because half those guilds are going ' screw you we don't want you because you don't want to hard core WvW every day of every week'.

 

Then I notice no one wants to answer the other glaring issue in the room.. Currently WvW runs at various paces across 24hrs as the OP points out.. a lot of those from diffrent time zones etc are the ones whom keep that running over the course of hours that the main guilds or the bulk of the main guilds not around they are out defending or the like.. it might not be 100 man blobs but it's decent large size groups.. If an Alliance is 500 people and a 'match up ' is now Alliance vs Alliance.. ok hows that going to work properly.. because lets say you have a 500 man Australian Guild vs a 500 Man American guild which according to Anet = a full alliance as well..

 

Americans come on during their 'prime time' weekly.. which will be 1 - 6pm Australian time.. 

Aussies come on during their prime time which is anywhere from 12am - 6am US Pacific Time.

 

Guess it'll just be lets flip while each other are busy/asleep right?

 

yeah that works.. :/ 

 

The reason WvW worked with servers is that servers don't rely on a 'group' being on at specific times.. servers have people spread across time zones and things work because of that... 

[ASP.8093]

12 hours ago, Rob.6315 said:

If an Alliance is 500 people and a 'match up ' is now Alliance vs Alliance..

Again, though: it's not.

Alliances get glued together algorithmically to make team of about the same size as a team in the current matchups. That's going to involve several alliances, even for alliances of max size. As well as independent guilds and independent solo players.

Edited September 18, 2021 by ASP.8093

[Dawdler.8521]

11 hours ago, Rob.6315 said:

a 500 man Australian Guild

I dont play on US, but out of curiousity how many 500 man Australian guilds are there? 

Just wondering. People seem to think that alliances will magically create players out of thin air and suddenly there is hardcore 500 mans queueing for every border everywhere.  

[Talindra.4958]

Counterakt, totally understand the concerns as it has been floating in my mind too. i mean looking at our current situation it is not great and a change is needed. So i think give it a bit of time, we should wait and see. The dev will always be taking feedback from us later.