Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Alliances and battle guild roster management


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

Third party for what? you can't talk to each in game? you all call for everyone to do on discord to raid but you can't be bothered to talk each other otherwise?

You're right.  Anet should remove squads because players don't need those kinds of tools to manage groups and boon sharing.  They can just organize that on Discord to decide who gets boons and what.

Edited by Chaba.5410
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You guys talk as if solo players don't exist.

What if i don't wanna join any guild? Can i get pips from eotm?

You're right.  Anet should remove squads because players don't need those kinds of tools to manage groups and boon sharing.  They can just organize that on Discord to decide who gets boons and what.

I admit I didn't see or known about the interview at the time and will need to look into it. Am hoping they have a more detailed blog before we go into the Alliance part of the beta which isn't this week's one, but a future one. That would help in providing feedback on what was seen in game during these tests. Hoping their system has both factors for time played and potentially for total head count. The weakness in a pure hours played on average system is that going that route means there are more potential bodies to call on that might have flex time that can be spent when needed. The weakness in a pure body count system is as been stated above that it forces people to weigh their own and say you are in, you are out. The fact that the new system could more easily adjust the number of worlds that are generated during a restructuring is promising, if the calculations can get refined enough backed by good solid data collection and attributing. It's hard to program random, but it's easy for people to muck with metrics by changing their gaming behaviors.  Good hunting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So much of this is still very vague and confusing. 

Alliance/world cap and guild cap as far as we know currently is going to be set at 500 bodies. 

What about queues as a solution to the changing number of guild members/alliance members playing? Let the map queue system solve this conundrum.

Attempt at an example:
Example Alliance has 3 guilds in it, each with a roster size of 250 bodies. At any given time only 500 of those 750 total bodies can load into the mists to duke it out against enemy alliances/worlds at the same time, and how many on the same map of the mists can be handled by the map cap so that inevitably the teams will need to spread out across the available mist maps. The natural eb and flow of player's available gaming time should mean that the cap will rarely cause an issue of someone being left out - and those able to make static schedules can decide on what hours they need to cover in discussions within their guilds/alliances. 

That would hopefully also address the concerns of guilds of any size, but particularly the smaller ones, who are spread out over multiple time zones or servers as presently available, struggling to be able to play together at all in the current, soon to be replaced, system, who probably don't have any data for the sorting system to take into account because of the lack of opportunity/support for playing WvW outside of mega guilds/servers. 

Another option is to have a queue based on squad size so that at any point in time each guild in an alliance can only load in up to 50 bodies into the mists. So the 500 cap would mean alliances could reach connections of 10 guilds of any size as a rough maximum, without much trouble and the coordination of when their squads or teams are covering things in the mists can be done via discussion in alliance chat - Alliance Chat is a tool we will need. 

The ability to choose our own alliance guild connections is a tool we will need - the vagueness of available information is making it sound less and less like we will actually get to choose our allied guilds. 

The ability to set our alliance's own name and not use a premade name is also very, very important. Part of the reason WvW has declined is because the mega-server destroyed server pride. We need a banner we can fight under and be proud of and nothing is worth fighting for more and being more proud of than a banner and name of our own choosing. Leave the auto-generated names to the auto-created alliance/worlds made from the solo runners and unaffiliated guilds.

Edit:
Finally finished getting through the MightyTeapot stream, and some of my questions or concerns were addressed, but also not? Some things ended up being contradicted and I am still no more clear or sure on what we can expect or try to prepare for as guild leaders, especially those of us with smaller and/or spread out multi-server guilds who have not been able to effectively participate since the mega-server rolled out. I'm concerned that the lack of data on our types is going to skew design choices and the oft circumstances of being unheard for being "too small/new/casual" pick your favorite derogatory poison flavor, will not be helping remedy that missing data. You can't have data from those who haven't played for not feeling able/welcome. The Alliances restructure should be able to fix this, but not if an influx of players returning from the swamps of disillusioned despair aren't accounted for. If Alliances is intended to make WvW a core game mode again, it needs to enable all players to participate. 
How do I be sure all the members under my care as a guild leader are being included, together, without limit? How will we get to control our Alliances? 
Perhaps the first tool we need is a new glossary of terms. We need to know what Anet means by the terms they are using; what is being depreciated, and what is being added or redefined. Maintaining a pinned thread in this WvW area of the forums where they list these terms and definitions would be a decent solution. 

Edited by Aerulight.7250
improved a sentence's clarity - added more thoughts
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2021 at 7:51 AM, Chaba.5410 said:

So what is exactly the problem?

 

Did you asked for the max map capacity before map is queued?
Did you asked about the floaters that will fill the map to even out the manpower at any given time?
Don't think about stacking again with xx number of players at an alliance disposal.
The alliance system should eliminate that server stacking mentality to oblivion.

PS: 1.Go to gw2mists.com check a (any) guild's activity per week there.
2. Put that guild in an alliance.
3. Match that guild with almost same activity/timezone with enemy alliance.
4. Enjoy WvW without outnumbered buff.

Edited by Norbe.7630
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Norbe.7630 said:

Did you asked for the max map capacity before map is queued?
Did you asked about the floaters that will fill the map to even out the manpower at any given time?
Don't think about stacking again with xx number of players at an alliance disposal.
The alliance system should eliminate that server stacking mentality to oblivion.

PS: 1.Go to gw2mists.com check a (any) guild's activity per week there.
2. Put that guild in an alliance.
3. Match that guild with almost same activity/timezone with enemy alliance.
4. Enjoy WvW without outnumbered buff.

Those questions sound like other world restructuring issues and not guild roster management .  I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

See related new posts on guild roster management like:

Also, not every guild is in gw2mists.com.  That's an API driven feature that requires players to input their key.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Those questions sound like other world restructuring issues and not guild roster management .  I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


Also, not every guild is in gw2mists.com.  That's an API driven feature that requires players to input their key.

For guild roster management i can provide you ideas, kick members who are inactive then send them mail notification to pm if they want to come back to the guild because of limited slots.

now for the gw2mists.com part, imagine its the player's perspective to look at a guild's activity, what if its Anet looking at the guild's activity on their own server computers without the need of API, thats only for people to understand how you see and create matches with guilds on a game called Guild Wars, its just an example to make it understandable

Why does the guild have 500 slots and the initial alliance slot is also the size of a full guild roster (500)? (Guild Wars maybe?)

Did anet said how the alliance will work and if people will create alliances on their own? Or players form a new guild (alliance) with their old guilds with a capacity of 500?

Does the 20/500 guild have the option to manually bind them with other guild with other 480/500 guild?

Or a matchmaking system will be created and put small guilds in a bucket to form an alliance automatically?

Edit: You assumed that the alliance is permanently be manually made...
Think it is a PvP matchmaking system where each player is a guild and grouped together to form a match based on.... TADA....API (Roster size, timezone activity, kills, captures, etc etc etc)

Edited by Norbe.7630
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Norbe.7630 said:

For guild roster management i can provide you ideas, kick members who are inactive then send them mail notification to pm if they want to come back to the guild because of limited slots.

Wouldn't that be great if this game had the ability for leaders to be able to send such a mail notification en masse to members?  I think you're under-estimating just how managing a medium to large roster actually plays out with current in-game functionality.

40 minutes ago, Norbe.7630 said:

Why does the guild have 500 slots and the initial alliance slot is also the size of a full guild roster (500)? (Guild Wars maybe?)

It makes sense for the cap on alliances to be the same as it is for guild from a programmatic standpoint.  There would be a restriction then on two guilds maxed out at 500 players to be in alliance together then.  That is an anti-stacking mechanism.

40 minutes ago, Norbe.7630 said:

Did anet said how the alliance will work and if people will create alliances on their own? Or players form a new guild (alliance) with their old guilds with a capacity of 500?

What they've said about alliances so far is it's like a "party of guilds".  So instead of individual players being members, it's individual guilds.  Management of individual players therefore is in the domain of guilds.  Now as to how alliance slots are allocated to each guild they haven't really said or probably determined yet.

40 minutes ago, Norbe.7630 said:

Or a matchmaking system will be created and put small guilds in a bucket to form an alliance automatically?

No.  That's like asking if solo players will go into a bucket to form a guild automatically.  What is gained from that?  Matchmaking is done to automatically form the red, blue, and green teams from the inputs of alliances, solo guilds, and solo players rather than "server links".

 

Edited by Chaba.5410
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

You understand now what I'm trying to say?

What i don't understand though is the part where you said what is the problem and slots of a guild of which plays regularly and occasionally.

Btw have you tried enabling a guild in your WvW panel as the battle guild before the match making?
If not, you will be placed randomly.
If you add members after the deadline they will play at random alliance.
Rinse and repeat on deadline registrations.

So what the problem>?
Larger alliance wants even more ultra large alliance intentionally/accidentally?
Thats called bandwagon.
 

Edited by Norbe.7630
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Norbe.7630 said:

You understand now what I'm trying to say?

What i don't understand though is the part where you said what is the problem and slots of a guild of which plays regularly and occasionally.

Btw have you tried enabling a guild in your WvW panel as the battle guild before the match making?
If not, you will be placed randomly.
If you add members after the deadline they will play at random alliance.
Rinse and repeat on deadline registrations.

So what the problem>?
Larger alliance wants even more ultra large alliance intentionally/accidentally?
Thats called bandwagon.
 

There seems to be a misunderstanding of words.  There are no random alliances.  Teams are not alliances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

There seems to be a misunderstanding of words.  There are no random alliances.  Teams are not alliances.


Server=Team=Alliance

Server
slots ranging from Low to Full
Team slots ranging from Empty map to Queued map 
Alliance slots ranging from One guild to Five Hundred guilds

The former (server and team) have an unknown slots to players, the latter (alliance) have known slots (500) to players.

You got it?

Edited by Norbe.7630
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Norbe.7630 said:


Server=Team=Alliance

Server
slots ranging from Low to Full
Team slots ranging from Empty map to Queued map 
Alliance slots ranging from One guild to Five Hundred guilds

The former (server and team) have an unknown slots to players, the latter (alliance) have known slots (500) to players.

You got it?

Again, teams are not alliances.  You should stop making bad assumptions.  If someone makes a maxed alliance of 500 players, you really can't predict the impact that will have because you don't know the underlying stats of the individual players.  You admit you don't know what the current server slots are.  Well that's because that's not how servers work.  WvW population is based on play hours.  Alliances are based on player numbers.  Teams will still get formed based on stats like play hours.  If an alliance is formed of players who have high play hours, they will get put on a team with other players who have far less play hours in order to achieve parity.  Got it?

Read the latest update from Anet dev on World Restructuring.  Their simulations of sorting individual players onto teams resulted in teams that are within .007% differences in "population".

"For context, in the existing World and World Linking system, we could see as much as a 50% difference in player activity between the largest and smallest worlds. In the new system, when sorting individual players we were able to balance each server to within .007% of each other, even when accounting for languages. Adding guilds and eventually alliances will reduce granularity and we expect that disparity will grow a bit, but it’s a promising start and gives us a lot of confidence for Friday. "

Edited by Chaba.5410
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Again, teams are not alliances.  You should stop making bad assumptions.

I made a comparison side by side. Just read it, its even highlighted in bold letters to understand.
 

2 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

If someone makes a maxed alliance of 500 players, you really can't predict the impact that will have because you don't know the underlying stats of the individual players. 

Remember the TADA... API.....
Do it weekly or any timeframe predictions to create the next alliance formations and matchups.
 

3 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

You admit you don't know what the current server slots are.  Well that's because that's not how servers work.  WvW population is based on play hours.  Alliances are based on player numbers.  Teams will still get formed based on stats like play hours.  Got it?

Thats what im trying to say, Server slots and Team slots are invisible to players i didn't say there was no basis on how to get a server to full or low, everyone in WvW knows its activity, (Remember the BG issue back then when it opened because of the decrease activity at a certain period and opened within hours before it became full again and many banwagoned to it)
Now, the Alliance is visible now to players with .... sigh.... ill repeat (500) .... don't make me repeat API for the activity monitoring for better matchups....

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, displayname.8315 said:

Team = Red, Blue, Green

 

Alliance = a group of players that can't be carried by a single guild.  Only play when there is a structured tag group and will log as soon as the hard carry goes bye-bye.

 

Server is what the game runs on.

 

Im refering the team as the current team playing on a timezone when there is a queue on a map during NA and no queue most of the time on maps during SEA
Its more precise.

On server its worlds. Many people call it server in general. Not the Game server computer or NA EU divisions.
What server you on? Im on Moogoomoo etc

Alliance, thats the latest and yet to be polished formation. But ill repeat, its visible slot (500) compared to the previous Servers and Teams.

 

Edited by Norbe.7630
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Norbe.7630 said:

Im refering the team as the current team playing on a timezone when there is a queue on a map during NA and no queue most of the time on maps during SEA
Its more precise.

Useless definition when matches are 24 hrs by 7 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Norbe.7630 said:

I made a comparison side by side. Just read it, its even highlighted in bold letters to understand.
 

Remember the TADA... API.....
Do it weekly or any timeframe predictions to create the next alliance formations and matchups.
 

Thats what im trying to say, Server slots and Team slots are invisible to players i didn't say there was no basis on how to get a server to full or low, everyone in WvW knows its activity, (Remember the BG issue back then when it opened because of the decrease activity at a certain period and opened within hours before it became full again and many banwagoned to it)
Now, the Alliance is visible now to players with .... sigh.... ill repeat (500) .... don't make me repeat API for the activity monitoring for better matchups....

And don't make me repeat that you can't predict outcomes because teams will be matchmade to activity parity at a minimun.  I will add that you also can't predict team population numbers because Anet has been screwing with the server "Full/High/Medium" thresholds for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chaba.5410 said:

And don't make me repeat that you can't predict outcomes because teams will be matchmade to activity parity at a minimun.  I will add that you also can't predict team population numbers because Anet has been screwing with the server "Full/High/Medium" thresholds for years.

Hmmmm.
Can't predict outcomes based on activity with visible numbers and floaters to fill the void? --(....cough.....Stock Market... ehem...)
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Norbe.7630 said:

Define useless?
I said is precise.

NA team go!
SEA team win this!
EU team get them!

NA team of blue vs NA team of red vs NA team of green.... so on and so forth
Timezone.... Precision.....

If you wanted to be precise, a term such as timezone suffices. Calling a single timezone a team is confusing and contradictory to the simplistic server=team=alliance equivalence you wrote earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Norbe.7630 said:

Hmmmm.
Can't predict outcomes based on activity with visible numbers and floaters to fill the void? --(....cough.....Stock Market... ehem...)
 

LOL did you seriously just try to make a comparison with an open data system like the public stock market to a closed data system like WvW worlds where devs purposely keep players in the dark so it's harder to game the system and the only available public data is from the small number of players who give a single website their API key?  LOL ok...  Let us know how well your predictions turn out...

Edited by Chaba.5410
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chaba.5410 said:

If you wanted to be precise, a term such as timezone suffices. Calling a single timezone a team is confusing and contradictory to the simplistic server=team=alliance equivalence you wrote earlier.

Think of it this way ok, it the current players playing team.

On Olympic basketball, USA vs China

USA Male basketball team vs China Male basketball team (match starts GMT -4) (US time)
USA Female basketball team vs China Female basketball team (match starts GMT +8) (SEA time)

Seriously, do i need to explain this further? Or you already understand what i meant.....
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Norbe.7630 said:

Think of it this way ok, it the current players playing team.

On Olympic basketball, USA vs China

USA Male basketball team vs China Male basketball team (match starts GMT -4) (US time)
USA Female basketball team vs China Female basketball team (match starts GMT +8) (SEA time)

Seriously, do i need to explain this further? Or you already understand what i meant.....
 

Great analogy.  There is no female USA and male USA.. there is only USA.  You win medals for your country, not your gender.  Team USA.

 

There is only red,blue,green.  Make up other little names if you want but it's just semantics.

Edited by displayname.8315
Link to post
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...