Are Alliances Even Beneficial?

[Peachblow.2637]

4 minutes ago, enkidu.5937 said:

-> Alliances will get bored soon. And randoms will get bored even sooner.

I think this resonates with my feelings already and actually makes for an interesting point about population. Could it actually cause people being less engaged and active in WvW? I guess it wouldn't matter since this alliance system would just fix itself, removing a world each time the population decreases to a certain threshold.

If alliances went live right now, with everything that we know to date, being an "unwanted" filler or random discourages me from wanting to play that aspect of the game. I'm also sure that if I'm feeling this way, others are too. 

[Dawdler.8521]

10 hours ago, Ubi.4136 said:

The only thing that will be different, using myself as an example, is that I will no longer be on TC, I will be on "New Name" (whatever they call the place I get stuck).

Fight for the shiny glory of Skrittsburgh!

Missed it as soon as it was over 😞

[Tiawal.2351]

I see here the word "Alliances" is used like this is the most important part of the incoming changes. Is not. The alliance feature is nothing but an extension to guilds; forever there were guilds which followed each other, and there's nothing bad in this. The bad is not having enemies to fight, that's why CHANGE is needed. Fighting this change, which brings enemies, is letting WvW be in a state is now "there's nothing to fight at moment, I'm going to play something else, call me when there are enemies". 

 

Alliance related change means nothing. Stop being obsessed over the most insignificant part.

 

What is wrong about these fears, shown in OP and in many other posts, is the self focus: what will happen with me, something will change and will end up alone, surrounded by strangers! Stop that. WvW is a team game. Those strangers are your allies, you fight together with them and will become your "friends" just as much as your current server is. If you really care more about them and they about you, then join a guild together; and no, there are no reasons not to -- if there are, then something is more important than being together. Don't be afraid making new friends, they will be just as good, or in many cases just as bad, as the old ones.

 

Instead focus on what is good for WvW, what this game mode needs to thrive: ENEMIES. Don't cry about friends, they are useless: I have too many of them, but the more I have, the worse it is: IF they are in my team. What makes WvW alive are ENEMIES that fight back, takes all my objectives, and don't quit. Then, and only then, I need allies which don't quit when they are beaten, but keep fighting on. I need less allies than enemies, so we don't start dominating our enemies.

 

The focus must be on BALANCE: we need more enemies than allies, we need better enemies, so we will have to struggle and give us reasons to play, to make us want to improve our coordination. But there has to be balance, so our allies don't quit. Yes, our dear sweet friends are just quitters if they are beaten too many times. They will run away and rage quit like a Yari Ashigaru army  in Shogun Total War (they were low morale). And then I can be hero alone, and game still over.

 

Without balance nothing matters. Balance means more enemies than allies, and just enough allies to keep them playing.

 

The work in progress isn't about Alliances. These "alliances" fixes nothing, do nothing, means nothing -- unless they are in a total war environment, a WvW that is alive and the activity is crazy high. Then these alliances can be the vanguard, leading the new teams to bloody victories and endless fun. There new and real friendships will be forged, those made in the heat of hard fought battles, not in the boring chit chat of current pip farming.

 

Most WvW players can be your friends, there are exceptions, but most are just as awesome as any. Believe me, I've been on most servers, on countless accounts, and there is amazing people in every server. Sadly these means that I will fight friends, but that also means that I will want the fights to be fair, I will want them to have just as much, or even more fun beating me, than I have beating them.

 

Without balance, there are no enemies. Across all time zones, there are many sad players -- since there's nothing exciting going on most of the times. Embrace the change, though may end badly -- but that can be fixed. Keep making changes, until WvW is overflowing with fun.

[Mabi black.1824]

who will live will see.... says an Italian proverb ..... however, it remains a question that is not answered ...... what you fight for......... if you no longer have a flag a server a team.........like a nice football league........ let's play a little ball and in two weeks we will reshuffle the teams.

you have seen or you have lost that you care the important thing is to make a good ball game.

well personally I find it un motivating in the long term.

I see with pleasure however that finally someone shares with me that a big problem of balance are the transfers ...... nothing to do with alliances.

it has been said that the current system creates matches don population disparities up to 50% .... add to that the transfers of the next day of the usual idiots and I imagine what percentage we arrive at today.

advice...... block transfers make alliances as well but keep the teams / servers..........double them and you will have a granularity in the worst case of 25%........ tell me where I have to sign.

I share with you that no one likes to become a random filler.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

On 11/7/2021 at 2:41 PM, Peachblow.2637 said:

How I see it, the only way to play with these people is if the people you have built relationships with all collectively create or join one WvW mega guild (or alliance) which isn't a suitable option to many of us for a plethora of reasons. 

i don't understand this mentality for the life of me. its not like you have to go to their wedding, you just rep a guild and you're done. whats the big deal? guild cap? or are people just so solo dolo they can't imagine being in a guild with other people who try to talk to them? i understand its annoying but making this one sacrifice for a supposedly better system should outweigh any personal feelings since the experience overall will be much better.

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

who will live will see.... says an Italian proverb ..... however, it remains a question that is not answered ...... what you fight for......... if you no longer have a flag a server a team.........like a nice football league........ let's play a little ball and in two weeks we will reshuffle the teams.

you have seen or you have lost that you care the important thing is to make a good ball game.

well personally I find it un motivating in the long term.

I see with pleasure however that finally someone shares with me that a big problem of balance are the transfers ...... nothing to do with alliances.

it has been said that the current system creates matches don population disparities up to 50% .... add to that the transfers of the next day of the usual idiots and I imagine what percentage we arrive at today.

advice...... block transfers make alliances as well but keep the teams / servers..........double them and you will have a granularity in the worst case of 25%........ tell me where I have to sign.

I share with you that no one likes to become a random filler.

Not very thought through and very shortsighted. Servers dont just shift in populations because of transfers alone. People leave and people join naturally. You would end up in just as bad or worse situation eventually.

[Mabi black.1824]

I would not like to be misunderstood...... there are no problems to represent one guild or another ...... or be part of an alliance or another .... as I imagine we are all already the rest people organize themselves and welcome.

I have raised a question of motivation to keep the fun or better yet improve it.

and I see difficulties if I find myself in a different team every 2 or 4 weeks ....... I feel personal......... easy that I'm wrong.

[enkidu.5937]

13 hours ago, Peachblow.2637 said:

 this alliance system would just fix itself, removing a world each time the population decreases

Basically, WvW will completely be replaced by EotM. We are allowed to keep the WvW maps but thats basically it. 😗

[Yolaus Kriff.3465]

Something needs to happen. If anet can't show they can make alliance happen soon, they need to just to a server merge or something. Population/time zone imbalance is awful

[Tiawal.2351]

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

what you fight for......... if you no longer have a flag a server a team.........like a nice football league........ let's play a little ball and in two weeks we will reshuffle the teams.

 

I agree that this is important as well. I would even go further and want unique flags and themes for each, and many can be done if there's willingness and are there resources.

Just that balancing has to be first, and the rest after.

 

I would even offer to join the enemy, if at that hour when I log in, they have less numbers. That's just an example of temporary balance mechanism. Then I return to my team again. Helping the enemy is helping your own team -- because your team needs enemy numbers, to make it fair, to keep the fun going. These will need a reputation system to prevent joining the enemy and abusing it, as well proper rewards to motivate enough players to keep balancing a reality. All these would be further steps, so far the plans are quite basic and doesn't even consider time zones in the first stages.

 

The progress still feels slow, and the changes aren't here yet. But they are badly needed.

[Peachblow.2637]

9 hours ago, Tiawal.2351 said:

The bad is not having enemies to fight, that's why CHANGE is needed.

 

What is wrong about these fears, shown in OP and in many other posts, is the self focus: what will happen with me, something will change and will end up alone, surrounded by strangers! Stop that. WvW is a team game. Those strangers are your allies, you fight together with them and will become your "friends" just as much as your current server is.

I don't quite understand. Anytime I'm online, and I've been online at any given part of the day, there are always enemies to fight. If this is an issue with low-pop servers, there are other fixes instead of changing the structure for every one and every server. 

"What will happen with me" is the premise to my OP. That was the intention of my post. I wanted to read convincing points about why I should change my views on this alliance system because the current system (again, to me) is not broken and works just fine. I already see a couple of valid points on the overall longevity of WvW with this system, though they face their own issues as well which were discussed earlier (even if most are hypothetical at this time). I personally do not gain anything from this system and instead lose or have to sacrifice for this change which is why I'm upset about it. Lastly, these strangers might not become friends if you're being shuffled as a "filler" regularly. These strangers might be your allies for a short period of time, then your enemies the next if you don't get randomly shuffled as a filler with them again. 

[Peachblow.2637]

2 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

Basically, WvW will completely be replaced by EotM. We are allowed to keep the WvW maps but thats basically it. 😗

That is sort of how it feels like in a sense, yeah. Hence why I don't do EotM.

3 hours ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

i don't understand this mentality for the life of me. its not like you have to go to their wedding, you just rep a guild and you're done. whats the big deal? guild cap? or are people just so solo dolo they can't imagine being in a guild with other people who try to talk to them? i understand its annoying but making this one sacrifice for a supposedly better system should outweigh any personal feelings since the experience overall will be much better.

I've mentioned it earlier in that I'm already at guild cap. I can't join another guild to play with some of the familiar faces I see in my server today. I say some because I enjoy playing with members of a couple different guilds in my server. With the current system, I can login, join a map, and have the freedom of choice to link up with any one of the various guild squads without having to represent them. If I'm not roaming, I'll follow one out of three or four guilds that I enjoy the strategy of. I can't guarantee that these three or four guilds will align together. It's best to assume they will not, thus making it even more of a dilemma if I were to be given a sixth guild slot or I reluctantly remove one of the ones I have. 

5 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

who will live will see.... says an Italian proverb ..... however, it remains a question that is not answered ...... what you fight for......... if you no longer have a flag a server a team.........like a nice football league........ let's play a little ball and in two weeks we will reshuffle the teams.

you have seen or you have lost that you care the important thing is to make a good ball game.

well personally I find it un motivating in the long term.

I like the analogy. If it were a sports game, I'd want to be on the same team for the unforeseeable future, not be considered a substitute and be shuffled around to a different team every so often when a team is down a player. This doesn't bring about a feeling of camaraderie or sense of pride in the team and, as you say, unmotivating in the long-term. 

[joneirikb.7506]

Just to clarify, with an actual "Alliance", you don't need an extra guild slot. If you can convince all the guilds you play with to make an alliance together, you'd all still play together. If they all/most/some enjoyed the kind of community you had, then it might be possible. Naturally with the limitation that an Alliance caps at 500 players.

I know that one of my guilds are looking forward to basically just run as a lone guild, and get thrown around randomly. That's what they enjoy, and they've bounced around on servers for years, to find new people to fight. 

Another of my guilds wants to make an alliance with all the old guilds from that server (include the loons described above), so we'll see how that goes.

One of the strengths with the system is that I can rep either of them each time they change the servers, and get thrown into different places depending on how I want to play. So that's something that is going to benefit me (and probably many others) a lot.

Like if you say some of the guilds you've ran with might not want to join in an alliance and want to run their own thing ? Or perhaps they want to change it up, and might run with you guys every other reshuffle.

It sounds like you're pretty lucky in wvw terms though. All your friends and guildmates on the same server. And your server still having an active community. Most others probably lack 1 or 2 of those, and the ability to join/rep the same guild/alliance would help a lot of those people. Another benefit for many guilds with this system, is that it gives you access to much more possible recruits, as you might get a whole new batch of solo players each time you're shuffled. For the same reason, this also makes it easier for solo players to find guilds they might want to play with.

So even if none of that benefits you directly, I'd say it still benefits most players more than the alternatives. 

[subversiontwo.7501]

1 hour ago, Peachblow.2637 said:

With the current system, I can login, join a map, and have the freedom of choice to link up with any one of the various guild squads without having to represent them.

If I'm not roaming, I'll follow one out of three or four guilds that I enjoy the strategy of. I can't guarantee that these three or four guilds will align together.

This doesn't bring about a feeling of camaraderie or sense of pride in the team and, as you say, unmotivating in the long-term. 

Do any of those guilds want you to follow them around or are we listening to the stalker complaining about the restraining order? 😉

I'm not trying to be overly flippant here, but your post comes off as very "me, I, can do this, I can choose, whome I enjoy, without having to..." in what "they" do and cooperate for. You're comming across as if you are not part of the camraderie and whatever sense of team those guilds have between them and your perspective seems very self-centered rather than one of the team or the greater good.

These things are also very real issues that Alliances look to rectify. Guilds do not exist at the whim of unaffiliated players, tags are not NPC's, and whatever feeling of belonging (or owning) you may have may not be reciprocated. Those guilds may be looking to reconnect with players who are apart of the team, who puts the team before the I and who are looking to join those guilds. Alliances looks to facilitate that for them.

--

Ed. The same goes for the guild slot thing. If you spend 20% or more of your time here, one would assume that you'd be willing to spend at least 20% of your guild slots here. It's not up to those who play this mode to pay (gems) for the well-being of the tourists. I have yet to see a single person who makes a good argument as to why they can't (reluctantly) devote 1/5 guild slots for WvW Alliance purposes. It seems like people are arguing against it just to argue against it as some sort of tired go-to when people suggest that they can make community guilds to keep their communities intact. Me, I mostly believe that they are just complaining about the above and do not want to show their hand because they know it's selfish and they are rightfully ashamed. They know that the sense of community that they feel is not held by the people said community relies upon the most.

Like I said, maybe I am a bit harsh on you here, but I've seen enough of these threads and arguments to have a healthy dose of skepticism about their intent. These are very real issues. Hopefully you understand that I'm not just trying to be mean.

Edited November 9, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[kash.9213]

3 minutes ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Just to clarify, with an actual "Alliance", you don't need an extra guild slot. If you can convince all the guilds you play with to make an alliance together, you'd all still play together. If they all/most/some enjoyed the kind of community you had, then it might be possible. Naturally with the limitation that an Alliance caps at 500 players.

I know that one of my guilds are looking forward to basically just run as a lone guild, and get thrown around randomly. That's what they enjoy, and they've bounced around on servers for years, to find new people to fight. 

Another of my guilds wants to make an alliance with all the old guilds from that server (include the loons described above), so we'll see how that goes.

One of the strengths with the system is that I can rep either of them each time they change the servers, and get thrown into different places depending on how I want to play. So that's something that is going to benefit me (and probably many others) a lot.

Like if you say some of the guilds you've ran with might not want to join in an alliance and want to run their own thing ? Or perhaps they want to change it up, and might run with you guys every other reshuffle.

It sounds like you're pretty lucky in wvw terms though. All your friends and guildmates on the same server. And your server still having an active community. Most others probably lack 1 or 2 of those, and the ability to join/rep the same guild/alliance would help a lot of those people. Another benefit for many guilds with this system, is that it gives you access to much more possible recruits, as you might get a whole new batch of solo players each time you're shuffled. For the same reason, this also makes it easier for solo players to find guilds they might want to play with.

So even if none of that benefits you directly, I'd say it still benefits most players more than the alternatives. 

I don't think many solo players will want to be randomly shuffled around each match. Being a solo player also doesn't mean you're detached from any community. It just means you don't like being tied down to a group or squad slot, even if you're running around with everyone anyway. Now that player, who mostly gelled with the server community, is going to have to be tied to a group or squad slot to punch a clock for a guild seat or the guild leaders will wonder why they give a guild slot to this person who's just wandering around vibing over someone else. 

I don't see a lot of organic community building happening. People will get shifted around solo or they will have to hope their guild and alliances leaders don't get dramatic and make wacky decisions that could effect whatever social dynamic you might be getting used to in that alliance. 

Maybe there could be some kind of community building in the lobby area since WvW is a large match anyway and Alliances seem set on cementing that. 

[Peachblow.2637]

38 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

I have yet to see a single person who makes a good argument as to why they can't (reluctantly) devote 1/5 guild slots for WvW Alliance purposes.

The argument is that you were never forced to have to devote a guild slot to a WvW guild while still playing with friends and community members. Unless one of the five guilds we're in aligns themselves with other guilds within the current server we're in, we have to remove one of those five guild slots and add a WvW guild in its replacement. Something I'd rather not do as I use the current five guilds I have for various other reasons that are equally as important to me. I get that this is more about me, myself, and I, but that is kind of the topic of discussion from my OP. A sacrifice has to be made with this change that did not exist beforehand which is the upsetting part and reason for the post. I wanted my views about this change to be transformed or to be enlightened about what it brings for me or other likeminded players. I see the value of it from a very general, overall view, but the overall view brings sacrifices to myself and those likeminded players in similar situations. 

[subversiontwo.7501]

13 minutes ago, Peachblow.2637 said:

The argument is that you were never forced to have to devote a guild slot to a WvW guild while still playing with friends and community members. Unless one of the five guilds we're in aligns themselves with other guilds within the current server we're in, we have to remove one of those five guild slots and add a WvW guild in its replacement. Something I'd rather not do as I use the current five guilds I have for various other reasons that are equally as important to me. I get that this is more about me, myself, and I, but that is kind of the topic of discussion from my OP. A sacrifice has to be made with this change that did not exist beforehand which is the upsetting part and reason for the post. I wanted my views about this change to be transformed or to be enlightened about what it brings for me or other likeminded players. I see the value of it from a very general, overall view, but the overall view brings sacrifices to myself and those likeminded players in similar situations. 

That's not a good argument. You can't even say what you need or want those guild slots for.

Maybe you made a guild with a name to make fun of one of your friends. That's not a good reason as to why the people who play WvW should not get changes that allow them to recruit and build up their guilds to make content.

There would have to be a real and tangible loss for it to be a sacrifice, not just you wanting something for whatever whimsical reason. I mean, I'd want my time back wasting it on this thread. I'm not gonna get that am I?

The sacrifices I make 😌

Edited November 9, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[Peachblow.2637]

1 minute ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

That's not a good argument. You can't even say what you need or want those guild slots for.

Maybe you made a guild with a name to make fun of one of your friends. That's not a good reason as to why the people who play WvW should not get changes that allow them to recruit and build up their guilds.

There would have to be a real and tangible loss for it to be a sacrifice, not just you wanting something for whatever irrelevant selfish reason. I mean, I'd want my time back wasting it on this thread. I'm not gonna get that am I?

The sacrifices I make 😌

I've already mentioned what the guild slots are for in an earlier post. You must not have wasted that much time on the thread. Besides, I asked for a civil discussion. Not some passive-aggressive responses that add zero value to the thread. Take that to reddit or elsewhere. 

[subversiontwo.7501]

17 minutes ago, Peachblow.2637 said:

I've already mentioned what the guild slots are for in an earlier post. You must not have wasted that much time on the thread. Besides, I asked for a civil discussion. Not some passive-aggressive responses that add zero value to the thread. Take that to reddit or elsewhere. 

To be perfectly honest, the posting quality on Reddit is usually better than here.

Also, you did get civil discussion. You have been given plenty of it. However when you keep asking the rest of us to give you reasons how these changes should benefit you, you have also left the realm of civility and it is no longer constructive. Selfish and civil are quite anathematic. The answer to that question is quite simply that it doesn't, it's not supposed to and it shouldn't have to. The same goes for the value of this thread. It is not devalued by you taking criticism, it is devalued when you are no longer asking for something that can be constructively discussed 🙂 .

The issue here is that I believe that you are shrouding your actual complaint about how there are 3-4 guilds on your server who make up the majority of content whome you want privy to and Alliances will justly put more of that privy into the hands of those guilds. That is what this is about, not guild slots. I think that is fair to point out without being called passive aggressive. If you want a more civil discussion you should look to lift that shroud and get the rest of us onboard with what your actual reservations are, in a constructive and civil manner yourself. This is a public thread, it should hold some public interest.

Edited November 9, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[God.2708]

1 hour ago, Peachblow.2637 said:

The argument is that you were never forced to have to devote a guild slot to a WvW guild while still playing with friends and community members. Unless one of the five guilds we're in aligns themselves with other guilds within the current server we're in, we have to remove one of those five guild slots and add a WvW guild in its replacement. Something I'd rather not do as I use the current five guilds I have for various other reasons that are equally as important to me. I get that this is more about me, myself, and I, but that is kind of the topic of discussion from my OP. A sacrifice has to be made with this change that did not exist beforehand which is the upsetting part and reason for the post. I wanted my views about this change to be transformed or to be enlightened about what it brings for me or other likeminded players. I see the value of it from a very general, overall view, but the overall view brings sacrifices to myself and those likeminded players in similar situations. 

So, I think it's somewhat important to note (someone else did it elsewhere and I haven't seen you mention it but maybe you did) that you technically don't have any sacrifices to make. During the BETAs where they are just using guilds you are in a bit of a pickle, but once the alliance framework comes out, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from adding one of your bank guilds to an alliance other than said alliance not wanting you. You can then rep the bank guild and be a part of the alliance and play with your friends even though you have max guild slots since alliances have been stated to not have a cap on guilds in them, just number of players.

If this is a problem because you can't convince any alliance or guild to bring your bank guild in well, I would have to side with @subversiontwo.7501 here and say that is your personal problem, not something Anet should try to accommodate for. I won't disagree that the new system feels a bit... blunt? for casual players who don't really engage with the mode beyond hopping in like one might a PvE world meta. I'd argue that's not a great end state vision for the mode to have though and would probably want a separate topic to properly discuss.

I do think the BETA version only allowing guilds makes for some awkward testing phases, but ANETs been very upfront about the process and given ample time for people to plan accordingly and emphasized the fact it's a BETA to test server/code side changes. I think it's fair to put up with a potential week or two of weirdness as some grace for their improved communication.

[Peachblow.2637]

2 minutes ago, God.2708 said:

So, I think it's somewhat important to note (someone else did it elsewhere and I haven't seen you mention it but maybe you did) that you technically don't have any sacrifices to make. During the BETAs where they are just using guilds you are in a bit of a pickle, but once the alliance framework comes out, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from adding one of your bank guilds to an alliance other than said alliance not wanting you. You can then rep the bank guild and be a part of the alliance and play with your friends even though you have max guild slots since alliances have been stated to not have a cap on guilds in them, just number of players.

Excuse my ignorance--are you saying you can just align a guild you lead to another without some form of acceptance? I thought there has to be a mutual agreement, just like adding a player to the guild and that player having to accept the invite. The primary guild is one that I lead, so I don't mind reaching out for an alliance, but I'm going on the assumption that these larger WvW guilds would only be aligning themselves with other larger WvW guilds. If they accept the alliance, then that's all fine and dandy, for sure. I guess I am thinking worst case scenario and carrying that personal level of independence.

[God.2708]

1 minute ago, Peachblow.2637 said:

Excuse my ignorance--are you saying you can just align a guild you lead to another without some form of acceptance? I thought there has to be a mutual agreement, just like adding a player to the guild and that player having to accept the invite. The primary guild is one that I lead, so I don't mind reaching out for an alliance, but I'm going on the assumption that these larger WvW guilds would only be aligning themselves with other larger WvW guilds. If they accept the alliance, then that's all fine and dandy, for sure. I guess I am thinking worst case scenario and carrying that personal level of independence.

It's not perfectly clear on how the alliance system will work. I expect it to simply be a 'step up' from guilds, IE one guild will be an 'alliance leader' and can kick others from it. But I don't think there's anything that would tell me a big guild would only alliance with other big guilds. In fact I imagine it's quite the opposite, and big guild will want several smaller satellite guilds so they don't have to worry about bumping into the 500 person alliance cap. So if you're in charge of a small personal guild, it wouldn't be hard at all to reach other to a tag you see frequently on and see if they aren't interested. I'm sure in the coming months there will be 'alliance seeking guilds' posts cropping up.

[Dawdler.8521]

10 hours ago, Peachblow.2637 said:

I like the analogy. If it were a sports game, I'd want to be on the same team for the unforeseeable future, not be considered a substitute and be shuffled around to a different team every so often when a team is down a player. This doesn't bring about a feeling of camaraderie or sense of pride in the team and, as you say, unmotivating in the long-term. 

If you like the analogy, then surely you must realize why its not good to use monolithic servers.

Under the current system, 22 players dividing into two full teams with 11 players. You tell them that well they are going to have friendly fights for 50 matches in a row now. Every day. They go fine lets do this kitten. But on match 5 lighting strikes the field and 4 players on one team gets burnt into crisps. Now they are 7 vs 11 and they still have 35 matches to go. Under the current system, you shrug your shoulders and keep going with the 11 man team being massivly advantaged.

Is that good design of a sports game?

Under the new system, the match is halted. Then the referee say there's 9 players per team instead. The teams get reshuffled and continue playing 9 vs 9.

People keep saying that is a worse system.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Dawdler.8521]

4 hours ago, Nocturnal Lunacy.8563 said:

All anet is doing is changing the name of our worlds from "server" to whatever alliance name we get thrown into. Still on servers, only now they are called alliances. The only thing thats changed besides the name ofc is how the linking is done.

But hey its making the easily persuaded and zombies happy.

Not true on a technical level. For the umptieleventh time, under the new system:

Team = generated from pool of multiple alliances, guilds and unselected players at set interval (ie 2 months if the same as now).

Alliance = multiple guilds/players choosing to join it (we still dont know anything about management). Presumably custom named by alliance leader, just like a guild.

There is no linking in that sense, nor any worlds/servers anymore since its all dynamic.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Mabi black.1824]

the topic of the post is on what benefit we expect brings alliances........... certainly balance with respect to today's disparity of over 50%......... anet goal definitely achieved.

don't underestimate the motivation though.

I would like to have clashes as balanced as possible between my team against all the others.

you shuffle 9 players vs 9 players every 2 or 4 weeks....... well then what is my team?   who should I work for?

what does the general classification take into account?

Do we simply classify the hundreds of alliances that will be formed?

all based on a guild leader........ please let's be serious........I have lost count of how many guild leaders have disappeared or changed flags for the most varied possible reasons.

I prefer to build a long-term future on a more solid foundation.

so make alliances but keep the servers...... and as I said increase them.............always my personal opinion............ of constructive purpose.