Are Alliances Even Beneficial?

[Riba.3271]

I do not play the game anymore. Waiting for AoC and/or EoD expansion.

But my opinion is that alliances will function from player side following way:

1. Experienced players will group with experienced players (with max 10% tryhard "trainees")
2. Casual players will group with casual players

Now it depends on the size of server how it will function. Will massive "fighter" alliances make up for 50% of active playing hours? Or only 5%? There is massive difference in that. Because outmatching or being outmatched so much for vast majority of the matchup isn't fun. With the proposed alliance player capacities, fair matchups will be rare. Alliances should be max 100 players.
Overall my opinion is that alliances won't function because solo players will quit the game when their "server regular timezones" get flattened out across all timezones. But I might be wrong. So far only way I see alliances being good for WvW is that the small part of the massive PvE guild community in this game will take a go at WvW and stick around.

But my true worries about alliances are elsewhere than alliances, the balance has just become too carebear. Defending is too easy. Getting inside objectives is too easy. Running away is too easy. Commanding is too easy. Pressing skills is too easy. Surviving in a proper teamcomp is too easy. While alliances might provide a minor boost to playerbase through PvE community, they will never stick around with the current state of the gamemode. The balance has simply become bad

Edited November 10, 2021 by Threather.9354

[Xenesis.6389]

21 minutes ago, Threather.9354 said:

Alliances should be max 100 players.

Guilds are 500 players... players would just work around the alliance system by making one guild for 500 instead....

Quote

But my true worries about alliances are elsewhere than alliances, the balance has just become too carebear.

I agree, but it's not going to change.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Xenesis.6389

[Dawdler.8521]

2 minutes ago, Nocturnal Lunacy.8563 said:

all you argue is semantics which means your arguments are empty.

Perhaps, but it doesnt change the fact what you said where wrong because alliances are not teams.

[saerni.2584]

Under the current system match making is a rudimentary pairing of Worlds into Teams and setting those "Teams" against one another. Changes in our Team are driven by player transfers between Worlds.

 

In a theoretical "Alliances" (still not settled) the match making is based on individuals and smaller groups being paired together for matchups. Basically the difference is how much of a team changes from one match up to the next. 
 

I'm not anticipating that this solves all problems, but at least it prevents some of the disparities.

[subversiontwo.7501]

On 11/10/2021 at 1:20 AM, 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.

No you're exactly right about this but that is also the problem with the existing system.

It doesn't matter if you are a player or a guild. Either the people you want to play with also wants to play with you or they don't. If you look at the nomadic communities in EU you can see the problem with the current system. They transfer to get away from players and those players follow them around. When enough of those players have landed, the guilds move again. So the cycle continues. This situation is bad because the constant moving upsets the mode's mechanics (the ladder etc.). It drives people away from the game because people who can't keep up will just quit (this is a loss that popular guilds just have to deal with now) and it also makes those same popular guilds quit if they bleed too many players when they transfer or they can't recruit new players when their servers fill up. This is additionally bad for the game because popular guilds are popular for a reason: They provide tags and content so the more of them that quit, the larger the same problems become. The more players you have per tag, the more dead servers you have and the more transfers you get.

So again, those 3-4 guilds on your server that you like either like you back enough to play with you or they don't want to play with and shouldn't have to suffer you. That should be easy to understand. If you made those guilds quit or transfer today, your server would suffer, right?

Edited November 11, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[kash.9213]

23 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

No you're exactly right about this but that is also the problem with the existing system.

It doesn't matter if you are a player or a guild. Either the people you want to play with also wants to play with you or they don't. If you look at the nomadic communities in EU you can see the problem with the current system. They transfer to get away from players and those players follow them around. When enough of those players have landed, the guilds move again. So the cycle continues. This situation is bad because the constant moving upsets the mode's mechanics (the ladder etc.). It drives people away from the game because people who can't keep up will just quit (this is a loss that popular guilds just have to deal with now) and it also makes those same popular guilds quit if they bleed too many players when they transfer or they can't recruit new players when their servers fill up. This is additionally bad for the game because popular guilds are popular for a reason: They provide tags and content so the more of them that quit, the larger the same problems become. The more players you have per tag, the more dead servers you have and the more transfers you get.

So again, those 3-4 guilds on your server that you like either like you back enough to play with you or they don't want to play with and shouldn't have to suffer you. That should be easy to understand. If you made those guilds quit or transfer today, your server would suffer, right?

I feel like you're overselling that point. Anyone actually moving servers because there are a few degenerates on their server are bringing their own baggage and probably engaging with them. We've had plenty of annoying guilds but we don't have to run around with them and most pugs probably aren't trying to hear them on discord, so those guilds hardly effect gameplay unless they plug up a map for too long. That's not a huge problem as I've seen it on multiple links so far. I'm asking anyone else, do you see people moving servers because "those guys" just showed up for a matchup?

Plenty of guilds come and go and it doesn't seem to make most pugs care in the slightest.

Edited November 12, 2021 by kash.9213

[Jennifer.6432]

Is an alliance just a server who's member base is managed by players?

[joneirikb.7506]

44 minutes ago, Jennifer.6432 said:

Is an alliance just a server who's member base is managed by players?

A World/Server = X Alliances + Y Guilds + Z Solos.

A single alliance is not a full world.

Alliance = max 500 players. Which might be somewhere between 10 and 20% of a full world (Approximation as ANet doesn't give clear numeric answers).

[RisingDaewn.8703]

On 11/10/2021 at 2:40 PM, Mabi black.1824 said:

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.

 

Players and guilds leave because of the current system, like certain servers are full for many months, so they have a high chance of no link at least in the EU, thus alot of their players they recruit who are on the link are stuck on that link server, so they have wait to Population Algorithm to catch up so that they can transfer, but it usually ends up costing 1800 gems each time, unless you get a massive drop in activity and/or transfers off from your server. On a server like Deso especially it's a big problem, because you have higher night activity, than  prime time or during the day.

There is little to no server pride these days, because it's just not worth it like in those old days, especially when I played 9 years ago, when you had No server links and before most of us who still play this game mode, found that  fighting over points and skirmishes isn't worth the time and effort unless necessary, apart from when you want to earn the rewards in WvW or to get different Matchups, as players burned out in the past, especially during those first two WvW tournaments.  

You have link servers where many guilds and players have hopped constantly and usually stack on one server and you also have link server communities; who do not work well together with their host. It's pretty much healthier in the current state of WvW. to play amongst your guild and other Friends you meet; whether it's small or large scale, who usually tries to organize things together on their own (single) Community Server Discord, but alot of people rather just do their own thing these days..

Alliances will have Guilds and players who should want to play in the same Alliances as each other, but you will still get some randoms and other guilds who are not an Alliance too, it's just that Alliances should allow Anet to  balance WvW populations better than the current system.

They should shrink the EU down to 4 tiers at the very least.

Edited November 14, 2021 by CrimsonNeonite.1048

[subversiontwo.7501]

16 hours ago, kash.9213 said:

I feel like you're overselling that point. Anyone actually moving servers because there are a few degenerates on their server

It's not about degenerates, it's about servers becomming full.

[Mabi black.1824]

I agree with you alliances will improve the current algorithm and this is very important.

I do not agree on the speech of the motivation of the server ......... I think that many of us players are busy for their team ......... certainly some days with then enthusiasm and other days with less enthusiasm........ all normal.

I said here that losing this motivation ..... this sense of belonging to a team could be a considerable lose for many communities and for many players.

so that anet does not lose its focus on this concept.

[Mabi black.1824]

make transfers to recruit........ could be.

of course my friend you put all your best to worsen this already bad connection system.

the algorithm does its calculations to look for the best balance.......... and the next day you see group of 30-50 players magically migrate.......... imagine it for about a dozen guilds.

well you maybe have the chance to recruit but you did a bad job for a minimum of balance..............and then read here a lot of people complain about said balance.

[RisingDaewn.8703]

We've been stuck in T1 for months against the same two servers, of course people will get tired, after having an overstacked link almost 8 months ago. 

Transfers still happened before the Linking system started tbh, as Anet allowed cheaper transfers before Tournaments to certain servers, but plenty of guilds and players paid 1800 gems to leave more underpopulated servers for even very high pop servers . 

Edited November 15, 2021 by CrimsonNeonite.1048

[Zikory.6871]

Alliances actually seems questionable in the game modes current state. Years ago, even with server stacking, guilds and communities were much more prevalent. "Alliances" already existed. They'd form and break up, defined by the players. Its quite obvious the player base is much more casual or individual and comp'd guilds are dying or absorbing dead guilds players getting bigger. 

Imo alliances was a good idea and probably would have been really good for the game mode when it was first announced. Years of mismanagement changed the player mentality and alliances is going to be a huge change for players that aren't in a established community or players that play with multiple groups that won't be in a alliance. Going to take a lot more then just alliances to "fix" WvW. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Zikory.6871

[Dawdler.8521]

54 minutes ago, Zikory.6871 said:

Alliances actually seems questionable in the game modes current state. Years ago, even with server stacking, guilds and communities were much more prevalent. "Alliances" already existed. They'd form and break up, defined by the players. Its quite obvious the player base is much more casual or individual and comp'd guilds are dying or absorbing dead guilds players getting bigger. 

Imo alliances was a good idea and probably would have been really good for the game mode when it was first announced. Years of mismanagement changed the player mentality and alliances is going to be a huge change for players that aren't in a established community or players that play with multiple groups that won't be in a alliance. Going to take a lot more then just alliances to "fix" WvW. 

Yet you are still describing todays WvW.

[Zikory.6871]

8 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Yet you are still describing todays WvW.

If you actually had anything of worth to say instead of padding your post count, I'd be happy to speculate how we think alliances will work out. 

[JTGuevara.9018]

Doesn't seem to be.

There is simply no restraint on guilds with this system. Instead of server-stacking, most likely there will be alliance-stacking across worlds and time-zones. Alliances can bypass the 500 player limit by creating another affiliated or sister guild and coordinate and play politics to not fight each other when they're matched up. Roamers, pugs, etc are simply along for the ride, it seems.

Yeah...I'm not "all in" on this "hype"...

[Dawdler.8521]

42 minutes ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

Alliances can bypass the 500 player limit by creating another affiliated or sister guild and coordinate and play politics to not fight each other when they're matched up.

Yes because everyone knows all large hardcore guilds absolutely love each other and always meet for crumpets and tea on the battlefield while their commanders are arguing on discord over who surrender first.

[kash.9213]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Yes because everyone knows all large hardcore guilds absolutely love each other and always meet for crumpets and tea on the battlefield while their commanders are arguing on discord over who surrender first.

Super serious guilds have always hated each other but have always had low key or unspoken agreements on the flow of the days fights. 

[JTGuevara.9018]

On 11/17/2021 at 5:13 PM, Dawdler.8521 said:

Yes because everyone knows all large hardcore guilds absolutely love each other and always meet for crumpets and tea on the battlefield while their commanders are arguing on discord over who surrender first.

Oh but it IS crumpets and tea! At least where pugs are concerned, anyway. Hardcore guilds, no matter their differences, all agree on their divine "right" to herd pugs and roamers along in their zergs.

[Strider Pj.2193]

6 minutes ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

Oh but it IS crumpets and tea! At least where pugs are concerned, anyway. Hardcore guilds, no matter their differences, all agree on their divine "right" to herd pugs and roamers along in their zergs.

And said pugs have agreed on their divine right to follow any commander they choose, whether that commander wants them following or not.  🤷

[JTGuevara.9018]

3 minutes ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

And said pugs have agreed on their divine right to follow any commander they choose, whether that commander wants them following or not.  🤷

They can tag off then! That or just go private. What?..Is the simple act of following a player "entitlement" then?

[ArchonWing.9480]

I mean it goes both ways. Many pugs feel entitled to join any squad, but then some guilds tell pugs to kitten off.... until they need them. Regardless, if anyone thinks they own the map, they can get bent.

Edited November 25, 2021 by ArchonWing.9480

[subversiontwo.7501]

Isn't the question more so (relative to the thread at hand) that people can choose to join tags or not as they see fit but that it is rather odd to have complaints about what tags do if you choose not to join them (or even if you just join them)? It feels like they then complain about their own shortcommings rather than anything else to be honest.

I mean, if people are pugs they are in the pickup squad as their name implies and if they are roaming they are out in their own small private "tag" and I don't think any larger guild or pickup squad cares about that.

If people are using "pug" and "roamer" as a misnomer for some special snowflake with no social-skills being unhappy about being bad and lonely, who keeps standing around demanding stuff in respective chat boxes, that is another thing. People like that calling themselves pugs or roamers are unfair to pugs and roamers. It's like when people are scouting but confuse their reports giving others a chance to respond with that others are demanded to respond.

A real scout understands their place in the system, a snowflake does not.

Edited November 25, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[Strider Pj.2193]

2 hours ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

They can tag off then! That or just go private. What?..Is the simple act of following a player "entitlement" then?

Yes they can.  And often do.  
 

Look, you kinda started it with the ‘divine right’ to herd pugs.  🙂

 

People can play as they choose.  And if that means leaving a borderland to avoid people who aren’t helpful, then yes.  And if a person wants to follow a commander, then good.  
 

But let’s see..  I think there have been a few dozen threads that ‘complained’ about invisible tags because Commanders should ‘be there for people’. 
 

Like it or not, for many people in WvW, commanders are content creators because they can’t be bothered to do anything.  Some of us are quite willing to do things on our own.