Yep..Roamers are getting left out with the changes to WvW

[kash.9213]

9 hours ago, Psykewne.3025 said:

This was my thought too, i just don't understand the OP at all, we get 5 guild slots, so there is ample space to add a guild for your friends to join so you can wvw together.

Poaching other guilds members isn't a good look. A lot of people stick with a guild out of loyalty to a few friends but will likely run on their own or with the usual pug floaters. 

[JTGuevara.9018]

On 12/4/2021 at 11:21 PM, Xenesis.6389 said:

Imagine saying you have friends but don't want to be in guilds with them...

 

Uuh yeah...It's a wild concept called friendship.

[JTGuevara.9018]

On 12/4/2021 at 8:56 PM, EyzKold.8247 said:

Looks like Roamers will be placed in different servers at random.  Can't play with friends at all.  Forced to join a guild or else...not really player friendly is it. 

PS...and yes I didn't get to read the patch notes 😞  lol

Oh god...lmao. A literal lottery.

Yup. It's certainly looking that way. It's literally join a guild or f-off wvw. The "hardcore" gvg crowd will be pleased, for sure, I don't know about everyone else. Currently, guild alliances have power to drive match-ups as is. (stacking, etc). With the alliance system, mega-guilds will have full control of wvw. People thought stacking was bad NOW...ha!...oh no no...it will be worse with the alliance system. Because then, mega-guilds will not be restrained by servers, tiers and transfer costs. They will literally have the power to game the system and the match-ups to their favor. Pugs, roamers, new players will simply be at the mercy of RNG and they will not be able to do a F-IN THING about it.

[joneirikb.7506]

8 hours ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

Oh god...lmao. A literal lottery.

Yup. It's certainly looking that way. It's literally join a guild or f-off wvw. The "hardcore" gvg crowd will be pleased, for sure, I don't know about everyone else. Currently, guild alliances have power to drive match-ups as is. (stacking, etc). With the alliance system, mega-guilds will have full control of wvw. People thought stacking was bad NOW...ha!...oh no no...it will be worse with the alliance system. Because then, mega-guilds will not be restrained by servers, tiers and transfer costs. They will literally have the power to game the system and the match-ups to their favor. Pugs, roamers, new players will simply be at the mercy of RNG and they will not be able to do a F-IN THING about it.

At the same time, they're limited to 500 spaces in a guild/alliance, as opposed to whatever they can get to before a server is full atm. 500 vs an estimated average of 2500, and according to the old server pop chart from before linking it looked like the biggest server was around 5000.

They can only control those 500, which puts a definitive limit to how much they can stack. And will top out at 20% of a world, instead of what we have now where multiple guilds can fill up an entire server together.

 

It will be more important HOW they build that guild/alliance. If they just focus a single time-zone, they'll likely dominate that timezone and make queue's, but lose in points. A smarter solution would be to spread out and try to get some coverage for all time zones, and enough for a small zerg in prime time.

But that's likely not going to happen, and we're likely to get everyone stacking the same timezone, because "That's where my friends are".

As to Solo's, find people you like, and ask to join their guild, or make a casual no commitment/community guild/alliance just to be sorted with and ask others you like to join it. I don't understand why so many are against this, as I can't remember having met a roamer that isn't in at least a couple of guilds. (If nothing else for having claim buffs).

Naturally it won't be "the same", but that's what change is. 

[Cyninja.2954]

10 hours ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

Oh god...lmao. A literal lottery.

Yup. It's certainly looking that way. It's literally join a guild or f-off wvw. The "hardcore" gvg crowd will be pleased, for sure, I don't know about everyone else. Currently, guild alliances have power to drive match-ups as is. (stacking, etc). With the alliance system, mega-guilds will have full control of wvw. People thought stacking was bad NOW...ha!...oh no no...it will be worse with the alliance system. Because then, mega-guilds will not be restrained by servers, tiers and transfer costs. They will literally have the power to game the system and the match-ups to their favor. Pugs, roamers, new players will simply be at the mercy of RNG and they will not be able to do a F-IN THING about it.

 

As mentioned by joneirikb.7506, your entire rant/complaint is based around a faulty assumption: that 500 player alliances will dominate uncontested and that this amount of players is sufficient to manage an entire "server".

Let's assume for a moment that servers are in fact so small and 500 players are more than sufficient to "dominate". The immediate solution here would be to reduce the alliance size limit. Pretty much the SAME thing the developers are doing now reducing server sizes down to alliances. The current assumed/mentioned 500 player cap is also likely based on current numbers and sizes of servers, which are vastly larger than 500 active players.

Let's be clear, because somehow some forum members keep forgetting this: the current assumption is that "servers" are far larger than 1 500 player guild/alliance. As such, even if a very dominant and active alliance/guild is present, they would get paired with other alliances, guilds, single players, etc to result in a combined strength rivaling other alliances.

I am unsure how this concept gets constantly misunderstood/misrepresented. Maybe just hyperbole or lack of wanting to understand from some members here.

Alliances are NOT the entire new servers. All hyperbole or fancy voodoo assumptions around them being that influential is literally that: bogus paranoia based around lack of understanding.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Cyninja.2954

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

As mentioned by joneirikb.7506, your entire rant/complaint is based around a faulty assumption: that 500 player alliances will dominate uncontested and that this amount of players is sufficient to manage an entire "server".

Let's assume for a moment that servers are in fact so small and 500 players are more than sufficient to "dominate". The immediate solution here would be to reduce the alliance size limit. Pretty much the SAME thing the developers are doing now reducing server sizes down to alliances. The current assumed/mentioned 500 player cap is also likely based on current numbers and sizes of servers, which are vastly larger than 500 active players.

Let's be clear, because somehow some forum members keep forgetting this: the current assumption is that "servers" are far larger than 1 500 player guild/alliance. As such, even if a very dominant and active alliance/guild is present, they would get paired with other alliances, guilds, single players, etc to result in a combined strength rivaling other alliances.

I am unsure how this concept gets constantly misunderstood/misrepresented. Maybe just hyperbole or lack of wanting to understand from some members here.

Alliances are NOT the entire new servers. All hyperbole or fancy voodoo assumptions around them being that influential is literally that: bogus paranoia based around lack of understanding.

Several of those assumptions are incorrect because we know that the reason for 500 is because it is the lowest common denominator, ie guild cap. They cant use a smaller number (people just use guilds instead) and using a larger number is against the concept. We also know that 2500 was described by Anet to be an "average" world back then although they will never disclose real numbers.

So if you wonder why its constantly misunderstood/misrepresented... yeah... 😕

Edited December 24, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Cyninja.2954]

10 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Several of those assumptions are incorrect because we know that the reason for 500 is because it is the lowest common denominator, ie guild cap. They cant use a smaller number (people just use guilds instead) and using a larger number is against the concept. We also know that 2500 was described by Anet to be an "average" world back then although they will never disclose real numbers.

So if you wonder why its constantly misunderstood/misrepresented... yeah... 😕

 

True, yet in worst case scenarios guild caps can be adjusted if need be (similar to how right now, servers are being replaced with smaller shift-able parts. Which is a far more difficult process than changing the maximum allowed numbers of players per guild. So we have precedent that the developer are more than willing to rework sizes of matched parts). That scenario right now would literally be WvW being nearly dead. So yes, while the current maximum size is selected with the guild member cap in mind, the fact it's not bigger or smaller tells enough.

 

The point still stands: as far as current world sizes, a cap of 500 players is currently not sufficient to dominate a match-up without additional players to increase the sides manpower. Any doom and gloom surrounding this is nonsense currently.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Cyninja.2954

[Dawdler.8521]

55 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

True, yet in worst case scenarios guild caps can be adjusted if need be (similar to how right now, servers are being replaced with smaller shift-able parts.

This would heavily impact large PvE guilds. Never going to happen.

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

The point still stands: as far as current world sizes, a cap of 500 players is currently not sufficient to dominate a match-up without additional players to increase the sides manpower. Any doom and gloom surrounding this is nonsense currently.

To go further, it is play hours that determine which side dominates a match-up, not number of players.  Teams will be balanced on the play hours.  If players do somehow end up making a 500 man high play hour alliance or guild, that team isn't going to have very many other players placed on it.

Ignoring how this system is designed to harass and disrupt player-directed stacking and bandwagoning is indeed nonsense.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[joneirikb.7506]

31 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

To go further, it is play hours that determine which side dominates a match-up, not number of players.  Teams will be balanced on the play hours.  If players do somehow end up making a 500 man high play hour alliance or guild, that team isn't going to have very many other players placed on it.

Ignoring how this system is designed to harass and disrupt player-directed stacking and bandwagoning is indeed nonsense.

Can't help it, I'm now imaging an Alliance of 500 bots, alone on a world because they're 24/7 active. If ANet could just somehow force bots into guilds/alliances, we might finally have the solution to bots?! 😉 

[Cyninja.2954]

5 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

This would heavily impact large PvE guilds. Never going to happen.

 

Possible developer quote:"We are introducing WvW guilds. They are capped at size xyz. You need to be part of a WvW guild to be matched accordingly." 

 

Problem solved.

 

All I am saying:"size is not the issue." The fact alliances are the same max size as guilds can tell us a lot. For example: that WvW is not yet shrunk so far that it was necessary to reduce guild and alliance sizes, yet at the same time nor large enough to allow alliances be bigher than guilds.

[Cyninja.2954]

5 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

To go further, it is play hours that determine which side dominates a match-up, not number of players.  Teams will be balanced on the play hours.  If players do somehow end up making a 500 man high play hour alliance or guild, that team isn't going to have very many other players placed on it.

Ignoring how this system is designed to harass and disrupt player-directed stacking and bandwagoning is indeed nonsense.

 

Good point, in my example I was assuming similar distribution of play time among players for simplicity sake. To be more precise I should have said that until now, no group of 500 players, no matter how active, was able to dominante a matchup without other players (though they could certainly dominante specidic day times).

[JTGuevara.9018]

In other words: trust the system! Trust the algorithm! NOPE. As I currently see it, I see no safeguards against guild/alliance domination. People will get around the alliance limit. People will game the match-ups. People will form sister guilds and cross-server alliances and transcend the cap. An alliance cap is not going to stop anyone. I challenge those deep in this hype train and ask them this question: Supposing that the alliance matchmaking works as intended, how many pugs, roamers, newbies do you expect to see stick around after getting farmed by guild alliance blobs across match-ups when the blobs fully figure out the system?

[Chaba.5410]

3 hours ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

In other words: trust the system! Trust the algorithm! NOPE. As I currently see it, I see no safeguards against guild/alliance domination. People will get around the alliance limit. People will game the match-ups. People will form sister guilds and cross-server alliances and transcend the cap. An alliance cap is not going to stop anyone. I challenge those deep in this hype train and ask them this question: Supposing that the alliance matchmaking works as intended, how many pugs, roamers, newbies do you expect to see stick around after getting farmed by guild alliance blobs across match-ups when the blobs fully figure out the system?

How does any of what you wrote not currently happen or have a history of happening?  It's like you've forgotten the mega-stacking and organized 2v1s that used to occur in NA before the population algorithm, server links, and 1u1d changes.  There's practically nothing you wrote that is unique to world restructuring.  Guilds and so-called server leaders used to create such cross-server alliances like you describe without anything in game.  I personally participated in numerous such "meetings".

Edited December 27, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[subversiontwo.7501]

Here is another addition to the whole bruhaha worth keeping in mind.

If we boil the perspective down to its very most basic presumptions, people have a tendency to think of this in terms (solo, roamer, server, pickup) player versus (hardcore, elitist) guilds in some sort of struggle over public access to groups (tags) or just overall content. That is a rather misplaced perspective. If we are to keep it equally simple, it is far more about pickup player versus pickup commander. The current system favours the followers and the new system favours the leaders. Players who complain just do not seem to understand what the players looking to create and lead the groups and content, that the followers like to be with (whether the join the squads or not), tend to want. They want reliable resources to create and build with. Guilds or other forms of player organisation tend to provide it.

Yet another addition to that is: This isn't so much a discussion about whether "roamers" (the vague general idea passed around here, ie., solo casuals or such, not what I necessarily consider a roamer) are useful or not. I think anyone doing anything productive is useful so "roamers" are useful. It is rather a question about how useful they are compared to eg., pickup commanders who create content and share it with other players publically. It's a question of when forced to prioritize, what do you prioritize? How do Anet see and value the balance of eg., clouds versus groups (leaders versus followers, guilds versus solos etc.)? Only they can answer that, but we as players can understand that it is what this is about. We can also more or less attempt to understand that. I'm happy with anyone who tries to understand that and is willing to talk about it, but some players keep making duplicate tearfilled threads instead 😊.

Edited January 1, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501