Did you enjoy the beta alliance system and would you like to see more of it?

[Prophet of Flames.2783]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I dont know, call me cynical but often when people claim they're outnumbered they are also for some reason on the winning team. 

What's the status of your matchup out of curiousity then?

80% of the map controlled by green whenever I care to check, the other two at 100 or lower points per tick. Every border map outnumbered by default.
Also known as the worst skewered matchup I have seen in at least a year.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Prophet of Flames.2783

[Prophet of Flames.2783]

58 minutes ago, Custodio.6134 said:

now to overstacking: 
Overstacking is the phenomenon, when after a re-link, the two linked servers have a massively larger population than they should have by the time of relink-calculation. 
The reason for this is the ability of players to transfer to a non-full server at any time, regardless of the future linking. so how do they do it?
You probably noticed, that every re-link ANet announces the new constellations of linked servers hours ahead of the actual reset and relink. The players then massively transfer to the low-population servers, which are not linked together yet (because of their low population), but WILL be linked after the re-link is done. 
This way you can shoot 2 medium-populated servers which are "marked" for being linked together to a full population after the links have been set, creating a link out of 2 full servers after the re-link.

You've already explained how this can be fixxed without breaking the very foundation of WvW in the process and giving undue power to big Guilds though (what Alliance will do essentially). You don't let players immediately transfer, lock them out of transfers on their account after doing that a few times for say a year or so, or just don't announce the server links so it'll be pure guesses and not worth it anymore. Also, this phenomonon is pretty much non-existent on EU anymore, so basically they're screwing us with a bad new system to police some American guilds. Sounds like a bad idea.

[Dawdler.8521]

5 minutes ago, Prophet of Flames.2783 said:

80% of the map controlled by green whenever I care to check, the other two at 100 or lower points per tick. Every border map outnumbered by default.
Also known as the worst skewered matchup I have seen in at least a year.

Last week my world ticked down in the 20 point range.

There is only one match where green currently dominate, old SFR name (dragons claw I think) and incidently the only EU matchup that is skewed at the moment.

If you think this is the worst... hahaha go look at historical WvW matches. I doubt they will be beat by the end of the week.

[Danikat.8537]

@Shroud.2307 - what if instead of choosing a guild to join or being placed into a random team you could choose a team to stick with?

For example my team for this beta is Griffonfall. If in future I had the option of saying I want to be an individual player not tied to a guild or alliance and I always want to be sorted into Griffonfall, no matter where everyone else goes, would that solve the problem?

I think if only individual players who don't want to be part of any bigger group except their team (basically their server) did this it wouldn't have a big impact on population balance, because I doubt there would be large numbers (compared to the number of players in guilds and alliances, or the total population) so Anet could still balance populations by moving everyone else around, and it might give a sense of having a 'home' that you stick with.

Of course there's no guarentee you'd always see the same people because they could move even if you don't, but that's already the case, there's nothing stopping individuals and guild moving between servers now (they have to pay for it of course, but that doesn't stop people). But the team you're playing for would stay the same.

[Prophet of Flames.2783]

12 minutes ago, Danikat.8537 said:

what if instead of choosing a guild to join or being placed into a random team you could choose a team to stick with?

For example my team for this beta is Griffonfall. If in future I had the option of saying I want to be an individual player not tied to a guild or alliance and I always want to be sorted into Griffonfall, no matter where everyone else goes, would that solve the problem?

I think if only individual players who don't want to be part of any bigger group except their team (basically their server) did this it wouldn't have a big impact on population balance, because I doubt there would be large numbers (compared to the number of players in guilds and alliances, or the total population) so Anet could still balance populations by moving everyone else around, and it might give a sense of having a 'home' that you stick with.

Around 75% of the players would do so, and we'd have Worlds again with a few tricks for Guilds to move around easier. It would be better than Alliances, but you'd still have the Alliance bro's crying wolf all the time until they're given full control over pairings via Guilds.

[Prophet of Flames.2783]

15 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Last week my world ticked down in the 20 point range.

There is only one match where green currently dominate, old SFR name (dragons claw I think) and incidently the only EU matchup that is skewed at the moment.

If you think this is the worst... hahaha go look at historical WvW matches. I doubt they will be beat by the end of the week.

So how come that's the worst matchup I've seen in the whole year then? Must mean it's very world based if you get good WvW! What a surprise. How will that go in Alliances? Exactly the same, because it will still be skewered towards the few good teams/alliances and the rest will be empty/bad/skewered matchups. As long as people don't play for their world unless they get a good pairing, why on earth would they change that behaviour with teams? They will still not play for their team unless they get a pairing that carries them.

[ZeroTheRuler.7415]

On 12/6/2021 at 4:24 AM, Deniara Devious.3948 said:

Did you enjoy the beta alliance system and would you like to see more of it?

The alliance system isn't actually truly in play yet... lol. That will come in phase 2 of the beta.

Edited December 7, 2021 by ZeroTheRuler.7415

[Danikat.8537]

9 minutes ago, Prophet of Flames.2783 said:

Around 75% of the players would do so, and we'd have Worlds again with a few tricks for Guilds to move around easier. It would be better than Alliances, but you'd still have the Alliance bro's crying wolf all the time until they're given full control over pairings via Guilds.

How did you come up with that number? I understand you don't have any actual data but I'm curious about how you've decided that 3/4 of players would do this, when from what I've seen most people's priority is to stay with their friends, which would be better achieved by choosing a guild to be grouped with.

[ZeroTheRuler.7415]

29 minutes ago, Danikat.8537 said:

@Shroud.2307 - what if instead of choosing a guild to join or being placed into a random team you could choose a team to stick with?

For example my team for this beta is Griffonfall. If in future I had the option of saying I want to be an individual player not tied to a guild or alliance and I always want to be sorted into Griffonfall, no matter where everyone else goes, would that solve the problem?

I think if only individual players who don't want to be part of any bigger group except their team (basically their server) did this it wouldn't have a big impact on population balance, because I doubt there would be large numbers (compared to the number of players in guilds and alliances, or the total population) so Anet could still balance populations by moving everyone else around, and it might give a sense of having a 'home' that you stick with.

Of course there's no guarentee you'd always see the same people because they could move even if you don't, but that's already the case, there's nothing stopping individuals and guild moving between servers now (they have to pay for it of course, but that doesn't stop people). But the team you're playing for would stay the same.

I think what you are describing sounds close to what is phase 2 of the beta will provide... albeit you will need to join a guild that is in the alliance that you want to be in. Alliances aren't actually in the game yet. Phase one's goal was a stress test basically.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/studio-update-world-restructuring-and-the-future-of-world-vs-world/

Edited December 7, 2021 by ZeroTheRuler.7415

[saerni.2584]

2 hours ago, Nidome.1365 said:

 

I play a lot of WvW and have done since launch. I remember the 3-way fights on each border at north camp following reset to get the orbs of power, getting pearls for the quaggan and capturing the krait island. When commander tags were only 100g each and you had to use the commands /squadinfo and /supplyinfo.

I also remember when Anet decided to have a free transfer window causing some guilds to hop servers en-mass because they thought they would get better fights (or whatever) by being on a different server, unfortunately most of these found that the grass was not greener causing significant numbers of their guild members to leave WvW, and thus did WvW numbers start their massive decline and the population imbalances to begin.

The Alliance system sidelines the stalwarts who never hopped servers regularly and rewards those that did and I believe that nothing good can come from that.

I don't like the Beta and anecdotally I am not the only one to express such an opinion.

I actually have one of those 100g Commander tags...And I have never changed servers either. So I've been outnumbered to the point of absurdity and (after relinks) been on teams that had players everywhere and outnumbered the enemy 100% of the time. I get it. But I don't think Alliances rewards the server hoppers (if anything it finally puts server hopping to rest). Alliances is a more healthy way to let friends play together without the server hopping and the bandwagoning that came with it.
 

You're free (and I absolutely encourage you) to say you don't like the beta. Just as I'm free to say I like it. I disagree, I have my reasons, and would highly suggest you share "why" you think the way you do too. 
 

I've seen a few people here saying the people who like the beta are salty or stupid or irrational and I have to laugh. Because they are the ones personally attacking and insulting people who like the beta. You at least just say "I don't like it and left it at that, your feedback and your perspective. 
 

Me? I respectfully disagree with those who disliked the beta because it was a beta of backbone systems and didn't implement sufficient community match making (to me that comes later). I also respectfully disagree with those who think WvW should never change because of a sense of tradition or server loyalty (I think the status quo is untenable). Further, I respectfully disagree with those who say that Anet should have personally ensured notice-in-fact to all WvW players (or all players) before launching the beta test (There's always going to be someone who didn't see the news and it's only a single week, then everything goes back to normal). 
 

I think we should have productive conversations about time zone population balance in a post restructuring system. Why did the population work out so many people think (maybe erroneously?) that the population isn't balanced in their favor? 
 

I think we should also have constructive discussions about the in-game community building systems we'd want to see in the final implementation of server restructuring. That obviously really important to people and they are worried it won't be built correctly.
 

And, while we are at it we really should have another conversation or two about rewards and how to motive players and reward them for gameplay we want promoted. After all we need rewards to make playing the game feel like fun and not a grind. 
 

Instead, all I've been seeing is "stop the beta" and "cancel restructuring." This isn't a recipe for improving WvW. That's a recipe for the devs throwing up their hands and deciding to let the feature stagnate further. I wish the posters here were a little more mindful of how long it's taken to get to this very initial stage of testing the backbone tech to let us, maybe, have a better system in place. And I wish people were more constructive and not just bandwagoning on personal attacks without contributing. 

[Shroud.2307]

1 hour ago, Danikat.8537 said:

@Shroud.2307 - what if instead of choosing a guild to join or being placed into a random team you could choose a team to stick with?

For example my team for this beta is Griffonfall. If in future I had the option of saying I want to be an individual player not tied to a guild or alliance and I always want to be sorted into Griffonfall, no matter where everyone else goes, would that solve the problem?

I think if only individual players who don't want to be part of any bigger group except their team (basically their server) did this it wouldn't have a big impact on population balance, because I doubt there would be large numbers (compared to the number of players in guilds and alliances, or the total population) so Anet could still balance populations by moving everyone else around, and it might give a sense of having a 'home' that you stick with.

Of course there's no guarentee you'd always see the same people because they could move even if you don't, but that's already the case, there's nothing stopping individuals and guild moving between servers now (they have to pay for it of course, but that doesn't stop people). But the team you're playing for would stay the same.

I'm not sure. I can't give an honest answer because I don't understand my own feelings on the matter of Servers and Alliances.
It's something deeper that I'm making existential, because the people I met and communities I've been a part of in WvW were there for me when I had nothing IRL. 

I'm trying to see these changes from an objective vantage, but personal experience both with and outside of the game make it hard for me to let go of how things were.

I think such a change could be good in short term, bad in long term. A lot of Guilds barely survive a year before splintering in to smaller, bigger, or completely new ones, and many more die outright.
Alliances being a similar concept on a larger scale, it may lessen the load of responsibility on individuals to prolong the life of that Alliance, but it still has the potential for it die entirely. Either through disinterest, stress on specific people with a lot of control, or any number of factors.

And what that all comes down to is this solution you propose, where the most likely outcome is boarding the pseduo-Server train.
It folds in on itself assuming the community can't manage Alliances, and eventually the "servers" outnumber the Alliances.

And in case I sound critical, I want to say that I like your idea. It just again goes back to my concern for stability, and either through familiarity or things I can't rationalize, Servers still seem the better option.
 

1 hour ago, Custodio.6134 said:

@Shroud.2307 finally!
the first forum-post i´ve seen since the first announcement of alliances, that is reasonable even though it is not "pro-alliances". 
It´s pretty rare nowadays that disaggreement is brought out on an objective level, without any "whaaa everything is bad and my opinion is the only truth, but i cannot support my opinion with logical, grounded arguments". 

quite refreshing tbh. 

Thank you for reading that novel, lol.
The more I wrote the more I figured it'd be ignored, but I wanted to share all my thoughts and process rather than being a doomer saying "idk guys, this seems bad."

Edited December 8, 2021 by Shroud.2307

[Counterakt.9106]

33 minutes ago, Prophet of Flames.2783 said:

Around 75% of the players would do so, and we'd have Worlds again with a few tricks for Guilds to move around easier. It would be better than Alliances, but you'd still have the Alliance bro's crying wolf all the time until they're given full control over pairings via Guilds.

I have been saying this ever since alliances were announced. Leave the servers alone. Casuals who just want a home to come to won't get punted around. Shuffle the guilds around based on available space on each server, so they can all play together. If they uncheck their wvw guild, the will get put in random servers based on available space. Everyone is happy. This is a win-win solution.

[ZeroTheRuler.7415]

On 12/6/2021 at 4:24 AM, Deniara Devious.3948 said:

Did you enjoy the beta alliance system and would you like to see more of it?

IMO I think your poll could have been designed better. It is trying to ask two different things. It should be a Yes/No or a Agree/Disagree Scale, but not both.

Edited December 8, 2021 by ZeroTheRuler.7415
clarity

[Prophet of Flames.2783]

1 hour ago, Danikat.8537 said:

How did you come up with that number? I understand you don't have any actual data but I'm curious about how you've decided that 3/4 of players would do this, when from what I've seen most people's priority is to stay with their friends, which would be better achieved by choosing a guild to be grouped with.

Most people have friends in a server spread accross guilds though, so they wouldn't. But that number is mostly based on lack of enthusiasm or active dislike for Alliances in /t chat and generally on the forums and WvW discords. There are few dedicated and very active big WvW guilds in EU, and those are the only people the proposed Alliances system works well for. So if you give an out like this, pretty much everyone will take it but for those people and the people not happy with their current server.

[cassiopeia.5068]

Not sure how I feel about the new system thus far. I’m no long time player of wvw but I’ve enjoyed playing it since I began playing guild wars. I never understood what was wrong with what was originally in place but I guess some feel the need for new matchmaking or some type of balance. 
 

I’ve been on Darkhaven, this past match up was one of the first in a long while that we hosted as a server. I personally didn’t mind how things used to be. Constantly commanders running around, communication. May not have been perfect always but it worked.

 

with that being said this beta week, I noticed the first night maps were beyond over populated. Lots of commanders running around but not much communication going on. As the days went on, there have been less and less communication. And even less commanders or people running closed tags. Lots of closed off-ness per say. Some friendly people, no communication like there was before. Makes me sad honestly. I know there used to be monthly relinks which personally I think worked. and that alliances won’t fully be like this but I feel like the since of “teamwork” went away this week. Hopefully this isn’t a view into the future of wvw. Trying to keep an open mind about things. But not sure how I felt about this week. Just my week experience, I know others had a better experience. But I like to run around during the day without my guild and this week it was a bit hard to do that 

Edited December 8, 2021 by cassiopeia.5068

[Rellyk.9467]

On 12/6/2021 at 10:07 AM, Toast.6459 said:

If the way they do matchups doesn't improve, I have zero hope for it. Its been blobs all day every day from one team that just constantly rolls through most/all of our stuff.

 

Same here. Routinely outnumbered on 3 out of 4 BLs.  Same group just rolling maps and taking all our stuff.  No one bothers to help defend, and we have far less coverage than the others.

 

This week has been miserable, and if this is what the future of WvW looks like, it's not good.

[Dawdler.8521]

53 minutes ago, Rellyk.9467 said:

 

Same here. Routinely outnumbered on 3 out of 4 BLs.  Same group just rolling maps and taking all our stuff.  No one bothers to help defend, and we have far less coverage than the others.

 

This week has been miserable, and if this is what the future of WvW looks like, it's not good.

Have people just forgot how WvW works and never experienced relinks?

Even if some matches are unbalanced, its random tiers this week. Because it is the "first" week. Even at similar average population, you could literally be a T4 team fighting a T1 team.

It never start to settle until after several weeks.

[Rellyk.9467]

13 hours ago, Prophet of Flames.2783 said:

You seem to think only roamers and scouts aren't in dedicated WvW guilds, while in reality, it's up to about 80% of players on a world, depending on the world and how community based (rather than guild based) it is. Those people play regularly with other people they know by name, they talk with in squad chat, map or even team chat or whispers. They join blobs and tags, sometimes run open tags themselves. They're not just "roamers and scouts".

Now those people lose everything with the current proposal of what Alliance is going to look like, and they're understandably upset. They get shafted to please a few hardcore WvW guilds, and they're voicing their concerns. Don't dismiss them with a 'well then just all go into the same guild lol' that's not a fix to the problem Alliance is creating, a knowingly and willingly created problem that doesn't have to be there.

I agree with this.  So far, this has created far more problems than it has solved.

[Rellyk.9467]

36 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Have people just forgot how WvW works and never experienced relinks?

Even if some matches are unbalanced, its random tiers this week. Because it is the "first" week. Even at similar average population, you could literally be a T4 team fighting a T1 team.

It never start to settle until after several weeks.

I have, and this is worse than any link I've experienced.

 

Little to no communication, no open tags, and as I said we've been outnumbered to the point of having the buff on most BLs, even during peak hours.  One objective of this was to even the numbers, and I'm reporting what is actually happening.

 

Stop blindly defending this, and accept that some of us are having horrid experiences with this system and want to report on the problems.

[Rose Solane.1027]

10 hours ago, Danikat.8537 said:

How did you come up with that number? I understand you don't have any actual data but I'm curious about how you've decided that 3/4 of players would do this, when from what I've seen most people's priority is to stay with their friends, which would be better achieved by choosing a guild to be grouped with.

How many WvW players are currently in a dedicated WvW guild? How many players have WvW as their main activity in Guild Wars 2? I don't know, but I think a majority of the players in WvW play it as a side activity and have PvE as main activity in Guild Wars 2. And a lot of them represent their PvE/PvX guild in WvW. So if you give players the option to choose a team instead of a guild I think a majority will choose a team. And that would remove some of the main objectives of the WvW restructuring. So I don't think that is an option ArenaNet is willing to look at.

[Luthan.5236]

Regarding the options:

"Alliance system seems the best thing coming for WvWvW and will breathe new life to it."
I disagree with this the most. There basically is nothing new. Especially if you play casually - without planning to join a major guild. Even people with guilds should notice that this only affects matchmaking. Nothing changed at the underlying game mode itself. Still the same old maps and stuff to do.

Other than that ... I did not play enough. I mainly play a bit at reset day to fill the wood tier (for +1 commitment pip). I think without the classic old servers there will be something missing ... a "reason to fight" (well ... besides just rewards) - at least for people not joining major guilds. Before that you still could fight for the server.

But we'll see how this will be finally implemented. (Whether classic worlds are totally removed or still exist - and all players without WvW guild get mached based on this. How often the new worlds/shards or whatever they call it get balanced new. More often than the 2-months relinking now? Less often? The less often ... the better - in regards to creating some identity feeling.)

Edited December 8, 2021 by Luthan.5236

[delaydackel.3219]

Teams seemed much more balanced than ever before. Which I guess this beta was all about so I'd call it a great success.

 

Personally I wish anet would just keep the new system running while polishing the bugs like objectives beeing miscoloured on the map until all featues are implemented (much like they're doing with dx11).

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

I'm so happy this mess ends on Friday.
Barely any people most of the time, maybe there's an hour long window of some activity.
I left Ruins of Surmia before for this exact same reason. 

[Abjurer.9302]

With the current world linking system there are two sets of servers.  Closed servers that are stacked with veteran players.  Open link servers that are stacked with new players.

 

Too many seem to enjoy the seal clubbing of new players and easy wins that the current world linking system provides.  I look forward to the alliance system where players should be more evenly distributed between worlds.

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

1 hour ago, Abjurer.9302 said:

Too many seem to enjoy the seal clubbing of new players and easy wins that the current world linking system provides.  I look forward to the alliance system where players should be more evenly distributed between worlds.

How is this any different from what we had before?