Which WvW system do you prefer?

[Cyninja.2954]

3 hours ago, Threather.9354 said:

Aa I see it alliances have similar problem to relinkings: 

- Does not allow server stability (activity hours, server building, median amount of commanders)

That depends on which and how many factors are and can be taken into account when creating new pairings. At the very least, more moveable parts will allow better redistribution of players.

Quote

- same loudmouth reset frequently and unfair matchmaking

Again, smaller parts to mix and match will result in better balance or at least redistribution of active players. The other benefit here is the removal of server transfers in favor of more player controlled, currently free, choice.

Quote

- monotonous uniform server populations causing lack of choice regarding how WvW plays out.

That's what we have right now, yes.

Quote

- points mattering very little (actually providing pugs content is bad). It is gonna be same round and round around the SM lord room.

This has nothing to do with the alliance versus server system.

Quote

And yes, being slightly outnumbered was sometimes a problem with old system. But at least it had tiers in place and lower pop servers faced each other.  Now it is complete transfer bonanza.

As player numbers dwindle, leading to less active lower tier servers/match-ups, combined with the inherent advantage of blobbing, players and entire communities transfer around. I already mentioned that the old server sizes had problems with accounting for falling player numbers.

Let's also not be shy here, this isn't about those times where players were "slightly outnumbered". A simple look at gw2mists or other WvW sites which track activity shows that in most matchups it's far beyond "slightly outnumbered".

Quote

I am not against alliance system to rebalance populations as it could be great...  With at least 6 month period before rearranging servers. I am big advocate of server stability and maintaining some degree of how things play out there. With shorter periods you just get punished for doing well or building a strong bunch... Fighting alongside a weak or obnoxious bunch 🙂

The exact time frames in which new "servers" are remade will still have to be figured out. I'm also sure alliances and guilds themselves will have a ton of issues given it's people having to deal with people, which always leads to drama. Dissolving and recreation of guilds/alliances will likely be a common occurrence.

The reason 6 months might not make sense is rather simple: rearranging "servers" brings with it a shake up in many different areas. Stale pairings might get broken up. Players who disliked a current "server" might rejoin instead of staying away for an extended period of time.

Staying paired longer would literally force players to "fight alongside a weak or obnoxious bunch" to the extent that they might leave the game mode. Your criticism works both ways here.

Quote

Of course alliances are great for alliance vs alliance fights. But why are the pugs or roamers even there? Why not just make a GVG mode similar to GW1 one? It is what "alliancers" want anyways. Not to build a strong server, but to build a strong "guild".

No, the new system is better for redistribution of players. No one said anything about having a blob alliance/guild. I'm sure some alliances will gladly take a mix of guilds, if success is a factor, in order to cover all bases from fighting, to ppt, to roaming. In fact, some alliances might want to even mix guilds from different time zones for maximum effect (while I believe that most will form around a common or desired play style).

I'm not sure where this idea that alliances will lead to constant alliance versus alliance fights comes from and it clearly is faulty. Alliances are 1 part of this new system, mostly the aspect which is concerned with allowing players to organize, and it has nothing to do with how the content will get played.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Cyninja.2954

[Riba.3271]

On 12/23/2021 at 4:17 PM, Cyninja.2954 said:

That depends on which and how many factors are and can be taken into account when creating new pairings. At the very least, more moveable parts will allow better redistribution of players.

Again, smaller parts to mix and match will result in better balance or at least redistribution of active players. The other benefit here is the removal of server transfers in favor of more player controlled, currently free, choice.

That's what we have right now, yes.

This has nothing to do with the alliance versus server system.

As player numbers dwindle, leading to less active lower tier servers/match-ups, combined with the inherent advantage of blobbing, players and entire communities transfer around. I already mentioned that the old server sizes had problems with accounting for falling player numbers.

Let's also not be shy here, this isn't about those times where players were "slightly outnumbered". A simple look at gw2mists or other WvW sites which track activity shows that in most matchups it's far beyond "slightly outnumbered".

The exact time frames in which new "servers" are remade will still have to be figured out. I'm also sure alliances and guilds themselves will have a ton of issues given it's people having to deal with people, which always leads to drama. Dissolving and recreation of guilds/alliances will likely be a common occurrence.

The reason 6 months might not make sense is rather simple: rearranging "servers" brings with it a shake up in many different areas. Stale pairings might get broken up. Players who disliked a current "server" might rejoin instead of staying away for an extended period of time.

Staying paired longer would literally force players to "fight alongside a weak or obnoxious bunch" to the extent that they might leave the game mode. Your criticism works both ways here.

No, the new system is better for redistribution of players. No one said anything about having a blob alliance/guild. I'm sure some alliances will gladly take a mix of guilds, if success is a factor, in order to cover all bases from fighting, to ppt, to roaming. In fact, some alliances might want to even mix guilds from different time zones for maximum effect (while I believe that most will form around a common or desired play style).

I'm not sure where this idea that alliances will lead to constant alliance versus alliance fights comes from and it clearly is faulty. Alliances are 1 part of this new system, mostly the aspect which is concerned with allowing players to organize, and it has nothing to do with how the content will get played.

Old system for me was one before linked servers

[Atrom.1564]

My subjective opinion after the beta:

Number Balancing was much much much better than it is right now. This probably was not the case for all Alliance Servers, but the Server I played on had an equal amount of players on all three sides which made it pretty fair in terms of fights.

 

What we have right now is usually one giga stacked server stomping everything with its sheer amount of player numbers. So far, I think alliances will be a good thing, as long as numbers remain balanced ofc.

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 12/11/2021 at 10:32 PM, HazyDaisy.4107 said:

It took me a long time to get over losing my server.  Yet, still today when there is no quote un-quote server pride, I still see obvious signs of server pride.  I know I still hate certain servers, matched against and especially paired with, but realistically, we can't go back to 24/27 and if there were a way, it would've been atleast sampled by now.

 

The current system isn't bad and I really see no difference between it and what alliances should theorically become once fully implemented.  There will still be blobs, roamers, unfair matches and run away ppt, and for abit there may still be remnants of server pride.

 

My only wish is they lower the length of the linkings.

 

The forums are an odd place. Agree I am also a server pride style player but people need to get their minds set that Alliances will be introduced unless ANet cancels the implementation so its better to get their heads wrapped around this and prepared for the change. On the server pride side, one option ANet might help players out on is to allow Alliances to self-name. The relinks have been interesting since it has allowed us to team up with our "traditional enemies" and meet new people. If people allow themselves to just be shuffled about you can still experience that in the Alliance system as well. But we will lose the fun of the "traditional enemies" that we have today every 8 weeks. Yes we will still have guild recognition but Alliance recognition would help fill in that server pride aspect in some ways. Or at least to me. I like to support my guild but I also like to support my server.