Long time WvW veteran, commander, guild leader feedback over beta - Bassett [EU]

[Infusion.7149]

3 minutes ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

one alliance.  alliance is displacing the whole servers in to team. do better.   end of story.

Dunbar's number proves you 100% wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

[SweetPotato.7456]

1 hour ago, Infusion.7149 said:

Dunbar's number proves you 100% wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

Look, something is obviously wrong with you, Alliance is going to happen regardless of what I feel, posted on this forum, I am doing this for myself, so the alliance system will be more friendly to roamers who do not wish to be attached to guilds. 

You will get your alliance no matter what, and you, trying as hard as you did to try to say my post are wrong is borderlind trolling, so stop it. 

 

all i want is a better alliance system that works for roamers as much as it did for guild. 

 

WHAT THE kitten IS WRONG WITH YOU.

[Infusion.7149]

9 minutes ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

Look, something is obviously wrong with you, Alliance is going to happen regardless of what I feel, posted on this forum, I am doing this for myself, so the alliance system will be more friendly to roamers who do not wish to be attached to guilds. 

You will get your alliance no matter what, and you, trying as hard as you did to try to say my post are wrong is borderlind trolling, so stop it. 

 

all i want is a better alliance system that works for roamers as much as it did for guild. 

 

WHAT THE kitten IS WRONG WITH YOU.

You're suggesting something that is logistically impossible (balancing alliances for single players) since they recalculate match-ups based on alliances. Free agent "roamers" are used as part of that balance.

A "team" consists of multiple alliances, which are in turn made of multiple guilds.  All people not in an alliance are used as balancing factors. It hasn't worked with servers where unguilded people hop to the "winning" server , why would they do what you are asking for in alliances' full implementation?

Edited December 16, 2021 by Infusion.7149

[Chaba.5410]

3 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

You are not putting words in my post! na-ah! NO.

I am speaking as a roamers, am here to tell Anet what I feel about the beta, You aren't and can't deny me that. 

I didn't like how alliance is handle related to roamers. END OF STORY.  do something better. 

Next time just use the word "I" then.  I guess you're not a native English speaker.  It's always implied that you're trying to speak for everyone when you use the word "we" when you mean "I".  I'm not denying you anything if you made a simple mistake in using the wrong pronoun.

[James.3982]

On 12/14/2021 at 4:06 PM, SweetPotato.7456 said:

Roamers aren't for you to re-distribute equally into random teams, we want to stay with our people, without joining a guild.

In order for alliance to work, the scoring systems and maps need to change. Otherwise its just a massive reshuffling of players.

If any players want to stick together they can join a community guild, make a new guild, join an existing guild as "friends" to tag along. There are options. You don't have to commit and join a raiding WvW guild to be a part of an Alliance / World.

The WvW system will be revamped to work around Guilds, no point arguing over this part. There ain't a single solution that would satisfy all players.
I said in my post that I believe most of the servers currently experience clearly worse WvW gameplay experience and activity compared to just a handful of active/stacked realms. This new guild based system has potential to improve the game for majority of the players.

And to my understanding the matchmaking system is only one part of the upcoming changes to WvW. Rewards are being handled next - maybe there will be changes to Scoring and Maps too later in line. (But changing a map is a lot of work.)

(Also, I'm not re-distributing roamers as some live stock. Just saying that players who are not teaming up with a guild in my opinion should be equally divided between realms for server balance / and for them to find new communities to join if they want. Or stay by themselves and be re-moved to a new World every X months Anet will do the shuffle.)

Edited December 19, 2021 by James.3982
added the last part.

[SweetPotato.7456]

9 hours ago, James.3982 said:

redacted

(Also, I'm not re-distributing roamers as some live stock. Just saying that players who are not teaming up with a guild in my opinion should be equally divided between realms for server balance / and for them to find new communities to join if they want. Or stay by themselves and be re-moved to a new World every X months Anet will do the shuffle.)

You did it again.

Why should I who already choose my server be redistributed to another team not of my choice.  Anet needs to work out something better for solo player. 

[Cyninja.2954]

3 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

You did it again.

Why should I who already choose my server be redistributed to another team not of my choice.  Anet needs to work out something better for solo player. 

 

No, they don't. They are giving each player more control over their experience in WvW. This might come as a detriment to those who wish to not make use of the possibilities and mechanics granted to them. Your server won't matter any longer because the entire server system has been hemorrhaging players for a long time now (and let's not imagine a world without COVID here, which significantly extended this modes live-span).

 

The question here is:"will the new system be more fun to more people overall (old and new) than the server system?"

 

The question is not:"will the new system be more fun to every player (veteran) compared to the older system?"

 

The assumption right now is:"a system in which players can better organize and build communities of their liking will be healthier for the game mode". That assumption might be incorrect. If it's not though and if the assumption holds true for the majority of players of the mode (old and new), it will be beneficial for the mode overall.

 

Also you are not talking about solo players. You are talking about solo players who are also social hermits, who vehemently refuse to join a community what so ever while still caring about being paired with specific other players. That is a niche group (roamers) within a niche group (social hermits) within a niche group (refusal of making any effort to join a community) within a niche group (still want specific players on their team).

While I personally would hope every player who enjoys WvW to somehow manage to make the alliance system work, at some point, some demands are so niche, that they might not see catering to (be it due to no possibility or no desire from the developers).

 

That said, there could be a potential for offering open communities similar to the current servers, capped at the alliance size obviously, which would allow players to join. Would come with some huge disadvantages like no one having control over them (and as such no way to remove inactive players for example), but it would allow players to join those "quasi" servers if they so desire.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Cyninja.2954

[SweetPotato.7456]

@Cyninja.2954

You are not talking about anything  what so ever that is constructive or related to what my intention of posting about how I feel when I see the the Author of this thread treating solo players/roamers like filler that they are to be re-distributed to fill up gaps where ever needed.  Your assumption that solo players do not have a community is apocryphal, erroneous, spurious, specious. My server is filled with small clusters of players and roamers. I am not going to use we incase people going  to pick on grammars again, I am a solo player in a community that I don't want to leave behind.  I like to stay that way. MY POST HERE IS TO TELL ARENANET EXACTLY THAT.  IT IS NON OF YOUR BUSINESS. IT IS ARENANET BUSINESS TO SEE IF THEY CAN FIT THAT IN AND MAKE IT BETTER FOR THIS SITUATION.

[Cyninja.2954]

47 minutes ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

@Cyninja.2954

You are not talking about anything  what so ever that is constructive or related to what my intention of posting about how I feel when I see the the Author of this thread treating solo players/roamers like filler that they are to be re-distributed to fill up gaps where ever needed.  Your assumption that solo players do not have a community is apocryphal, erroneous, spurious, specious. My server is filled with small clusters of players and roamers. I am not going to use we incase people going  to pick on grammars again, I am a solo player in a community that I don't want to leave behind.  I like to stay that way. MY POST HERE IS TO TELL ARENANET EXACTLY THAT.  IT IS NON OF YOUR BUSINESS. IT IS ARENANET BUSINESS TO SEE IF THEY CAN FIT THAT IN AND MAKE IT BETTER FOR THIS SITUATION.

 

True it is none of my business. You disliking what I have to say is also none of my business.

 

Again, your demands might just not be workable or forfillable given the extent of special demands you are making.

 

If you want to remain part your current community there is a solution for that to a limited extent (limited because alliance will be smaller than servers, which is the very nature of the change: smaller match-able components). It's called make a guild or join an alliance with those players. 

 

Servers, or at least the sizes they had, did not work or have not worked for this mode as population declined. Alliances are meant to redesign the mode to be better future proof and fun.

 

Also just to be clear: I never said solo players are not part of a community. I said the solo player who wants to stay autonomous, while not wanting to join a guild/alliance yet still wanting to be part of a specific community, is a very small niche group within a niche group. If you care so much about staying paired with certain other players yet despise the idea of having to organize with them, you are that niche group. Most other will:

A. either care enough to organize via the new system if need be

B. not care enough about playing with others that importantly and thus not organize

by the mere paradox of wanting to stay together with others, yet not valuing this high enough to even devote 1 guild slot to it.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Cyninja.2954

[Chaba.5410]

16 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

Why should I who already choose my server be redistributed to another team not of my choice.

Servers are being removed.  That's why.  No one chose you to play with them on a server.  And they still won't be able to chose you when servers are removed if you don't want to join their guild.  No one is going to have that choice to play with you or not.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[SweetPotato.7456]

@Cyninja.2954
ArenaNet could have added a check box in the Alliance panel for
"I want to go where most of my server" and "Surprise Me" choices,
 so that the priority for me would be that I am sorted where most of my server is,
if that team is filled, I will be sorted to the next , so on and so forth.
If they didn't even try to give that choice. I will conclude that they didn't try hard enough
and will tag up in the dessert for Legendary Bounty Train.

I DO NOT demand. You, however are like old person trying to teach other a lesson. 

If I don't say what I don't like about the change. Then what is this feedback for? 

You, and everyone else here knows there's 0.0001% that my wish will be fulfill. Yet you keep on having that tunnel vision of things cannot be any better, it must be like that, No! you can't not like what is served to you, EAT YOUR BROCCOLI!! what are you? a dictator?

Well It doesn't need to be. I want chocolate!
(I actually do like broccoli, that's just an example)

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

@Cyninja.2954
ArenaNet could have added a check box in the Alliance panel for
"I want to go where most of my server" and "Surprise Me" choices,
 so that the priority for me would be that I am sorted where most of my server is,
if that team is filled, I will be sorted to the next , so on and so forth.
If they didn't even try to give that choice.

Ah.

The good old "as long as I'm covered then kitten the rest" argument. 

But granted, Anet could do this implementation. Since there will be no population on servers that doesnt exist anymore its the eqvivalent to dividing by 0. So the feature wouldnt work, but its still there as a tickbox and comfort blanket. I think thats an acceptable comprimise.

[SweetPotato.7456]

@Dawdler.8521
you mean individual doesn't matter in the game anymore?

[Dawdler.8521]

41 minutes ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

@Dawdler.8521
you mean individual doesn't matter in the game anymore?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

You do realize what you are asking for is impossible under a matchmaker trying to make fair and balanced teams right? Because unless you want to FORCE players to choose this option together with you (again an argument of "if I'm going down I'm taking all you kitteners with me!"), you cant be sure where "most of your server" that no longer exist actually is. Guilds and alliances with all the players on your old server can be spread on all teams. Which of them should your vision of the matchmaker prioritize for you and what makes you better for this team than all the rest that wont fit? 

But since only individual players could make this choice anyway rather than guild/alliance members...

You're still describing an alliance. 

A tickbox to be part of a group, except better.

Also lets not pretend this is a matter of "most" on the server, keeping the good old server community together. Those wanting this want to be with *specific* players they recognize and *specific* guilds thats probably 20% at best of the server.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Cyninja.2954]

4 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

@Cyninja.2954
ArenaNet could have added a check box in the Alliance panel for
"I want to go where most of my server" and "Surprise Me" choices,
 so that the priority for me would be that I am sorted where most of my server is,
if that team is filled, I will be sorted to the next , so on and so forth.
If they didn't even try to give that choice. I will conclude that they didn't try hard enough
and will tag up in the dessert for Legendary Bounty Train.

I DO NOT demand. You, however are like old person trying to teach other a lesson. 

If I don't say what I don't like about the change. Then what is this feedback for? 

You, and everyone else here knows there's 0.0001% that my wish will be fulfill. Yet you keep on having that tunnel vision of things cannot be any better, it must be like that, No! you can't not like what is served to you, EAT YOUR BROCCOLI!! what are you? a dictator?

Well It doesn't need to be. I want chocolate!
(I actually do like broccoli, that's just an example)

 

Honest question:

Why do you get to voice your opinion, but I am denied that right by you with constant verbal attacks or derrogative speach?

 

Where did I say you are not allowed to voice yours? Last I checked, this is open discourse on a forum.

 

I am pointing at logic fallacies in your demand and/or inconsitencies in what you are asking for both in terms of currently is the goal of the rework as well as your ask (getting to play with specific others while not using the tools given to do do).That hopefully  does not make me a dictator.

 

If using common sense at analysing or approaching an issue makes me an "old person teaching a lesson" so be it. Who are you then though in this situation? The entitled screaming nonsensical child?

 

As to your idea/suggestion: go reread the very first response of mine. I literally made a similar suggestion back then. You must have missed it.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Cyninja.2954

[SweetPotato.7456]

@Cyninja.2954
I am voicing  my opinions  dislike of the change, concern 
where as you are kicking my opinion concern off the table 
Read what you type. 

@Dawdler.8521
Read the part where it says: 0.001% 
Can't say I didn't try to ask for a better scenario for me.
(can't say we, someone here is very picky about me speaking  as a roamer)

Edited December 21, 2021 by SweetPotato.7456
wrong word, i think concern is more accurate

[enkidu.5937]

On 12/20/2021 at 12:18 AM, James.3982 said:

This new guild based system has potential to improve the game for majority of the players.

Most ppl aren't members of WvW guilds so we can give Anet's vision a big nope already. To turn WvW into GvG will only work for ppl that want GvG (surpirse) 🤪

 

On 12/16/2021 at 4:34 AM, Infusion.7149 said:

All people not in an alliance are used as balancing factors.

Ofc, these ppl will not let themselves be used as a filling mass that gets randomly shuffled every few weeks toghether with anonymous random dudes. They will simply quit the game.

 

What Anet tries to implement already existed, EotM with better rewards several years ago. And this GvG game mode already failed hard. K-trains, and an empty GvG arena.

[Cyninja.2954]

2 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

@Cyninja.2954
I am voicing  my opinions  dislike of the change, concern 
where as you are kicking my opinion concern off the table 
Read what you type. 

@Dawdler.8521
Read the part where it says: 0.001% 
Can't say I didn't try to ask for a better scenario for me.
(can't say we, someone here is very picky about me speaking  as a roamer)

 

Wait, how does this work? You get to argue and state your opinion/dislike, yet others are not allowed to voice their opinion/like?

Read the very first comment you made in this thread. Under your proposed approach, what gave you the right to criticize topic creators opinion or even disagree with it?

I am literally doing the same thing here, only that in this scenario I am challenging your opinion/dislike the same way you challenged topic creators, mind you while trying to give possible solutions yet basing my arguments in what I believe the current goal is with the alliance system. Yet I somehow I don't get that right?

I am going to cut this short because this back and forth is not useful to the topic at hand: I've shared what I think about how well the new system will be able to handle extreme niche demands and I don't care enough for this illogical back and forth tbh.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Cyninja.2954

[Chaba.5410]

15 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

ArenaNet could have added a check box in the Alliance panel for
"I want to go where most of my server" and "Surprise Me" choices,

How?  Imagine the logistics this would take.  How does one determine which server a player belongs to and then after servers are removed?  Do you get placed with the 10 people who stayed on your server since launch or the 50 people who transferred to your server just a few months before restructuring that you barely know?  (Congrats, you now are on the same team as Indo!)

If only there were an elegant, simple, and pre-existing player grouping mechanism that could be extended in functionality for players who wanted to stick together after servers are removed...

Edited December 21, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[Infusion.7149]

10 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

Most ppl aren't members of WvW guilds so we can give Anet's vision a big nope already. To turn WvW into GvG will only work for ppl that want GvG (surpirse) 🤪

 

Ofc, these ppl will not let themselves be used as a filling mass that gets randomly shuffled every few weeks toghether with anonymous random dudes. They will simply quit the game.

 

What Anet tries to implement already existed, EotM with better rewards several years ago. And this GvG game mode already failed hard. K-trains, and an empty GvG arena.

That's opinion rather than fact. People schedule GvG on gw2mists. There's even a "GvG radar". https://gw2mists.com/gvg-radar

If WvW is made rewarding enough people will be replaced especially with an influx of players from EOD, just like older core days GvG "fight" guilds that never defended anything. Those that enjoy playing with a certain group of players will join those guilds/alliances.

EotM was quite popular among casual players with no guild/server loyalty before skirmish tracks. To say it was a failure is misleading.

As an example, just yesterday someone and their significant other joined our WvW guild after following for a while (maybe this week or the week before). How can the experience be made better by the WvW community? By not trolling people new to the mode (look at how many people still are working on warclaw) , telling them why a certain build is unwanted (people that adamantly play a core ranger or druid on commander gear and stacking on your tag while everyone is stealthed is a person unwanted on any guild group or PUG tag even) and giving the resources for them to improve. There's a build for literally every class even if it's not meta, so that's what it comes down to.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Infusion.7149

[Xenesis.6389]

Dunno why I'm posting in these forums anymore cause it's a useless platform... but..

Maybe anet could look into doing something like this...

1. Make 24/27 base alliances(but really an auto guild) of 500 players, each will be named after the old servers.
2. Players can select these alliances as their choice instead of a guild in the wvw alliance panel.
3. There is no leader, no ranks, no bank, no nothing but a list, there is no control over who's in or out of that alliance, it will take the first 500 random people signed to it, those that do not get in will be treated as the random solo placements during creation.
4. There is no guarantee that you will be placed in that alliance at creation, but that is a chance you take, maybe next recreation you will be, if you don't want to take that chance then MAKE OR JOIN A GUILD OR ALLIANCE.
5. Players who are in guilds and alliances most likely wouldn't use this option, so it would mostly be used by those solo server attached players.
6. Possible way to build the worlds - first use the biggest server alliances for 12 worlds, then fill with the rest of the smaller alliances(essentially like links) then fill with players alliances, then guilds, then solos, etc.

The system would still build around these alliances and regular player alliances, there's just more alliance pieces to use in the shuffle.

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Xenesis.6389

[James.3982]

11 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

Most ppl aren't members of WvW guilds so we can give Anet's vision a big nope already. To turn WvW into GvG will only work for ppl that want GvG (surpirse) 🤪

 

Ofc, these ppl will not let themselves be used as a filling mass that gets randomly shuffled every few weeks toghether with anonymous random dudes. They will simply quit the game.

 

What Anet tries to implement already existed, EotM with better rewards several years ago. And this GvG game mode already failed hard. K-trains, and an empty GvG arena.

No need to belong to a active WvW guild:
You don't have to be a member of a WvW guild. You can join a server community guild - or decide to flag your PvX guild to stay with your buddies from there. This is not turning the game mode into a GvG, not by a longshot, nor was that ever an Anet vision.

The fact is that the since 2014 megaservers the server communities have never been the same. There is no more teleporting to Lion's Arch to call for help in the borderlands - or sharing the game with your servermates both in WvW and PvE.
With alliances there could be more pride and meaning behind belonging to a larger WvW community again.

"Filler material"
None is being used as "filler material" - but every single player has a chance to choose who they want to spend their time playing WvW with (community guild, roamer guild, GvG guild mates, casual PvX guild mates etc.) In the case you don't have a WvW community to play with, you will be paired with other alliances/players/guilds for you to find people you want to play with. Once you find people you enjoy the game with - simply join their alliance and be together. (For free, no gem transfer prices needed!)

EotM and GvG scene:
EotM was purely a PvE karma train and leveling up zerg. It did not have any competitive or strategic edge to it.

And GvG does still exist - the fights are now held in the EotM arena. On top of that there is also the EU Inhouses discord with +1000 members who organize arena fights weekly. The players there are the same guys who tag up and organize events in the borderlands and EBG - one part of the most active core of WvW players.

[James.3982]

7 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

1. Make 24/27 base alliances(but really an auto guild) of 500 players, each will be named after the old servers.
2. Players can select these alliances as their choice instead of a guild in the wvw alliance panel.
3. ...it will take the first 500 random people signed to it, those that do not get in will be treated as the random solo placements during creation.
4. There is no guarantee that you will be placed in that alliance at creation, but that is a chance you take, maybe next recreation you will be, if you don't want to take that chance then MAKE OR JOIN A GUILD OR ALLIANCE.

 

Actually a decent idea too. Adding a 6th option below the guild choices in the WvW tab for original Server, like:
6: [ ] No Alliance guild. But I would like to be treated as former "Far Shiverpeaks" member.
For the system to pair up the player who choose to not pick a guild, but want to stick together with parts of the old communities.

It does not have to be an "auto guild" at all.
What I don't like is the possibility of the system not making your wish come true. That would be a massive bummer to anyone trying to affect their allegiance - and then being told "nah, you go elsewhere while your buddies can fit to world X".

Hard to estimate how many players there are on servers who would not join an alliance/guild and want to pick an option like this.

[Xenesis.6389]

8 hours ago, James.3982 said:

It does not have to be an "auto guild" at all.
What I don't like is the possibility of the system not making your wish come true. That would be a massive bummer to anyone trying to affect their allegiance - and then being told "nah, you go elsewhere while your buddies can fit to world X".

Hard to estimate how many players there are on servers who would not join an alliance/guild and want to pick an option like this.

You could set whatever caps, I'm sure someone will not get what they want still.

If you expand the caps to say 1000 you'll probably start attracting small guild players as well trying to get into those worlds for an alliance with communities instead of other guilds, which would further mess up who gets in. Then also the stackers looking to join the biggest communities for the easy ride. The 500 cap and randomness should help discourage some bandwagon to the biggest, and mainly leave this as an option for the solos or very small groups.

In the end, people still have the option to create their own community guild and alliances, they're just being extremely lazy about it, my idea is a compromise for it. Either take a random chance for an auto community, or make a guaranteed one.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Xenesis.6389

[Dawdler.8521]

4 hours ago, James.3982 said:

Actually a decent idea too. Adding a 6th option below the guild choices in the WvW tab for original Server, like:
6: [ ] No Alliance guild. But I would like to be treated as former "Far Shiverpeaks" member.
For the system to pair up the player who choose to not pick a guild, but want to stick together with parts of the old communities.

It does not have to be an "auto guild" at all.
What I don't like is the possibility of the system not making your wish come true. That would be a massive bummer to anyone trying to affect their allegiance - and then being told "nah, you go elsewhere while your buddies can fit to world X".

Hard to estimate how many players there are on servers who would not join an alliance/guild and want to pick an option like this.

Sigh... 

Again, this request is literally describing an alliance except it's assuming the players are far too lazy to actually do it themselves and need Anet to hold their hands or they act like headless chicken.

You got your own hint on why it doesnt work on the second half. It wont be fair because its impossible to estimate. You cant "pause" a shuffle and go "oops there was 632 former FSP members untagging and there can only be 500 in this no-alliance-and-no-guild-but-really-it's-an-alliance-or-guild, those 132 leftover schmucks need to choose something else or be tossed aside". The assignment of random players need to generic and applied equally to each individual at the time of the shuffle, ie random. The other choice is joining a guild/alliance. It remains that simple.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Dawdler.8521