a thought on alliance numbers

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 12/20/2021 at 8:49 PM, Chaba.5410 said:

The whole goal of this restructuring is to create teams that are more balanced in play hours than what can be accomplished with server linking.  

 

Agree. Ironically if it works as expected I wonder how long it will take before we see the old threads of we only every fight the same people. If those show up after the system is live then it actually worked. Till then a line from one of the Harry Potter movies come to mind, "Hold on, we in for a bumpy ride!". 🙂

[Dawdler.8521]

14 hours ago, gloflop.3510 said:

I would put against it that anet as well as well-informed players should at least be aware of the issue.

But we're saying that both players and Anet are very well aware of the fact that guilds have been able to have 500 members on the same world for almost 10 years now.

Well, most players at least since it seems to come as a shock to some. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[gloflop.3510]

I agree but in the current system the context is different. I do not need to create a 500-player guild to be able to stay on the same world as my friends. So if the current system can be compared with the future system can be doubted.

 

The plan now is that guilds join each other in one alliance. If we assume 50 players per guild and 10 guilds, then we have 10 guilds. If they all raid with 25 players at the same time, 250 players will want to raid. I know that less than 10 guilds are supposed to join one alliance but we know how this can be circumvent. If anet cannot do anything about it, the guild leaders should be aware that they should not exceed a certain number of guilds to avoid the problem of queues.

[panthera onca.4251]

On 12/17/2021 at 1:24 PM, Dawdler.8521 said:

The OP is all over the place with assumptions.

The total map cap is ~250 per map. Nobody knows the exact number. ~80ish per side.

There will be little changes for queues if we have the same amount of tiers - high tiers now (ie more players, more queues) get less queues and low tiers now get more queues. Thats how evening out the population works.

The only way this changes to more queues in total is if WvW suddenly become so popular and so played that it cant handle all the new WvWers.

Which is... fine? I guess. I can imagine worse things happening.

It'll play exactly the same as it does now, except with smaller chunks. If you want a more practical example, take a world today with 2 links, both average world size according to Anet.

Under the new system, it would be the eqvivalent of 10 smaller links being together in a world. Thats it. Its that simple. Same players. Same queues. Same "devastating" ownage from the same guilds.

I think we have 4 maps  teamborders+ ebg ...so its about 350ish 🙂 🙂 and to the one before... 500 is guildcap... so they have too make it possible that a whole guild could play together ... even no guild will have all same time online and in wvw 😄 

 

[Dawdler.8521]

8 hours ago, panthera onca.4251 said:

I think we have 4 maps  teamborders+ ebg ...so its about 350ish 🙂 🙂 and to the one before... 500 is guildcap... so they have too make it possible that a whole guild could play together ... even no guild will have all same time online and in wvw 😄 

 

My response was about the map cap for all 3 sides a map since OP made some weird calculation that maps somehow have random population caps depending on how many people he can observe on a map at a random time, not how many a world can field on all. If you just want to count one side then technically you forgot about obsidian (5 maps not 4), so it should up into the 400ish.

Again though, it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion of world restructuring and alliances. The numbers wont change. WvW will be exactly the same as it is now, it's just that currently full worlds will have less players and currently medium worlds will have more players.