Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Options for me as a roamer in alliance system.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

Which alliance the players currently on my server choose is non of my business, It is the sorting system, It needs to sort player like me, who is on their own base on priority,  1) to where most of my people/familiar, and the next and so on. vs currently, during the beta, I had picked my own guild as the WvW guild I wanted to be associated with, I was landed in Moogooloo where they are all strangers. No one was doing anything, no one was responding to anything. It's a whole team of randoms like me, which is actually a serious problem, because how can a team with players who are all like me be on a same team. we didn't have a MAIN TEAM.  The sorting system for roamers/single player guild need to be better because it is not good right now.

Funny of the day was: I tot maybe if I tag up and gather people we might be able to flip that one tower. YES YOU GUESSED IT, NO ONE CAME.

It does sort players like you. First by alliance, then by guild (thats what you picked) then by random.

Sounds more like you have an issue with not having good players on your team. So thats what you meant with your people.

Also, why are you describing my current world?

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

An Option for Me as a Roamer in Alliance System CHECKBOX 1 --->>>  I want to stay where most of my people are CHECKBOX 2 --->>> Surprise Me I cannot say "we" anymore, there is a p

Look, you are stuck in the exchange and making further threads about it does not in any way help you past the point of where you are stuck.  You can form a guild or join an alliance with "your p

Roamers don't need a (open) tag and pugs can just join a guild/alliance with whatever pugmander they like to follow. Letting the game sort players by "role" is difficult if not impossible, becaus

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

It does sort players like you. First by alliance, then by guild (thats what you picked) then by random.

Sounds more like you have an issue with not having good players on your team. So thats what you meant with your people.

Also, why are you describing my current world?

Well, than why did no one until now, tell me that this already is the system !?  See what I mean about them trolling! If  anyone had said that in the first place, I would not have to carry on this thread O M G. 

@Dawdler.8521
Thank you very much.

 

If the system is already in place, that would mean all the naysayers are wrong.... right? Right! I win!

Edited by SweetPotato.7456
  • Confused 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

Funny of the day was: I tot maybe if I tag up and gather people we might be able to flip that one tower. YES YOU GUESSED IT, NO ONE CAME.

This has been discussed on the forums before. Players, especially experienced ones, don't just follow tags for the nilly willy. Usually players follow tags they know.

I've known commanders who have been tagging for months or years before they had a following of core players, which in turn encouraged others to follow too.

This can be sped up with:

A. having guild members promote a new tag thus actually extending some upfront trust in a commander

B. community events to push new commanders (rarer in todays WvW, but more common in the past)

C. get known within the server community and make people like/trust you

D. being successful as commander in providing content to other players (be it ppt, fights or w/e)

 

That's the issue with a large bulk of unknown and random players. They are unreliable in what they will do. Hence why WvW guilds form.

Edited by Cyninja.2954
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

This has been discussed on the forums before. Players, especially experienced ones, don't just follow tags for the nilly willy. Usually players follow tags they know.

I've known commanders who have been tagging for months or years before they had a following of core players, which in turn encouraged others to follow too.

This can be sped up with:

A. having guild members promote a new tag thus actually extending some upfront trust in a commander

B. community events to push new commanders (rarer in todays WvW, but more common in the past)

C. get known within the server community and make people like/trust you

D. being successful as commander in providing content to other players (be it ppt, fights or w/e)

 

That's the issue with a large bulk of unknown and random players. They are unreliable in what they will do. Hence why WvW guilds form.

that is why, pugs/roamers should not be place in the same team, when a team has no tag its dead team. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

that is why, pugs/roamers should not be place in the same team, when a team has no tag its dead team. 

Roamers don't need a (open) tag and pugs can just join a guild/alliance with whatever pugmander they like to follow.

Letting the game sort players by "role" is difficult if not impossible, because there are simply no defined roles. Some (if not most) commanders will run both open and closed squads, and many players will paticipate in more than just one specific playstyle, whether it is roaming, guild raids of various scales, GvG, dueling, unorganised clouding, afking or running with public squads.

If you want to be teamed with certain players, then YOU have to tell the game, who those players are by joining the same alliance.

Edited by UmbraNoctis.1907
  • Like 4
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

Well, than why did no one until now, tell me that this already is the system !?  See what I mean about them trolling! If  anyone had said that in the first place, I would not have to carry on this thread O M G. 

@Dawdler.8521
Thank you very much.

 

If the system is already in place, that would mean all the naysayers are wrong.... right? Right! I win!

What do you mean?

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

"a matchmaking system ... where players, guilds, and alliances (player-managed groups of guilds) are programmatically redistributed to new “teams” (previously known as shards) on a set schedule. ... It’ll also give players more agency in choosing who they want to play with on an ongoing basis and allows long-standing communities to continue playing together. "

"Active WvW players that have not selected a WvW guild before the start of a season will be automatically matchmade onto a team. New players, or players that were inactive for an extended period before the start of a season, will not be automatically placed, but will have the option to choose which team they’d like to join."

"Matchmaking will initially use factors such as WvW participation and playtime to place players, guilds, and alliances on teams, but we’re open to adding additional variables to matchmaking (e.g., time zone) once we’ve ironed out the initial kinks with the system. "

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Clarification: I said my account (1) has been on many different servers (approximate 15, don't remember exactly), and on both NA and EU. (Ironically, I've mostly moved servers for PvE, not WvW)

So if ANet made a system, that grouped me with others based on what server I used to be on (before server get removed), I could just as well end up in EU as NA and be separated from my entire guild and friends by getting stuck back on EU again.

A lot of WvW players has moved servers around a lot. A system based on what servers they've been on could very possibly be much messier than anything else (even just going Solo in World-Restructure).

---

Someone else suggested that ANet made some "open alliances", basically one based on each "old world", that anyone could join, with no "leader" (and thus also no one can kick you from). But would still be capped at 500, and if more than 500 people joined it, they'd basically be split in 2 (or more) and sent into World-Restructure as 2 (or more) separate alliances.

I think that's the only plausible idea I've seen so far on the topic.

Your example is the crux of the issue.  Unless Anet has been keeping a history for 9+ years of which shards an account has been on, there is no way to tell beyond what the current "HomeShard" is.  It's not impossible to add such capability to software after the fact, but that won't meet the requirement of determining loyalty.  The discussion leads me to wonder if there is any such shard history preserved.  It's hard for me to think of DB transaction logs being kept around on production for 9+ years.

I also saw the open leaderless alliance suggestion and agree that's the only plausible work-around.  The only thing is it doesn't have any restrictions based on an idea of server loyalty.

Edited by Chaba.5410
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

Well, than why did no one until now, tell me that this already is the system !?  See what I mean about them trolling! If  anyone had said that in the first place, I would not have to carry on this thread O M G. 

@Dawdler.8521
Thank you very much.

 

If the system is already in place, that would mean all the naysayers are wrong.... right? Right! I win!


The system isn't in place yet. Obviously, it will take time to get this built. I don't think we know much more than it will be built using a mix of systems. 
 

Sadly, the issue with a lack of people willing to tag up is hard to solve (although the bonus rewards for commanders aren't insignificant bonus pips are usually less valuable to those players with the tags because they play enough that a few bonus pips don't motivate them as much as a new player). And people don't follow unknown tags as much so the trust level takes time to build up. 
 

Roamer tags are useful for coordinating responses but those require networking with those roamers in advance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Your example is the crux of the issue.  Unless Anet has been keeping a history for 9+ years of which shards an account has been on, there is no way to tell beyond what the current "HomeShard" is.  It's not impossible to add such capability to software after the fact, but that won't meet the requirement of determining loyalty.  The discussion leads me to wonder if there is any such shard history preserved.  It's hard for me to think of DB transaction logs being kept around on production for 9+ years.

I also saw the open leaderless alliance suggestion and agree that's the only plausible work-around.  The only thing is it doesn't have any restrictions based on an idea of server loyalty.

There might be a preservation of the server you have been on because there is a gemstore transaction associated with it. If it is recorded it probably only saves the server you transferred from/to, gems used, and the date and time.

To suggest that it become the primary factor in where someone is placed in the new alliance system is flawed at its core however. Even Josh Davis (the live dev , "the Grouch") said that they spent most of their time on Anvil Rock in one interview but if servers/worlds are removed you can't call yourself an Anvil Rock player.

---

The heart of the alliance system will always be highly networked players which means alliance of guilds and guilds that other guilds on the server play off of, not roamers. This is not an insult to roamers but the reality of it. I'm rather certain most people will know of commanders that quit that would run 24+ hours straight and accomplish major efforts for their server's tick and PPK. Nobody is executing plays based off solo roamers because it is not a logistically appropriate option and roamers generally don't have an indication of where they are unless explicitly mentioning it in mapchat. Roamers play off tags' actions whether they like it or not , any highly impactful mesmer or thief player will have the backup plan of hiding and porting in a larger force.
I say this as someone that used to duo T3 keeps with a mesmer (thief did not have shadow portals) before world linking. If someone is hitting a keep on a map you can sneak the other keep for example ; if someone is hitting SMC you can possibly take their home BL garrison or force them to choose. If you're a roamer you hit camps/supplies/tower while someone with the numbers hits a T3 keep.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

It does sort players like you. First by alliance, then by guild (thats what you picked) then by random.

Sounds more like you have an issue with not having good players on your team. So thats what you meant with your people.

Also, why are you describing my current world?

@Dawdler.8521

you are as clueless as I am... and you managed to open another can of worms... sigh. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

If reality has finally hit you got plenty of bait for fishing once alliances come around then.

Fishing is the worse feature I see so far in EoD, I will send you the extra bait once I am done with the achievement, I am thinking fishing is going to tie closely with raising a turtle mount. After getting mount, fishing will be gone and forgotten.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2021 at 5:58 AM, SweetPotato.7456 said:

that is why, pugs/roamers should not be place in the same team, when a team has no tag its dead team. 

 

One of the early write ups indicated a data point they were including outside of playtime was if the the player played tagged or not so that could also be used in the sorting. The system premise was like building a structure. Large blocks such as alliances would be the cornerstones, solo guild groups would be the next set of bricks and then solo players would be the mortar filling the rest in. Inside of that was also logic for tags. I want to say there was a difference in open and hidden tags but don't quote me. Now that was from years ago so....what's the logic currently? They haven't updated any blogs as far I know. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

 

One of the early write ups indicated a data point they were including outside of playtime was if the the player played tagged or not so that could also be used in the sorting. The system premise was like building a structure. Large blocks such as alliances would be the cornerstones, solo guild groups would be the next set of bricks and then solo players would be the mortar filling the rest in. Inside of that was also logic for tags. I want to say there was a difference in open and hidden tags but don't quote me. Now that was from years ago so....what's the logic currently? They haven't updated any blogs as far I know. 

Does it really factor in amount of time played into your placement? That's kittening stupid, what are trying to do with this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, kash.9213 said:

Does it really factor in amount of time played into your placement? That's kittening stupid, what are trying to do with this?

I think you may have misunderstood how it affects placement.  The world population algorithm is based off a rolling average of playhours for years now.  World restructuring forms teams that have roughly the same amount of average playhours.  It's like what server linking attempts to do but with smaller units so that teams can be closer in playhours to each other.  They are taking in everyone's playhours and dividing it relatively equally amongst all teams.

Edited by Chaba.5410
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I think you may have misunderstood how it affects placement.  The world population algorithm is based off a rolling average of playhours for years now.  World restructuring forms teams that have roughly the same amount of average playhours.  It's like what server linking attempts to do but with smaller units so that teams can be closer in playhours to each other.  They are taking in everyone's playhours and dividing it relatively equally amongst all teams.

Confirmed then. kittening stupid.

Edited by kash.9213
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, kash.9213 said:

Confirmed then. kittening stupid.

Why is that stupid?  WvW is a numbers and coverage game.  Players can increase coverage by playing longer hours.  Why should players who have more time on their hands or are addicted to pouring hours into a game be given such an advantage?  Should the game even be encouraging unhealthy human behaviors?

Edited by Chaba.5410
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kash.9213 said:

Does it really factor in amount of time played into your placement? That's kittening stupid, what are trying to do with this?

Trying to back into how they might do it.....this assuming they are going to allow guilds to form into Alliances versus just give us a sixth guild spot to flag into an Alliance.

Total population over a period of time divided by number of players per shard would define the number of shards needed. If Alliances are the cornerstone then it would need to determine total play time of each Alliance based on each of its member average weekly playtime. Divide up the Alliances to try and balance out those play times across the numbers of shards. Once as close as possible repeat the same process for the guilds that are not in an Alliances, again staying within population limits and keeping to the total playtime close. Then do the same step for the solo players filling in the gaps and trying to balance the hours and population. 

Again, that was what I took for the concept of what they said a few years ago. Would love to see an update on that. They did earlier this year say that coverage time was not going to be a factor yet and this would be a work in process for a while. That makes sense, that's also why I go on about Outnumbered since I think it still may be an issue even for a while after launch. I am also going to keep the prediction that the people that do the best watching their own coverage hours will define the top tiers since everyone else will have the luck of the draw. But we will be living in interesting times as the proverb goes. 

Edited by TheGrimm.5624
double space issue
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Trying to back into how they might do it.....this assuming they are going to allow guilds to form into Alliances versus just give us a sixth guild spot to flag into an Alliance.

Total population over a period of time divided by number of players per shard would define the number of shards needed. If Alliances are the cornerstone then it would need to determine total play time of each Alliance based on each of its member average weekly playtime. Divide up the Alliances to try and balance out those play times across the numbers of shards. Once as close as possible repeat the same process for the guilds that are not in an Alliances, again staying within population limits and keeping to the total playtime close. Then do the same step for the solo players filling in the gaps and trying to balance the hours and population. 

Again, that was what I took for the concept of what they said a few years ago. Would love to see an update on that. They did earlier this year say that coverage time was not going to be a factor yet and this would be a work in process for a while. That makes sense, that's also why I go on about Outnumbered since I think it still may be an issue even for a while after launch. I am also going to keep the prediction that the people that do the best watching their own coverage hours will define the top tiers since everyone else will have the luck of the draw. But we will be living in interesting times as the proverb goes. 

I'd like to see an update to that also, like if there are any thresholds that place you into certain time blocks or if your other factors can cancel that out or are priority above that and can place you disregarding play time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...