Jump to content
  • Sign Up

WVW alliance is dead before out of beta due to ultra stacking alliance guild.


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Zikory.6871 said:

Yall dumb. Alliances was never going to balance your trash group of randoms vs a group of organized players. Numbers were balanced, all sides had a queue on our map. Nothing Anet can do about your 70 people being garbage and not playing together. 

and 20% ++ being rangers.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Arenanet must be so tired of this community. Years of crying about every little addition they make to WvW. People have been asking for Alliances for years and now that the system is on its way people

The main reason alliance is created to balanced the wvw numbers, but people already found a simple way to stack the wvw player in one huge guild, it will be more deadly than current server based WVW.

You obviously didnt understand the system. Worlds are created by the matchnaker based on wvw participation. If one large guild/alliance stacks many many active players, they will in turn get

23 minutes ago, Zikory.6871 said:

Yall dumb. Alliances was never going to balance your trash group of randoms vs a group of organized players. Numbers were balanced, all sides had a queue on our map. Nothing Anet can do about your 70 people being garbage and not playing together. 

 

To  be fair, pretty much everyone who plays WvW as their main thing is garbage (more so than ever in 2022), it's basically a self-selecting sample at this point. So whether it's organised garbage or disorganised garbage, it's still just garbage.

Edited by zinkz.7045
  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do spend my time in WvW because that has always been my playstyle in any mmo. I like the open world pvp style, I can roam or zerg or be defensive if I'm feeling like what we have is worth defending. Yes. with siege even. Anyway, I can't enjoy this lack of matchmaking, I don't even recognize most of the players now and they are not as motivated tbh. Our home bl is papered and people are not roaming much. While the dominant alliance is doing what competent players should do, they defend their tier camps and home turf. I like the idea of matchmaking but for me personally it's a disaster and not worth the time unless winning a duel or 1vx in wvw is enough to make it fun. It's not. I would pvp but it kind of bores me. All i can do is leave the game and hope it gets figured out and maybe come back later.

Oh and the dominant alliance is almost x3 the two lower alliance in points so i'm not all flustered for nothing.

Edited by bradadad.8915
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bradadad.8915 said:

I do spend my time in WvW because that has always been my playstyle in any mmo. I like the open world pvp style, I can roam or zerg or be defensive if I'm feeling like what we have is worth defending. Yes. with siege even. Anyway, I can't enjoy this lack of matchmaking, I don't even recognize most of the players now and they are not as motivated tbh. Our home bl is papered and people are not roaming much. While the dominant alliance is doing what competent players should do, they defend their tier camps and home turf. I like the idea of matchmaking but for me personally it's a disaster and not worth the time unless winning a duel or 1vx in wvw is enough to make it fun. It's not. I would pvp but it kind of bores me. All i can do is leave the game and hope it gets figured out and maybe come back later.

Oh and the dominant alliance is almost x3 the two lower alliance in points so i'm not all flustered for nothing.

Or you could actually wait for alliances to actually start…. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

Dead maps sea time, again.  Alliance did not fix the time zone problem. its worse than before.

 

To be fair, they did say they weren't going to be target that attribute for launch but admitted they were looking into options. Coverage wars will still need to be covered by the Alliances and I suspect it will make the differences in the more organized ones as they try and recruit groups to cover more time zones. But again this wasn't even an Alliance test.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, foxof.8752 said:

The main reason alliance is created to balanced the wvw numbers, but people already found a simple way to stack the wvw player in one huge guild, it will be more deadly than current server based WVW.

 

Saw one of those last night and face some during normal matchups. These can be issues but if those large groups only have one main driver, as soon as that person logged the group vanished and that side was suddenly at a loss. But that has always been a potential negative of the system, and don't get me wrong I am on the server side but we have to accept that Alliances are the direction so its better to start to find a home for yourself, havoc, warband or zerg. Or get ready to meet a lot of new people and be ready to find ones you enjoy playing with. Mega guilds will be an issue but they can be their own demise too if they don't have enough drivers to cover when one logs out and all the rest of their side does as well since the algorithms may not cover that outside of total play time. This will be a long work in progress. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All Alliance does it let Anet blame the community for stacking guilds/alliances. Its up to the guilds in the alliance if they want to be together. A surprise to noone cause guilds like to run together or omniblob/AJ every little fight. It takes the burden off of ANET and puts it on the community.  Similar now to stacking servers but that had a cap to it that we can see

Edited by Twilightzone.7452
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Twilightzone.7452 said:

All Alliance does it let Anet blame the community for stacking guilds/alliances. Its up to the guilds in the alliance if they want to be together. A surprise to noone cause guilds like to run together or omniblob/AJ every little fight. It takes the burden off of ANET and puts it on the community.  Similar now to stacking servers but that had a cap to it that we can see

What are you even on about? The "burden" has always been on the players. Alliances will actually take power away from the players... They are limiting the number of premade players can be on a world because we refused to do it our selves. 

All the community does is blame Anet. Lack of updates, sure. But population balance? lmao Players are the ones choosing where they play and Alliances will restrict that. 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, foxof.8752 said:

The main reason alliance is created to balanced the wvw numbers, but people already found a simple way to stack the wvw player in one huge guild, it will be more deadly than current server based WVW.

The system is not there to stop players from stacking within a guild of 500. It is there to stop players from stacking beyond guilds of 500.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How would alliance take power from the players? I can remain as my 20 guild if I feel like it or go stack a 5 guild alliance that is over 100 people. At least now I can choose to stay small and get put in a random alliance compared to now where people just bandwagon a server on new re-links cause they dont like what they got. Then wait weeks for it to even it out.

Alliance actually give some people control and what they do with it. IE stack or remain alone.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ugrakarma.9416 said:

The system is perfect.

Anet should lauch it official soon,, just minor bugs like old server names appearing on capture event.

Theres big guilds? yes, but theres on another servers too, soo its big-guilds vs big-guilds.

Even better: join them, im in the "Vip";.

Hah no!  There's still issues with players being placed on the wrong team.  Definitely not ready to launch.

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

 

To be fair, they did say they weren't going to be target that attribute for launch but admitted they were looking into options. Coverage wars will still need to be covered by the Alliances and I suspect it will make the differences in the more organized ones as they try and recruit groups to cover more time zones. But again this wasn't even an Alliance test.

Coverage wars was one of the best the strategies used in the early years by server community recruiters for what I refer to as "the server meta".  The danger was that once the wider playerbase got wind of where guilds were moving to, they would transfer themselves and cause bandwagons.  The server would become "Full" and then you couldn't recruit for the coverage you needed anymore, at the same time your NA queues would become unbearable.

Considering timezone for matchmaking really needs to get tried.

/sigh

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, foxof.8752 said:

The main reason alliance is created to balanced the wvw numbers, but people already found a simple way to stack the wvw player in one huge guild, it will be more deadly than current server based WVW.

You do realize there are a number of players who have been stuck on dead servers and/or playing during off-hours and have had to deal with facing stacked enemy servers for years now, right?  And yet somehow, we're still here, and we're still playing.  Some of us even got better by playing against superior numbers (although that was back before Anet replaced being skilled with simply spamming more boons).

 

I'm not going to feel bad for you because you have to deal with it for a WHOLE WEEK!!!

 

The players I feel bad for are the ones who felt the need to form a guild just to stack numbers for a beta test week. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Twilightzone.7452 said:

How would alliance take power from the players? I can remain as my 20 guild if I feel like it or go stack a 5 guild alliance that is over 100 people. At least now I can choose to stay small and get put in a random alliance compared to now where people just bandwagon a server on new re-links cause they dont like what they got. Then wait weeks for it to even it out.

Alliance actually give some people control and what they do with it. IE stack or remain alone.

20 to 100 people is nothing. You are going to get placed with larger alliances and have less control over it. 

And like you conveniently pointed out, players will have less power to bandwagon because no transfers. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

so, BG is the great example that they have pretty good coverage on all time, if WVW alliance is going official launch next month, and they want to stay in the status quo, create a new guild "BG", invite all the current BG wvwers into it, maybe plus more if there are extra free slots, we would only hope the wvw alliance will match them evenly with other 2 alliances...

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, foxof.8752 said:

so, BG is the great example that they have pretty good coverage on all time, if WVW alliance is going official launch next month, and they want to stay in the status quo, create a new guild "BG", invite all the current BG wvwers into it, maybe plus more if there are extra free slots, we would only hope the wvw alliance will match them evenly with other 2 alliances...

Yes..  because BG dominated all this time with only 500 players.  🙄

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zikory.6871 said:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World

2nd section. Players aren't "stuck" yet. Will be when alliances launch tho. 

Oh I'm quite aware that no one is "stuck" on a server currently.  But personally I was never keen on spending $20 every other week constantly transferring chasing the "perfect" server either.  BUT in a sense a lot of us have felt "stuck" with a bad server ever since the linking system started.  Love the server you're on, hate the host/link server you've been paired with.

 

I think when Alliances launches it's going to be rough, as you'll see the more organized guilds grouping up and forming alliances while the servers that are currently largely populated by pugs will experience a lot of chaos and uncertainty at first...but I think in time it'll settle down as everyone figures out the system.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alliances are going to be nothing but mega blob guilds. The design itself will mandate the larger guilds to stay competitive just as the Meta has changed constantly that mandates commanders to want specific build/geared/ players in discord mentality. As this match up shows you are going to have some serious issues with mega guild alliances running over the smaller alliances. It is only a matter of time before they figure out a way to manipulate the game matches utilizing alt guild/player accounts. As it is a good portion of the wvw population have already decided to sit out the event and are in PVE atm instead of WvW. 

 

IMO they need to lower and limit the amount of players allowed in each alliance. With the current numbers currently listed it will be way to easy to stack and manipulate the matches. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, etsmith.9025 said:

IMO they need to lower and limit the amount of players allowed in each alliance. With the current numbers currently listed it will be way to easy to stack and manipulate the matches. 

It really depends on what- or how you mean they stack and manipulate the matches.

I think you are bringing up a couple of different prospective issues which can be true or untrue:

  • That 500 is possibly too large of a chunk relative population totals
  • That players can manipulate and stack chunks of 500 onto chunks of 2500 too easily
  • That chunks of 500 can manipulate matchup outcomes of 2500v2500v2500 too easily

I'd say the first is a valid and the two other are invalid concerns

The entire point of the systems change is to make issues two and three more difficult than now

If you'd propose that it would be easier you'd need to explain how and why

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

It really depends on what- or how you mean they stack and manipulate the matches.

I think you are bringing up a couple of different prospective issues which can be true or untrue:

  • That 500 is possibly too large of a chunk relative population totals
  • That players can manipulate and stack chunks of 500 onto chunks of 2500 too easily
  • That chunks of 500 can manipulate matchup outcomes of 2500v2500v2500 too easily

I'd say the first is a valid and the two other are invalid concerns

The entire point of the systems change is to make issues two and three more difficult than now

If you'd propose that it would be easier you'd need to explain how and why

 

 

Well put.
 

To me, the only real problematic scenario is a SEA/OCX alliance.  As they would likely be paired with another NA alliance.  This would likely create significant coverage.  Not that it would be unstoppable.

 

I also don’t think that most of those players want to fight doors…
 

But I like our odds with the new system more than the current one.  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

To me, the only real problematic scenario is a SEA/OCX alliance.  As they would likely be paired with another NA alliance.  This would likely create significant coverage.  Not that it would be unstoppable.

True, but that's the same under either system. If anything, the new system provides better options than gold or gems for other alliances to adapt to some alliances cross-region organisation. The same goes for prime time transfer balance by the way. Expanding tools beyond gems and gold to give more people access to the most powerful tools. The new system is more fair in that sense and even in the betas more groups started to entertain the idea of creating cross-region alliances. It isn't ideal to have more (and as such more evenly distributed-) cross-region groups but it is better to let them be few and impactful. The ideal is clearly to incentivize even low-populated time zones to spread.

So, beyond Alliances it is up to Anet to provide more incentives to spread thin beyond just Alliances' population balance. It has been apart of the discussion since day one, that a system like Alliances need to be paired with better scoring systems and such to create an outcome that is better than simply opening up the transfer toolkit.

In short, few impactful cross-region worlds is the worst, more impactful cross-region worlds is better, cross-region worlds being less impactful or diluted to match up evenly across all timezones is the best.

Edited by subversiontwo.7501
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

True, but that's the same under any system. If anything, the new system provides better options than gold or gems for other alliances to adapt to some alliances cross-region organisation. The new system is more fair in that sense.

Beyond that it is up to Anet to provide more incentives to spread thin beyond just Alliances' population balance.

It has been apart of the discussion since day one, that a system like Alliances need to be paired with better scoring systems and such to create an outcome that is better than simply opening up the transfer toolkit.

I think, without data permitting, it'd be a valid concern that there is not enough SEA/OCX players (That are guilded/coordinated) that them forming an alliance would essentially null out any proper scoring systems.

If the system reinforces winning, and all it takes is the 250 active SEA players and 250 active OCX players grouping together to win 100% of match ups in a boring k-train vs nobody. I see no easy way to incentivize them breaking apart without dismantling the very rewards and meaningful victories alliances is suppose to pave the way for.

Of course this is moot if there are more players than would conveniently fit on a single alliance.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, God.2708 said:

I think, without data permitting, it'd be a valid concern that there is not enough SEA/OCX players (That are guilded/coordinated) that them forming an alliance would essentially null out any proper scoring systems.

If the system reinforces winning, and all it takes is the 250 active SEA players and 250 active OCX players grouping together to win 100% of match ups in a boring k-train vs nobody. I see no easy way to incentivize them breaking apart without dismantling the very rewards and meaningful victories alliances is suppose to pave the way for.

Of course this is moot if there are more players than would conveniently fit on a single alliance.

Agreed, that is sort of what I tried to describe. Alliances can't do that but scoring when paired with Alliances can.

For years (literally, like since vanilla, old forums) I've argued for outnumbered to fill the role of just freezing matchup score. No one gets anything if one side falls below competition. I think that is a fair way of dealing with it where people in low-populated times get to choose between how much they want to play together or against oneanother.

We can't get around the problem that SEA/OCX may be too small on their own, or that players in NA/SA who want to group together with EU players for language reasons may be too small on their own. We can however provide them with the choice between playing together for personal rewards or playing against each other to affect matchup rewards. That's as fair as it gets in my book, it is far more fair than to completely lock them out of affecting match ups or letting them continue to favourably affect matchups at the expense of majorities.

I also think it has the added benefit of keeping matchups fresh longer during weeks and making early or specific domination less impactful in more populated timezones too (ie., making spawn camps and the like affect weeklong scores less too). The only real downside is that it could make worlds more prone to quit when they lose, but the outcome of that only freeze matchup score and it is not like any existing system encourages them to play for the matchup when outmanned or outgunned.

The outnumbered buffs never achieved that. They at best encouraged players to play for themselves and avoiding opponents. While that may still be playing and it may involve stopping some PPT bleed with small objectives, it never provided good content or changed the fact that the opponents likely kept pushing ahead - making it less impactful on the matchup than frozen score. I can see the same incentive to take back objectives in frozen score for personal rewards or so they don't keep ticking once it thaws.

One other concern may be to not feed when not outmanned but outgunned. However, that too is already an issue and it is very hard to police so while it may attract some drama I think it is something people may learn to overcome or that it won't be as impactful over a full week matchup anyway since few groups like to lose or throw. When people keep taking losing fights, they tend to be somewhat aware of its impact on score (eg., many tags taking losing open field fights tend to be more willing to do that when objectives are stable or favourable etc.). It may be overestimating us but I think we can manage that behaviour just as well or better regardless of system. People malding about its possible impact likely already mald about it now. I think the difference is relatively small or that we can make it so.

The whole outgunned thing is hard to get around anyway and I hope that some sort of ladder will be kept in place to mediate that. I trust far more in that than I would do in algorithms to solve disparities in world activity, organisation and experience. There is potential in opening up more available matchups in a better balanced system, but I don't think that is a hill to die on. There is equal potential in having a ladder that better reflects at least organisation and experience to be challenges to amount to and to be part of the reason to play. It goes back to being a PvP mode, players should strive to win something, right?

Even if I am happy to admit that certain aspects of WvW being unwinable also adds to the mode's social health. I think a middle ground can be struck and that is well managed by personal versus collective rewards. If the ladder is then conventional (ie., 8 week "seasons" for worlds) or well-implemented alternatives (ie., various different individual and collective leaderboards) or both, I leave up to ArenaNet, but again, it is not a hill to die on and wheels do not need to be reinvented at first. I'm happy with an early restored matchup ladder and alternatives to that come later.

Why pick one when you can have them all and expand on them over time, as demanded, in true MMO design. I would happily take my personal tracks first, my seasonal rewards second and my various leaderboard ranks, titles, finishers and gizmos later. All with some skin-store unlocks. This keeps on growing so I'll force myself to stop here.

I've even said that once, once but not sooner, rapport is restored there are even possible monetisation options for Anet in this, like being able to pay for participation towards certain rewards. Many gen one MMO were "seasonal" rather than monthly subscriptive. I just don't want to talk too much about it since the studio is so far away from having the faith and trust of the playerbase to make a faithful implementation of it now. I need to stop for real! 😅

Edited by subversiontwo.7501
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Hah no!  There's still issues with players being placed on the wrong team.  Definitely not ready to launch.

 

chose one

a)ppl complaining about big guilds stacking.

b)ppl complaining about not be in 'right server'(not stacking).

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
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...