Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Ok, so its easier.

That means its just as easy for the enemy too. 

Or what exactly are you implying here, that there will just be 1 single 500 man alliance across entire WvW?

but if this is already clear and easy then let's try to avoid it.

in fact even in my opinion 500 players organized and active on the same side could have too much weight in reference to the numbers that today has wvw.

can we halve them to 250 players per alliance? we will also have the double alliance at our disposal. improves granularity improves balance.

you will have twice as many organized groups and these groups will be twice as likely to find competent opponents to have fun with....... although sometimes they will be old friends.

you can still remain friends even if you play on different alliances.

in this beta I played against a lot of friends...... we enjoyed chasing each other...... but we still remain good friends.

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

57 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

can we halve them to 250 players per alliance? we will also have the double alliance at our disposal. improves granularity improves balance.

I dont mind that (nor is impacted due to having a 10 man primary guild) but as has been said umptieleven times before, as long as the guild cap is 500, alliances need to be 500 or higher. Going lower cap is pointless unless you also lower guild cap to 250. Which open up a whole can of worms. Guilds aint gonna be happy over that.

Also keep in mind that the cap is just that, a cap. I think most alliances will be smaller, not to mention constantly change due to guilds leaving and joining or reforming. People stare themselves blind on numbers when reality isnt like that.

If anything the tryhard/hardcore will want a "community" style guild instead of an alliance, because they then have 100% control over all hardcore members. We all know how such guild leaders are. Do you think they would accept a slacker guild in their ranks they cant control, lol?

Which makes all "alliance problems" arguments meaningless, due to the first paragraph. A few semi-casual guilds that just want to play together and form a community will gain a lot more from it.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

please also keep in mind that even with guilds having a player cap of 500 accounts, that they don't all play WvW. 

 

imagine, with map caps, one guild of 500 players, all on at the same time, could queue all WvW maps at the same time, preventing anyone else from getting into the game mode.... for hours.

 

generally speaking, even in tier 1 North American WvW, even in prime time (weekly reset), the most players from a single guild that i see at a time is pretty much limited to a single squad, or sometimes joined a second smaller squad to queue a single map. so 50-80 players from a single guild at the same time. But usually, that smaller second squad is displaying different guild tags than the full squad, so more realistically, 40-50 from the same guild in WvW at the same time.

 

Also, you won't be counted in the guild for matchmaking purposes unless you check that guild's box in the WvW panel, so max guild player cap won't make a difference in the alliance cap, since you can be in 5 guilds, but only check the box for 1 WvW guild.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you . we can say that the guilds especially those dedicated to wvw are built by 30 or 50 players.

keep in mind, however, that alliance will give the possibility to aggregate these guilds . up to a limit of 500.

we really need to consider reducing this quantity. with the aim of improving the style of play for everyone.

of course this can affect many numerous guilds. we will take note of it we will accept it we will adapt and move on. after all, we cancel without a blow to hurt entire communities built in 10 years. large guilds will adapt in the same way.

always with the intention of improving balance and fun for everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

since ur on deso, why do u act as if the server stayed the same every since? from what i remember, there have been a billion of guilds leaving that server, and similar amounts of pugs gone in and out.

 

it isn't a immovable unity on any server. when i left deso, i knew only like roughly 10 people there who still stayed on it - the rest been strangers and randoms, who just bandwagoned en masse to the ppt machinery that desolation had become. the DC guild been nearly empty in most times during the last MONTHS when i've been there.

also well, i honestly don't even know who were in links only during my earlier years, because i didn't understand the system enough to get that. but there was a huge exodus in Winter 2019.

 

the linking system makes u fight and play with a full server (well, more or less full) every 2 months. idk if u did just forget that. and it renders single servers alone for that period, having a really hard time often.

 

the linking system is supertoxic for any communitybuilding. any change will make it better. if u want your pug army to stick together, u can just put them all in your guild and advertise this guild time and again during your runs, so u get put in together into the final version of Alliances.

 

another time: do not confuse the beta alliance system for the final system. it is mainly for trying how things work. anet direly needs kinda test runs, otherwise we really gotta wait till 2077 for alliances release.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Forgotten Legend.9281 said:

Also, you won't be counted in the guild for matchmaking purposes unless you check that guild's box in the WvW panel, so max guild player cap won't make a difference in the alliance cap, since you can be in 5 guilds, but only check the box for 1 WvW guild.

We've had that discussion before and I'm not so sure. The problem with not counting everyone in the guild as part of an alliance regardless of WvW guild selection or not is that they can still become part of it with the click of a button. 

Which means, that if an alliance leader has no control of fixed guild slots (ie X amount of players from Y guild allowed), a guild can literally cripple an alliance by hogging slots others should have. 

From the other end, if an alliance leader can kick an alliance member in specific guilds then ouch... the griefing thats going happen since that member can not be matched with his selected WvW guild the next shuffle, otherwise you could exploit it and force stack an alliance the size of entire EU or NA. 

The management of the alliances is a mystery (since they dont seem to even have started) but I dont see how that can work without the guild taking up as many slots as the guild has members + round up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi kamikharzeeh,

I know the history and community of my team well since I've been there since d1.

but here we were really speculating how the alliance numbers might work best.

specifically to avoid stacking veteran players in an extremely simple way, and make the new game mode as fun as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Monarc.9726 said:

It's clear that WvW worlds are less balanced with the Alliances system, which defeats the entire purpose. Big guilds seem to have more ability now to shut down everyone else and dominate. Yes, there was some of that before, but it's worse now. This might be fun for the big guilds, but give it a few weeks or months after launch and everyone else will quit, making it a large guild vs large guild game mode. Half of the population will be gone and so no easy bag farming for the big guilds, so they'll lose interest as well.

Would you call these... Guild Wars then? Lot of pve people queueing out maps for the bonus event so this isn't exactly representative

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, RisenHowl.2419 said:

Lot of pve people queueing out maps for the bonus event so this isn't exactly representative

The same PvE players who run in large HP trains on PvE maps during a map meta by chance?  Say it ain't so!

Edited by Chaba.5410
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Monarc.9726 said:

It's clear that WvW worlds are less balanced with the Alliances system, which defeats the entire purpose. Big guilds seem to have more ability now to shut down everyone else and dominate. Yes, there was some of that before, but it's worse now.

How is it clear that WvW will be less balanced with the alliance system, when we have never actually experienced it, nor do we know all details about it? And how does it enable big guilds to dominate more?

Btw even if you are referring to the current beta week, which does not equal the alliance system, i can't agree about less balance and "only large guilds dominating". Balance seems to be about as good or as bad as with the server based system and this week i actually see a bit more small guild grps and less huge map blobs than usual. Which ofc is just an anecdotal experience, but still, i don't see this alleged "big guild domination" at all.

Mind you, i don't think alliances will create perfect balance, mainly because of how volatile player activity can be, and it is questionable, whether the effort and work put into this new system is going to be worth the results, but for now i also don't see a reason why it would become worse.

Edited by UmbraNoctis.1907
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

We've had that discussion before and I'm not so sure. The problem with not counting everyone in the guild as part of an alliance regardless of WvW guild selection or not is that they can still become part of it with the click of a button. 

Which means, that if an alliance leader has no control of fixed guild slots (ie X amount of players from Y guild allowed), a guild can literally cripple an alliance by hogging slots others should have. 

 

22 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:
Quote

so, i haven't used the new formatting to split a quoted post up yet, so this may look weird.... to respond to the above. let's say you pick guild one. then the matchmaking happens and the match starts. lets say that the teams are set for 8 week seasons before the next shuffle. you decide to switch to guild two in week 1. it doesn't matter. you're still stuck playing with guild one for seven more weeks until the next shuffle. This also means that guild two can't claim a spot for you until week 8's shuffle for the next team "season." you can't become part of guild two's alliance until next time. so a 500 person guild cannot hog 500 spaces in an alliance if only 50 people check the box. if 100 more check the box AFTER the deadline, the teams will be locked, and those 100 people have to wait until the next shuffle.

Quote

a guild has the choice to join other guilds to form an alliance. a team will be made up of a combination of alliances (plural) plus guilds (plural) plus individuals. the intent of the alliance system is to balance populations of teams, according to anet. NOT to let us play with everyone we want to play with like current servers.

 

From the other end, if an alliance leader can kick an alliance member in specific guilds then ouch... the griefing thats going happen since that member can not be matched with his selected WvW guild the next shuffle, otherwise you could exploit it and force stack an alliance the size of entire EU or NA. 

if GW1 is any indication, there will not be an alliance leader. the guild leaders will be able to invite each other to be alliance members. the guild leaders would also have the sole ability to have their own guild leave the alliance, too. the guild leaders will still retain control over their own guild. and the other guild leaders will have no control outside of their own guild unless the other guild leaders invite them to their guild and give them permissions. ie guild one's leader will have no control in guild two unless guild two's leader invites guild one's leader to guild two as an officer. otherwise, the guilds would have to agree to treaties outside of anet's programming. or control.

 

22 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

The management of the alliances is a mystery (since they dont seem to even have started) but I dont see how that can work without the guild taking up as many slots as the guild has members + round up. 

Quote

You can be in 5 guilds. only one of them can claim a spot for you. besides, if only 50 people in the guild select that guild's box before the shuffle, then only those 50 players will have guaranteed team slots reserved for them. everyone else in that guild will either be teamed up with the different guild that they chose, OR be shuffled randomly as solo-players onto teams.

 

granted my above comments are based solely on the limited information we've been given. Anet MAYBE will add more in-depth alliance management, but they won't tell us any more about alliance functionality until they're sure they like the matchmaking of their new system. we're also talking about anet here, so i'm ready for disappointment. they've also said that they may end up scrapping the whole thing if they don't like how it works out for the game mode, especially if it makes WvW worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I played NA timezone today o the server i am and guess what.... we are still outmaned  in all maps  ...

 

IDK what Anet is trying to test here, catering for Ktrain and pve players to make WvW  a low skill and effort farm place like EOTM was?

Ill repeat myselft, similiar scores just because there poor or none figths and just PVD server ktrain timezones/momentum makes WvW more stupid  than any pvp mmo ever  made....

 

Even if a server if full of random vs a server full with 2 guild blobs its better than being ktrained cause ur server has no population.

A efficient way to stress guild omni blobs that refuse to split is to have numbers and force pocket fights everywhere ataking all structures and for that its needed players, so the model of Large population VS low population algorithm is very dumb to use (if its intended situation by Anet its even worse IDK what to think oif the developers that came out with this idea of gameplay), if not sorry for my obtuseness.

omni blob guilds refuse to split since they are awfull if they dont blob but for that its need  players to press and stress enemy structures and  avoid the ktrain, if enemy blobn continues to ktrain they will  loose everything as well overtime, since they can be only in one spot and then leave to another, while the enemy smaller group skeep pressuring overtime all the structures with a hit n run scheme.

Theres nothing wrong on making a server guild oriented but the Anet algorith need to put similiar forces on the other sides....even if they are random players.

Now puting guild and randoms or mostly random all stacked in a massive unique server vs a medium population  vs a almost empty server its stupid., its dumb, and should not even be something to test arround, if this was really the test to see players reaction i think Anet has a cleary idea how WvW will die, just  like EOTM become as useless as a  dungeon.

Edited by Aeolus.3615
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Aeolus.3615 said:

I played NA timezone today o the server i am and guess what.... we are still outmaned  in all maps  ...

By Thursday the matchups were dying out? The horror 😱

 

5 hours ago, Aeolus.3615 said:

IDK what Anet is trying to test here

Literally testing Shard and World creation and run it for a week until the next reset. Just wait until they start testing 2 weeks in a row. What if we get a full season before they implement a Alliance system? hype

  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zikory.6871 said:

By Thursday the matchups were dying out? The horror 😱

 

 

Define Dying , because we are outmaned most time  by  non guild groups since the beta started.

I dont want alliances to become a EOTM karma fiesta..... the 1st beta was a much much beter exp with fights everywhere from small to large groups.

Edited by Aeolus.3615
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zikory.6871 said:

By Thursday the matchups were dying out? The horror 😱

 

Literally testing Shard and World creation and run it for a week until the next reset. Just wait until they start testing 2 weeks in a row. What if we get a full season before they implement a Alliance system? hype

They're talking about what's happening right now. You're saying they shouldn't voice their concerns over what maybe sorta might happen in the near but likely far future if there's any course correction at all. I have to think there will be some course correction given the disparity between the first beta and the rest. The first beta was stacked but how much of that was due to novelty and rewards?

Right now I'm on a team that scraps the other maps for EB so the other teams roll deep on the other maps and there doesn't seem to be much travel across them. Even the first beta for how hype it was because it was new had something going on regardless of being chaotic. Right now there's nothing to encourage the population to spread out, if a team even has the numbers, and hit stuff or even fight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Aeolus.3615 said:

Define Dying , because we are outmaned most time  by  non guild groups since the beta started.

I dont want alliances to become a EOTM karma fiesta..... the 1st beta was a much much beter exp with fights everywhere from small to large groups

I mean, Thursdays is the last NA for the match up and most of them are decided before Thursdays. Just saying, Thursdays being dead isn't all that surprising. 

I basically had the same experience both betas. Was outnumbered, also outnumbered others, fought blobs, got clouded, had smaller even fights. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Aeolus.3615 said:

A efficient way to stress guild omni blobs that refuse to split is to have numbers

You've just explained the exact reason why guild omni blobs exist and how they came to be formed.  It's a bit of the "chicken and the egg" problem, isn't it?  Blobs have large numbers of players so stress them by also having large numbers which leads to even more large numbers.

Edited by Chaba.5410
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kash.9213 said:

They're talking about what's happening right now. You're saying they shouldn't voice their concerns over what maybe sorta might happen in the near but likely far future if there's any course correction at all. I have to think there will be some course correction given the disparity between the first beta and the rest. The first beta was stacked but how much of that was due to novelty and rewards?

If I was saying anything, people should be more concise with their "feedback" instead of writing 4 paragraphs complaining about how other players decided to group up. Complaining about the same garbage that exists with or without World Restructuring. 
 

 

13 minutes ago, kash.9213 said:

The first beta was stacked but how much of that was due to novelty and rewards?

I already said it in another thread. I bet every guild that comes back for EoD and/or Alliances quits inside of 6 months if they don't actually improve the game mode after/before/with/without Alliances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

You've just explained the exact reason why guild omni blobs exist and how they came to be formed.  It's a bit of the "chicken and the egg" problem, isn't it?  Blobs have large numbers of players so stress them by also having large numbers which leads to even more large numbers.

And that is totaly totaly a true statement.... i forgot how formated the players are in this game :| even if is theres a way to split and troll a guild blob... while one side has numbers even inferior...they can burden the enemy guild tag ....

Well  by the other hand the issue is still the HUGE gap of players between servers at least during this beta, either way w/o players on the other side or yours its a zerg fiesta :)

Note: i just find this huge gap of population way to strange, was expecting gaps between population but not this big...since the 1st alliance beta was quite decent.

Edited by Aeolus.3615
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2022 at 11:58 PM, Dawdler.8521 said:

Ok, so its easier.

That means its just as easy for the enemy too. 

Or what exactly are you implying here, that there will just be 1 single 500 man alliance across entire WvW?

You mentioned that the current guild size is the the same as the alliance cap of 500, which is a problem, I agree.

 

I think I suggested earlier in this thread that they introduce a new guild when alliances come out (a WvW only guild). WvW guilds will function the same as other guilds, but will have smaller roster sizes (equal to a new smaller alliance size).

 

Current guilds can switch their guilds to the new WvW guild, but might have to kick people to fall under the new size limit.  Can only join an alliance if in a WvW only guild.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DAN.7314 said:

the current guild size is the the same as the alliance cap of 500, which is a problem

How is that a problem? It ensures that no number of uberguilds can band together into a megaalliance. IE the exact problem the OP has been worried about is a non-starter.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DAN.7314 said:

I think I suggested earlier in this thread that they introduce a new guild when alliances come out (a WvW only guild). WvW guilds will function the same as other guilds, but will have smaller roster sizes (equal to a new smaller alliance size).

But do you intend to change the team size? Double the amount of teams for much smaller sizes and less action? Because if you dont it mean very little.

Two 250 man alliances on a team vs one 500 man alliance is in practice the same. You could get higher resolution when sorting them but if we assume the numbers is capped, its the same numbers.

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

But do you intend to change the team size? Double the amount of teams for much smaller sizes and less action? Because if you dont it mean very little.

Two 250 man alliances on a team vs one 500 man alliance is in practice the same. You could get higher resolution when sorting them but if we assume the numbers is capped, its the same numbers.

''you may get a higher resolution when you order them''. That is precisely what we are aiming for. moreover, in this way 250 veterans increase by 50% the extra chances of being in front of as many as 250 veterans. a lot more fun for everyone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2022 at 2:16 AM, Telgum.6071 said:

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 won't stop making threads against Alliances.

Of course they focus on PvE when WvW community is a kitten show.

I get tired just reading this sub-forum because of the same reason. People can't read, refuse to understand how Alliances are [currently] projected to work, and would rather just kitten all the time, so it's no wonder Anet doesn't want to focus on WvW.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2022 at 9:20 PM, joneirikb.7506 said:

Just to clarify, the World Restructure system also takes "Player Hours" into account, not just number of players.

So in theory:
Team A could be 2500 players playing 2 hours daily/average.
Team B could be 500 players playing 10 hours daily/average.
Team C could be 10000 players playing 0,5 hour daily/average

(Clearly not the right numbers)

Edit: Perhaps we should make a habit of saying something like 2500 players/hours, instead of just saying 2500 players, to try to make this more clear?

but the system doesnt take into account that players with lower play time most likely do not join discord to listen to a commander or maybe they dont even join a commander if theres one.

so again alliances is nothing more then a easier method of stacking players for FREE on 1 server.
before every1 had to transfer to a dead server to stack certain players together nowadays they just make a fat guild and its done 😛

now i personally dont care cus like with servers eventually this fat blob dies for same reason as always, boring, no content, no1 wants to fight etc.
alliances just do this quicker alliances is like a knife in the back to WvW or a nail to the coffin just a matter of time for WvW to die off faster.

  • Like 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...