Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, reddie.5861 said:

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.

Nor does it take into account player skill, organisation, what type of players they are, nor coverage (though they've said they want to look into that last one).

But we are talking about wvw here, not matched ranked pvp matches. And all those differences is what the tier system is there to solve. Servers with weaker over-all performance will go lower in tiers, where they will most likely match up against other worlds with similar performance. If you tried to force those elements into the World-Restructure system, it would honestly no longer be WvW.

And if players want to stack (or organise or whatever you want to call it), they still can, but the World-Restructure system puts more limits to it than the old World-Server system does/did, it just doesn't cost gems. But does limit the number (500), play hours (which means they can get a lot less other players on the world they get put into and have to carry it more), and they can't stack with anyone else than their own 500 group tops.

World-Servers didn't have any of those limitations, as long as you where willing to pay the gems. I guess I should do like the kids do and drop "pay 2 win!" here for good measure.

Not saying it will be perfect, but I've yet to see an actual good argument for why the new W-R system will make stacking more of a problem than the existing system.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
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

you mentioned the topic yourself, 500 active players, organized and maybe even experts.

this to my modest wall for the numbers that today has wvw. also consider that 70 players are enough to fill a map. in my part of the world entire weeks pass before seeing a full map lately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, reddie.5861 said:

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.

Nor can it. Really, how deep do we need to go beyond numbers?

Is it going to take into account that commander X on team Y may need to go 20m to the bathroom while leading on tuesday so the team need to get 4 extra roamers that specifically log on at 16:30-17:00 on desert but not at any other time the entire week or the system is ruined?

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Boz.2038 said:

Nah, fam. Peeps don't read.

ANet literally said they are reworking rewards, and that everything in the rewards (tracks, ranks, ability points, drops, captures) system is on the table, and you literally have people literally today saying "oh, rewards aren't likely to be looked at, this mode is dead".

You have people complaining about balance after a sharding beta test; a beta test that had quite impressive balance, in the end, considering balance wasn't its primary goal.

There are posts on this sub right now in which people complain about being "forced into a guild" or "made to make a choice randomly", ignoring completely the fact that before you were literally forced to make a WvW choice on your account creation, with no information beforehand.

 

"Nah, Fam." People still say that without it being a joke? 

You're talking about a bunch of stuff they said they're working on but we're not seeing, kind of like we've seen since launch. 

Balance better not have been even it's secondary goal because that last test was sad.

You got to make World and Guild choice.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/26/2022 at 2:02 PM, Dawdler.8521 said:

Nor can it. Really, how deep do we need to go beyond numbers?

Is it going to take into account that commander X on team Y may need to go 20m to the bathroom while leading on tuesday so the team need to get 4 extra roamers that specifically log on at 16:30-17:00 on desert but not at any other time the entire week or the system is ruined?

well this is why system fails no? 🙂

look how i see it

we have
gandara deso sfr fsp uw GH etc
after alliances
u have bunch of random servers which i forgot name off so ill call them
A B C D E F

what exactly is the difference beside the fact that anet is gonna spin players around tru them servers.. they cant even do proper links nowadays imagine how their balance system is gonna work.
at least now players get to choose if they wanna join a dead server or active server or a server with roamers or w/e they prefer cus servers stay static so people can rebalance them by them self. now anet is gonna be trying to do that nothing good comes out of it and even anet is gonna lose out on this cus who needs a server transfer after alliances? just quit playing for X weeks and u can choose w/e server u wanna be in meanwhile u can just play a alt account, untill u get smashed in a bad server and u pick up the other account again to choose which server to play on.

easy to manipulate this system.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, reddie.5861 said:

imagine how their balance system is gonna work.

No need to imagine I played in the 3rd beta and would like that back ASAP.

 

1 hour ago, reddie.5861 said:

people can rebalance them by them self

Yeeeah that's not gunna happen.  We have years of evidence to the contrary.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, reddie.5861 said:

well this is why system fails no? 🙂

look how i see it

we have
gandara deso sfr fsp uw GH etc
after alliances
u have bunch of random servers which i forgot name off so ill call them
A B C D E F

what exactly is the difference beside the fact that anet is gonna spin players around tru them servers.. they cant even do proper links nowadays imagine how their balance system is gonna work.
at least now players get to choose if they wanna join a dead server or active server or a server with roamers or w/e they prefer cus servers stay static so people can rebalance them by them self. now anet is gonna be trying to do that nothing good comes out of it and even anet is gonna lose out on this cus who needs a server transfer after alliances? just quit playing for X weeks and u can choose w/e server u wanna be in meanwhile u can just play a alt account, untill u get smashed in a bad server and u pick up the other account again to choose which server to play on.

easy to manipulate this system.

 

This is just word sallad with an assumed conclusion. 

  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, reddie.5861 said:

well this is why system fails no? 🙂

look how i see it

we have
gandara deso sfr fsp uw GH etc
after alliances
u have bunch of random servers which i forgot name off so ill call them
A B C D E F

what exactly is the difference beside the fact that anet is gonna spin players around tru them servers.. they cant even do proper links nowadays imagine how their balance system is gonna work.
at least now players get to choose if they wanna join a dead server or active server or a server with roamers or w/e they prefer cus servers stay static so people can rebalance them by them self. now anet is gonna be trying to do that nothing good comes out of it and even anet is gonna lose out on this cus who needs a server transfer after alliances? just quit playing for X weeks and u can choose w/e server u wanna be in meanwhile u can just play a alt account, untill u get smashed in a bad server and u pick up the other account again to choose which server to play on.

easy to manipulate this system.

 

These things came up in yet another recent thread and I learnt something from that. Many times when we as players respond to other players who have a concern, question or misunderstanding we try to explain it from the premise they are describing - we respond to their descriptions, words and definitions. When we do that we sometimes overlook the most simple things.

For example, if you question what the difference between worlds with servers and worlds with groups and solos will be the difference is as simple as different sizes and same size.

Servers

So, the difference between let's say Gandara and Underworld right now is that Gandara can be 3k active players and Underworld 1.5k active players (even if the soft cap to become "full" is 2.5k players or similar). Also, the downside of the linking system is that if Gandara is 3k while Deso is 2.5k and UW is 1.5k but linked together it is still 3k vs. 4k.

Anet's chart and data

When Anet released their chart, the difference between servers was as large as 20x (ie., if one server had 3k another had 150). Exactly what sizes servers have, we do not know. We have only heard hints about the soft-cap to turn servers "full" being 2k-2.5k or similar. We don't even know that for sure, that could just have been both vague and hypothetical references from Anet in the past. The chart only had staples, not numbers.

Algorithms: Hierarchy

When people hear that the new system will have things like algorithms that take activity as a factor they tend to overlook or not address that these factors are hierarchical. They are vertical, not horisontal. They have higher and lower orders. So we will not have a situation where activity makes certain servers smaller or larger - and we will not have a system where one world is all grouped players and another world is all solo players. That will not just exist (or at least, it shouldn't, as that would be an inferior system). These things do not exist horisontally as world-size - player type - activity where these things can cancel each other out. They exist vertically as:

  1. World-size (calculated first)
  2. Distribution of grouped and solo players (calculated second)
  3. Distribution of activity (...)
    Each with their own equations or such (eg., [total active playerbase] / [total needed world count] = World size )
    Ps. This is not trivial, because an automatic system could also automatically increase and reduce tiers based on player data from prior periods to better match caps, queues etc.
Spoiler

 

So the system will first always make all worlds the same size. The system will then always distribute the same percentage of grouped and solo players. The system will then evenly distribute first grouped and secondly solo players based on activity labels. If they make a more refined system that takes time-of-day or success-rates into account those will be even lower-order factors. These are essentially all labels slapped onto players and the system will take similar players and spread them out over all worlds (with the complication of guilds/alliances).

So it will first take all players that are, for example, a) in a guild and b) has the highest grade of activity and they will spread the guilds or alliances of those players across all worlds. Then it will take the next category and spread them out. Then it will take the next category and spread them out and so forth. The more detailed the system, the more categories. Things will be spread evenly as long as there is a sample. When it runs out of samples it will just start filling in the next category.

  1. Spread all category A
  2. Spread all category B
  3. Spread all category C
  4. Spread all category D
  5. Spread all category E (and so on; it's a database there could be 100's of categories based on grades- and numbers of factors or labels; they could make the system as detailed as they like because it will just run a db in the end)

For sake of simplicity, let's say that there are 12 worlds and just 5900 players that meet the label "in a guild" and "most active". The system is then likely to place them something akin to 500 on worlds 1 to 11 and the remaining 400 on world 12. It will then take the category "in a guild" and "second-most active" and fill up the next 100 players on world 12. It will then take the remaining how-many players of that category and begin spreading them out. So the system isn't perfectly even, but it is as even as it gets while still retaining players' ability to count as a guild (or alliance). If all players counted as solo the system would be more even, but there would be no player-agency for staying together with friends at all. So, those things balance on a compromise.

Here is a little quirk: Some things people may think hold value, may not. For example, the system will likely take the largest pieces and fill them in first (ie., of the 500 players first put on worlds 1 to 11, perhaps worlds 1 to 3 will have 500 players from 500-player guilds or alliances). However, that would just be for easier sorting. The system does not attribute a larger single group as more valuable than multiple smaller groups where the players meet the same average criteria (in a guild, most active). It doesn't have to calculate or attribute value to that, just sort it in that order because it is easier to use smaller pieces when filling up the final spots. You take the rocks first and the sand last, to smooth things out. However, the system is unlikely to treat larger single pieces as better. The totals are the important. Similarily the system does not have to distinguish between guilds and alliances, they hold the same value.

 

Or when a picture says more than 1000 words in a spoiler:

https://i.imgur.com/bVJ6ENC.png

That would be an example of such an algorithm in action (albeit a bit simplified) and it is also why people keep repeating that the betas have not had such algorithms yet. What should be taken from the picture is that each world is different, but they are similar enough that any one world could match up to and create content with any other.

So what is the difference between worlds now and worlds then? Worlds now are different size, worlds then will be equal size.

Why have the algorithms created such uneven beta matchups? Because there most likely has not been an algorithm running, yet. Beta 1-3 has likely just created equally sized worlds and nothing else. No algorithm for type or activity.

Edited by subversiontwo.7501
  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2022 at 3:19 AM, 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.

Guilds and Alliances are capped by numbers.

 

Instead of complaining that others work hard to build and maintain their guilds and alliances (which is what the system encourages players to do), maybe put in some effort to build your own. And some guilds have been around for decades, that have played and competed across many mmos, so it’s not some new concept. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Swagger.1459 said:

Guilds and Alliances are capped by numbers.

 

Instead of complaining that others work hard to build and maintain their guilds and alliances (which is what the system encourages players to do), maybe put in some effort to build your own. And some guilds have been around for decades, that have played and competed across many mmos, so it’s not some new concept. 

WvW is pug game mode. Anet have made like 3 arenas where guilds can play. Go there with your guild blob.  🤦‍♂️

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2022 at 10:19 AM, 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 alliance should be ON GUILD side and not on SERVER SIDE!

now this server side alliance creates unwanted hate in-game because people don't like to play wvw for other servers.

but wvw guilds are playing for their guild first and after for their server, so they can create system to allow an alliance of guilds play for servers.

2 servers yesterday and prime time we didn't had queue on any wvw map. this tells me that people don't like this system at all even we were green that is the easier ebg map!

Edited by Reborn.2934
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Reborn.2934 said:

 

the alliance should be ON GUILD side and not on SERVER SIDE!

now this server side alliance creates unwanted hate in-game because people don't like to play wvw for other servers.

but wvw guilds are playing for their guild first and after for their server, so they can create system to allow an alliance of guilds play for servers.

2 servers yesterday and prime time we didn't had queue on any wvw map. this tells me that people don't like this system at all even we were green that is the easier ebg map!

What are you trying to say here? I might misunderstand you, so to clarify:

  • Guild = 500 players max
  • Alliance = 500 players max
  • Alliances effectively are on the "guild side" (size?) of things
  • It is an alternative to stack eg., 50x10=500 instead of 1x500=500

Guilds have had no control over what other guilds end up on their worlds in these betas. Guilds and alliances will have no control over what other guilds an alliances end up on their worlds in the comming betas.

Maybe that is what you're saying, the phrasing of it leaves it a bit uncertain. Not "should be". It actually is like that.

Edited by subversiontwo.7501
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2022 at 11:52 AM, Dawdler.8521 said:

The dichotomy list I wrote a while back would probably grow larger for each thread on the forum if I would bother to update it.

Now this game of guild driven fights that the community completely raked Anet over daring to interrupt will be destroyed by guilds. 

Lovely. 

Yep.

 

Maybe EoD will be the last game in the series, and they move on to a new IP, leave this one in maintain mode like GW1.

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...