500 per alliance to small for support of public ts and public zergs?

[gohliz.9283]

Is 500 players per alliance to small a player base to support a public ts and public zergs on teams? ( teams in Alliance is going to be what your Linking is now)

[Chaba.5410]

Can you clarify what you mean by "alliance"?  The word gets thrown around too much as a general reference to restructuring that I'm unable to determine if you mean the assigned World or some player-created group of guilds.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[gohliz.9283]

For clarification,  pls look at my second post I just made.

In short, as known, there will be TEAMS = ALLIANCES + GUILDS+SOLOPLAYERS.  TEAMS is what is now your LINKING.

EXP. Video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfYdNI25rwc

[Chaba.5410]

Thanks.  I answered the poll.

Why do you think alliance size has something to do with a public ts/zerg for a team?  Don't smaller individual guilds operate their own ts/discord and invite the public in if they want already at this point?

[Mabi black.1824]

the new teams will have a hat similar to the ones we have now. the alliances we will use to fill them.............. be 500 well-organized veterans I consider them already too impactful. I would like to go in the opposite direction.

I don't want to be rude but it's just my personal opinion.😅

[gohliz.9283]

My thought is that in my experience, a well maintained public ts and public zergs is a good point for soloplayers to start into real wvw.  In a public ts you have to register and redo a lot and so on. A guild-ts only with big guilds can do that, I think.  You need several ppl to maintain its activities over a longer period of time, and I m worried that 500 ppl of alliance is not enough. Ppl go off for some time and so on...

 Maybe it's easier with discord, but i am not a fan ^^.

 

However, if your opinion is, that an alliance ts or discord, will do it, that's ok with me. 

 

Also, there are still Servers with communities with up to 800 players, too, they will be parted by the al system, because alliances cannot choose other alliances to join with.

If alliances were bigger, this would solve the problem, and you could then see, how all progresses. But that is my personal take. 

I thought this was at least a good point of discussion, so I put up the poll^^.

 

Down below, there is already a discussion thread about this, too. So I am not the only one thinking about it, but I thought a poll for it would be nice, too. 

Let's see what it shows at the end.😃

[gohliz.9283]

Ah the post is about community split up to clarify that not on public ts. ^^ 

[Dawdler.8521]

If people are having trouble understand how balancing with the 500 man cap works or thinking it's too small, then here's the simple reason behind it: 

You. You're the reason. Whoever thinks 500 is "not enough" is the reason why it should be a 500 man cap.

[enkidu.5937]

That number cant be balanced.

 

With the new system, Anet forces the players to organize in groups for specific time zones. If you refuse to do so, you will be a random filler, supposed to provide the fun for the time zone blobbers as a living loot bag.

 

500 is too high if you want to prevent time zone blobbing by alliance raids

 

500 is too low to provide a community feeling for the casual gamer that randomly loggs in when he / she has the time and the mood

 

So, Anet already heavily failed in doing the needed basic math, and thats why world restructuring will make the balance even worse.

Edited February 5, 2022 by enkidu.5937

[Dawdler.8521]

43 minutes ago, enkidu.5937 said:

That number cant be balanced.

 

With the new system, Anet forces the players to organize in groups for specific time zones. If you refuse to do so, you will be a random filler, supposed to provide the fun for the time zone blobbers as a living loot bag.

 

500 is too high if you want to prevent time zone blobbing by alliance raids

 

500 is too low to provide a community feeling for the casual gamer that randomly loggs in when he / she has the time and the mood

 

So, Anet already heavily failed in doing the needed basic math, and thats why world restructuring will make the balance even worse.

Compared to what?

Here's the final score of 5 random matchups over the past 3 months or so. 

https://imgur.com/a/zWGmcvL

1 of them is the beta week.

[subversiontwo.7501]

I've seen people argue both for smaller and larger alliances (and guilds).

It feels like yet another one of the situations where they have trouble managing them "us" and "them" aspects of this.

The people arguing for larger alliances tend to do it only with regards to aspects of themselves.

The people arguing for smaller alliances tend to do it only with regards to aspects of other groups.

Regardless of your position, alliances can be incredibly powerful (as has been exemplified by both live nomad communities and beta communities that are smaller than 500 but can already be very dominant in their entire region). The larger you make alliances the more dominant they can become and the less balanced the system can end up. I think that is more important than anything else in the future: Anet could keep adjusting the caps depending on how balanced the system ends up. It should also be noted that this is tied to player and world totals.

[Zikory.6871]

Imo its to early to tell. Successful EoD and increased attention to WvW could improve populations, without a actual alliance system and time to see how people decide to organize. At this point, nothing should be set in stone. 

That said, I think a 500 is enough for a strict Alliance to stack a server. If population stacking is a actual concern, 1000 is a lot of people. 

[Pagan Highlander.5948]

Just a note. i believe 500 is perfect as i've already seen various WvW guilds already stack their guild to 500 already. Allowing them to get even bigger would merely allow serious abuses and manipulation of the matchups to the WvW environment

[Custodio.6134]

yep. 500 seems to be a good number (for alliance size) for multiple reasons (based on observations on my server, and the betas so far): 
 

1. Our community-guild (which serves as "alliance-guild" for the betas), had no issues to bring at least all the people we know by name (in other words, the "core" of our server community) into the guild.
2. even after inviting all core players, and players of our guilds present on the server, there were still slots left open
3. we even have players frequently sorted out, because they became inactive, and the guild fills up quickly afterwards back to 500 with all the other players, that are not in an active WvW-focused guild (aka, most players that only do public zergs or roaming)
4. even with the full alliance-guild signed up for the betas, there were plenty other guilds and solo-players matched into our teams (after sorting them correctly due to the bugs that happened)
5. activity and coverage was pretty good (even though timezones aren´t even a factor considered by the system yet afaik)
6. as the system is based on guilds, and guilds do have a cap of 500 players, it is the best starting point you can get for a guild-based team-building system. any adjustment to alliance-sizes (remember, alliances is different from teams!) would require adjustments to guild-sizes as well. They would have only the option to increase maximum guild size, but NOT to decrease it (since it would mess with existing mass-/community-guilds)

[Mabi black.1824]

it would be nice to know the numbers of this mode or have access to the flow data of this mode to evaluate/understand how to handle these limits.

we know for sure that the goal is greater granularity, we know for sure that 70 players make a complete map, we know with certainty that 280 players make all 4 maps complete.

based on this knowledge stack 500 players in the same alliance I think they are too many. my personal opinion.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

it would be nice to know the numbers of this mode or have access to the flow data of this mode to evaluate/understand how to handle these limits.

we know for sure that the goal is greater granularity, we know for sure that 70 players make a complete map, we know with certainty that 280 players make all 4 maps complete.

based on this knowledge stack 500 players in the same alliance I think they are too many. my personal opinion.

Cripes this craptastic take of a thread again...

With that knowledge, please do explain to me how 500 man guilds exist today and people still complain WvW is dead because there is no players.

[Mabi black.1824]

my knowledge can tell you that I have never seen guilds of 500 men on my server, not even the guild of the community (today) can put together 30 players and those rare times that happens we can make a big party.

I also add that even if today you find guilds of 250 players? they are groups built over many years with players who connect once a week, some play in pve others go in spvp others you do not see them for 1 month, others still arrive chatting for half an hour and leave without playing etc etc.

what the alliances will do instead is different, they put together (or try to put together) active players, exclusively of this mode.

so 500 players per alliance for my personal thought is an absolutely excessive number, and it definitely does not help granularity.

[Dawdler.8521]

23 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

what the alliances will do instead is different, they put together (or try to put together) active players, exclusively of this mode.

The same kitten players already in WvW.

What you think that just 500 new highly active pro players will come into existance from the void on every server and start hammering WvW to make queues because "500 is too much"?

If alliances are below 500 man, then people just use a single guild instead. 500 is the lowest it can go. Thats the bar. Guld cap has to be lower than 500 if alliance cap is.

If you still want to lower it, you be the one to tell PvE/WvW guilds they have to tell their members to go kitten off because guild cap has been reduced so they are no longer allowed membership.

Also if you've never seen 500 man guilds, what makes you think 500 man alliances will exist? Its just a cap.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Dawdler.8521

[Mabi black.1824]

5 guilds of 100 players = alliance of 500 = bad granularity = stacking players.

 

with this I do not want to upset anyone is only my thought, I hope I am wrong

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

If alliances are below 500 man, then people just use a single guild instead. 500 is the lowest it can go. Thats the bar. Guld cap has to be lower than 500 if alliance cap is.

If you still want to lower it, you be the one to tell PvE/WvW guilds they have to tell their members to go kitten off because guild cap has been reduced so they are no longer allowed membership

while reading this dawdler , I thought that one could perhaps avoid the fact of associating the guild limit with the alliance limit. 

Let me explain. let's pretend to create an alliance of 5 guilds 50 players for each guild, the leaders of those 5 guilds guarantee for their 50 players that the day before reset they will select the alliance and will be active for the duration of the clash.

two of those leaders have a very large gulda of 300 players, but they are aware that 200 are passionate pve players another 25 are spvp enthusiasts and another 25 will connect in 2 months and not before. 

these leaders have given guild directions and have established and are aware of the 50 names that will select the wvw alliance the day before the reset.

the limit of the alliance we brought it to 250 but the limit of the guild remained at 500.

you say it could work?

[Dawdler.8521]

On 4/14/2022 at 6:19 PM, Mabi black.1824 said:

you say it could work?

Yes, but not the way you think. Of course you can set the alliance limit to 250. Or 100. Or 50. You can set it to whatever number you want as long its less than 500 because it's not going the be largest size you can make an organized force under world restructuring.

A guild can just have 500 members all selecting that as their WvW guild - just like community guilds today, containing members of many different guilds.

So what exactly did your 250 man limit accomplish? Exactly nothing. The practical limit is still 500.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Dawdler.8521

[Xenesis.6389]

On 4/14/2022 at 12:19 PM, Mabi black.1824 said:

while reading this dawdler , I thought that one could perhaps avoid the fact of associating the guild limit with the alliance limit. 

Let me explain. let's pretend to create an alliance of 5 guilds 50 players for each guild, the leaders of those 5 guilds guarantee for their 50 players that the day before reset they will select the alliance and will be active for the duration of the clash.

two of those leaders have a very large gulda of 300 players, but they are aware that 200 are passionate pve players another 25 are spvp enthusiasts and another 25 will connect in 2 months and not before. 

these leaders have given guild directions and have established and are aware of the 50 names that will select the wvw alliance the day before the reset.

the limit of the alliance we brought it to 250 but the limit of the guild remained at 500.

you say it could work?

 

I'm going to assume you're asking with a guild of 300 players, if only 50 choose to select that guild as their wvw guild, that only they would count in the alliance cap and not the entire 300 players? I assume that's the way it will work otherwise players could just make one guild to stack all those players to get into the same world anyways, and then go about their business as usual repping whatever guilds they belong to afterwards. (This is why you cannot have alliances be under the guild cap, they would just use a dummy guild for world creations to circumvent the system anyways.)

[Mabi black.1824]

21 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

So what exactly did your 250 man limit accomplish? Exactly nothing. The practical limit is still 500.

I can't follow your reasoning. if I put a limit of 250 players per alliance this is also a practical limit.

you have no way around the system, only those 250 players will be sure to play together on a server that is chosen randomly.

I'm not thinking about my guild or my server, I'm trying to get a broader view on the mechanics of alliances. if you reduce the limit to alliances you darkly improve granularity. so you have the opportunity to build more balanced teams.

 

 

[Dawdler.8521]

7 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I can't follow your reasoning. if I put a limit of 250 players per alliance this is also a practical limit.

you have no way around the system, only those 250 players will be sure to play together on a server that is chosen randomly.

I'm not thinking about my guild or my server, I'm trying to get a broader view on the mechanics of alliances. if you reduce the limit to alliances you darkly improve granularity. so you have the opportunity to build more balanced teams.

 

 

No. While we do not know the details of how alliances will be implemented, we know the basic workings of the world restructure system because we've had multiple betas and Anets information. You're not getting a broader view on anything if you keep completely ignoring the facts.

The core mechanic of the world restructure system is the WvW guild selection, not alliances. That is a max of 500 people that can select their guild and thus end up balanced to the same world. There are no ifs buts or maybes, it's not "my reasoning". It's fact. That's how it works. This set the bar the largest group chunk under the world restructure system. 

Alliances is an extra system on top of the WvW guilds in order to help organize groups of guilds without forcing them to join another guild. Meaning, keep them as "independant" groups of guilds under one banner. It's to help us, not Anet. They can deploy the system without alliances period, it wouldnt change a single thing for the world restructure system - it'd just make it more difficult for us to easily organize smaller groups without joining and leaving a plethora of guilds to form "alliance guilds". Anet can do that better.

It's like no squads vs squads when it comes to zerging. You CAN stack a 50 man by organizing 5 man groups and marking a commander... but isnt it easier with a squad system where the commander have an icon, you can invite people and move them around?

You are literally arguing in a way that no, 50 man isnt the cap for a squad because you've said that 25 man is the ideal fight squad size. That doesnt matter. That doesnt change the cap.

If you still cannot see this I have nothing more to say.

[Mabi black.1824]

maybe it's just about me, but I've been in EU server solitaire without matching for 5 months now.

we are not able to fill a map, never , 24/7

we are not able to put together 70 players , never , 24/7

now imagine making us play against a single alliance of 500 men who the night before the reset selected their alliance (so extremely active people) but what are we talking about? and the mechanics plan to put together more alliances of that size? and where do you find all those players? are there still players?

since there have been 3 reconnections in the last 6 months and arenanet calculates that my team does not need a link , I imagine that all the other teams are worse off than ours. assuming that the algorithm does its job correctly.

which brings me to the second problem, if it were for me I would put a limit of 100 players per alliance, but the real question then is with what criterion do you match the alliance + guilds + players?

have you achieved your granularity? have you deleted the server communities ? well. now what wonderful algorithm do we want to use to build teams?

so in the end but not least, I will find myself in the new long-awaited and desired mechanics, and I will be able to be casually competitive for 4 weeks in a randomly matched team that rinses and resets for an always and constant mode of random competition.

 

I often wonder how you managed to vote for this solution since I was not there for sure, a change so complicated and challenging even for arenanet. but possible that you could not insert some small correction here and there to see if the balance did not improve? check how the algorithm calculates players? block transfers? increase teams or group teams? act on the limit of players per team?

 

p.s. I added just a bit of healthy controversy🧐