Current server system is so bad and future is looking bleak

[enkidu.5937]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

What do you mean by how? The skirmish system was adjusted to compensate for this like half a decade ago. 2h during the night is worth the same as 2h in prime which is worth the same as 2h during any of the 12 skirmishes in 24h.

The result no matter how much "bad" PPT you do is... your team wins. Goes 1 up. Meet new enemies. Maybe win, maybe loose. Because you know other teams does the same.

Thats how WvW work.

Yup, the current system works, as I said. (Just add a transfer stop after relink and add 3 new servers to increase granularity and to provide everyone on EU with a link partner.)

 

"Meet new enemies"  haha, IF they happen to have their alliance raids in your time zone 😁 and IF they stay on their Tier 1 alliance and not switch to their second accounts they've easily stacked in their second alliance that recently dropped to Tier 4 due to "mysterious inactivity" 😏

 

No need at all to promote time zone stacking, account hopping and such with alliances.

[Mabi black.1824]

8 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

That just shows the confusion of the Devs. They think they can balance with statistics on paper. How can they really believe that current problems can be solved by replacing "high pop server + low pop server" with "alliances + randoms" ! That will create an even higher gap. Or do you expect that a bunch of complete randoms can fight an alliance raid?

 

Look at the current matches: There are lots of matches where at least 2 teams are very close in score. How could you expect more in a game where matches run for a whole week? Where differences in teams are snowballing due to structures upgrading to T3 -> harder to take, more score tick. Where the stronger teams usually focus on the weakest team (instead, the two weaker should unite vs. the stringest).

 

When you link the strongest servers with the weakest and so on, it is absolutely impossible to reach a 50% difference on paper between 2 teams. Instead, you can have a difference of much more than 50% of activity during a single match (e. g. tier tanking). And an even higher difference during a specific time zone. And with alliances, Anet even facilitates those things like time zone stacking.

 

Oh, so let’s check the current problems that lead to onesided situations. None of them are caused by server linking. In fact, the current system makes it quite hard for people to exploit matchmaking, because mass transfers and stacking twink accounts currently requires the people to be willing to abandon their server, to coordinate in a transfer, to pay for the transfer.

 

 

Top 1 problem: Time zone stacking

-> The new alliance system will make this easier. The no. 1 theme of most alliances will be the time zone, so of course people will stack together with other people that play during the same time zone. That’s super bad news.

 

Top 2 problem: snowballing / people leave when they face a stronger enemy

-> The new alliance system will make this much more worse. Totally random players vs. highly organized and stacked alliances? Oh boy.

 

Top 3 problem: Server stacking directly after relink

-> The new alliance system will make all of this easier. (Depending on the final version, maybe mass transfers will just be replaced by account hopping.)

 

So, ofc there are problems with the current system. But they are not caused by server linking and as a consequence they will not be solved by replacing "high pop server + low pop server" with "alliances + randoms". It will make it worse, because instead of "server-based public zerg vs. public zerg" we will have "alliance raid" vs. complete randoms.

wow enkidu I really hope that your predictions are wrong, because they would be really bad.

I would still like to try to add / correct something you wrote : high server + low server replaced by alliance + random, actually if we want to describe perhaps better the new system will be alliance + random vs alliance + random.

in theory on all three sides of the game we should find organized and random groups + or - in the same way. we are randomly redistributed all without exception, your alliance will never know with whom it will end. also for this reason I have repeatedly written that 500 per alliance is too much, if the goal of alliances is to have smaller pieces to put together, that they are really small pieces please 500 players from what you can see today in our favorite mode are too many.

also with arenanet alliances he said that he would re-evaluate the transfers, they plan to grant a margin of 5% of free space for each new team, in theory in this way the player should be limited to manipulating the teams only for that 5%. the probema alt account remains , and in fact I also believe that it could be a real problem to think about.

 

and finally if you ask me why arenanet decided for this development and delete the servers, I will answer that I do not have the faintest idea. I agree with you on this, I would also have done a series of tests or small improvements to see how the players react or if the balance would be improved etc etc. but this did not happen.

or maybe,

we still have some space, arenanet has not yet decided everything, he is looking around to figure out what to add or what to take away from his development project so that things work best for everyone. I would really like them to confront us here on the forum, in the most friendly and informal way possible.

[Strider Pj.2193]

28 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

wow enkidu I really hope that your predictions are wrong, because they would be really bad.

I would still like to try to add / correct something you wrote : high server + low server replaced by alliance + random, actually if we want to describe perhaps better the new system will be alliance + random vs alliance + random.

in theory on all three sides of the game we should find organized and random groups + or - in the same way. we are randomly redistributed all without exception, your alliance will never know with whom it will end. also for this reason I have repeatedly written that 500 per alliance is too much, if the goal of alliances is to have smaller pieces to put together, that they are really small pieces please 500 players from what you can see today in our favorite mode are too many.

also with arenanet alliances he said that he would re-evaluate the transfers, they plan to grant a margin of 5% of free space for each new team, in theory in this way the player should be limited to manipulating the teams only for that 5%. the probema alt account remains , and in fact I also believe that it could be a real problem to think about.

 

and finally if you ask me why arenanet decided for this development and delete the servers, I will answer that I do not have the faintest idea. I agree with you on this, I would also have done a series of tests or small improvements to see how the players react or if the balance would be improved etc etc. but this did not happen.

or maybe,

we still have some space, arenanet has not yet decided everything, he is looking around to figure out what to add or what to take away from his development project so that things work best for everyone. I would really like them to confront us here on the forum, in the most friendly and informal way possible.

Actually, you are both incorrect..  It is intended to be:

World 1:  Alliance + Alliance + Guilds + randoms

World 2:  Alliance + Alliance + Guilds + randoms

World 3:  Alliance + Alliance + Guilds + randoms

 

With each alliance making up approximately (their words not mine) 20% of a world.

 

Again, the purpose is to have more granular sized units with which to create more even numbers matchups, while allowing guilds to recruit.

 

Of course some matchups will be lopsided.  And they haven’t said if they will consider timezones initially.  

 

But either way, it still has the potential to be better overall matchups.

 

@Mabi black.1824, unfortunately some players want to have their current system so they can follow the commander they want, despite not joining their guild.  They will continue to post intellectually dishonest information about the potential upcoming system.
 

 

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

"Meet new enemies"  haha, IF they happen to have their alliance raids in your time zone 😁 and IF they stay on their Tier 1 alliance and not switch to their second accounts they've easily stacked in their second alliance that recently dropped to Tier 4 due to "mysterious inactivity" 😏

Why do any guilds stay on the top 3 servers today instead of just transfering to T4 worlds? Sounds like no one want to play with anyone in your what-ifs.

[Xenesis.6389]

4 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

 add 3 new servers to increase granularity

 

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Hypothetically-Speaking-New-Worlds

 

😏

[enkidu.5937]

19 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Hypothetically-Speaking-New-Worlds

 

😏

Thx for digging the archive 👍 So, even 4 years ago, the community was against increasing granularity by splitting existing communities and servers. I'm not surprised 😏

 

So, yup it seems that the "problem" of low granularity is just a problem from Anet's point of view and they desperately want to see it as the "root of all evil". (Nonetheless, EU has to get some additional servers so every server can have a link partner, preferably with the same language.)

 

Quote

Quote

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Thanks everyone. The response was mixed, but there was a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it.

TorquedSoul.8097

We should have a poll. 30 people on the forum can’t be representative of the general population.

 

Did I miss the poll ?  😇

[Xenesis.6389]

25 minutes ago, enkidu.5937 said:

Thx for digging the archive 👍 So, even 4 years ago, the community was against increasing granularity by splitting existing communities and servers. I'm not surprised 😏

 

So, yup it seems that the "problem" of low granularity is just a problem from Anet's point of view and they desperately want to see it as the "root of all evil". (Nonetheless, EU has to get some additional servers so every server can have a link partner, preferably with the same language.)

 

 

Did I miss the poll ?  😇

It wouldn't have split communities really, it was just new worlds and the players would have had the option to populate them, they probably would have allowed free transfers to quickly do so. Going by the frequency these guilds and bandwagoners move it wouldn't have been hard to do so either. Anet tried to give the players the option to spread out and build their communities by servers, they didn't care probably cause their guild is their community, or had no forethought about it. So now they're doing it the opposite way, they will do the granular fill by groups, and build the world around those communities instead. Which is actually better as they will have much more pieces and options to fill in the holes in populations.

 

The only real opposition to this way is the players who don't want to put in the effort for it, or they play with guilds but don't want to join the guilds but think they're all a community still. Take all your "real community" people (everyone I'm sure has a personal guild) put them all in an alliance to be together, now your community will be together every time(Maguuma has already done this why can't the rest of the population organize this?). We're already going down this hill at high speed, people need to suck it up and go with it.

[enkidu.5937]

12 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

The only real opposition to this way is the players who don't want to put in the effort for it, or they play with guilds but don't want to join the guilds but think they're all a community still. Take all your "real community" people (everyone I'm sure has a personal guild) put them all in an alliance to be together, now your community will be together every time(Maguuma has already done this why can't the rest of the population organize this?). We're already going down this hill at high speed, people need to suck it up and go with it.

"The only real opposition" will quit the game after they realize Anet wants to use them as random filling mass and free bags for alliances that will mostly do their own thing, private tags, private voice chat etc. I didn't even buy the expansion, mainly because alliances will be released in year 20XY. Cause you are right, I'm not interested to "put effort" in Team Boogaloo vs. Team LootAlot that consist of  alliances that do their own private things + totally random players that are shuffled every few weeks. 😏

 

+1 for signature 😁

[Strider Pj.2193]

1 hour ago, enkidu.5937 said:

"The only real opposition" will quit the game after they realize Anet wants to use them as random filling mass and free bags for alliances that will mostly do their own thing, private tags, private voice chat etc. I didn't even buy the expansion, mainly because alliances will be released in year 20XY. Cause you are right, I'm not interested to "put effort" in Team Boogaloo vs. Team LootAlot that consist of  alliances that do their own private things + totally random players that are shuffled every few weeks. 😏

 

+1 for signature 😁

Still don’t understand what world restructuring will be I see.  😏

 

Its ok.  You’ll either come around or leave.  🤷

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

"The only real opposition" will quit the game after they realize Anet wants to use them as random filling mass and free bags for alliances that will mostly do their own thing, private tags, private voice chat etc. I didn't even buy the expansion, mainly because alliances will be released in year 20XY. Cause you are right, I'm not interested to "put effort" in Team Boogaloo vs. Team LootAlot that consist of  alliances that do their own private things + totally random players that are shuffled every few weeks. 😏

 

+1 for signature 😁

I think I've said it before... but you keep describing current WvW every time you try to describe the "fears" of world restructure, lol.

Anet already use random links as filling mass and random players are already free bags for coordinated guilds with private tags running their range-immune CC-immune aurashare boonballs and I can assure you, they are on voice chat.

[Chaba.5410]

3 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

Thx for digging the archive 👍 So, even 4 years ago, the community was against increasing granularity by splitting existing communities and servers. I'm not surprised 😏

 

Did you pick up on the main reason for the community not wanting to transfer to artificially small new servers?

It was an idea to allow guilds to get all their members onto the same team without having to transfer some of them to the new linked server every time there's a relink but then they'd still be stuck with being unable to get together if that server goes Full.  World Restructuring fixes that problem and also allows guilds to form Alliances so they can keep some of their server communities together.

Or as the dev wrote: "Now of course it’s still entirely possible that guilds won’t actually be willing to transfer off their current worlds, even for the opportunity to get all of their members onto the same world. However, that’s exactly why I made this post, just to confirm either case."

Edited September 7, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[enkidu.5937]

8 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I think I've said it before... but you keep describing current WvW every time you try to describe the "fears" of world restructure, lol.

Of course I do. At least we agree on that 😉 We see the problems today that lead to imbalance during matches and they are not caused by servers and linkings, consequently they cannot be solved by replacing servers with alliances. But some of them will be potentiated by introduction of the alliance system.

 

- time zone stacking

- skill stacking (organized groups vs. unorganized newbies and casuals)

- splitting communities into small group that do their own private things

- low incentive for two outnumbered teams to temporarily unite vs. the dominating team

- low incentive to fight outnumbered -> losing team goes offline -> snowball effect

- mass transfers and account hopping

 

The things that would really help don't need alliances, and some of them can be introduced so easily, and haven't even tested over years:

- lock transfers directly after relink

- add some new servers for more granularity

 

Since alliances will take another X years of testing and Devs love to balance based on statistics, why the kitten don't they lock transfers after the next relink and get real data of how matches would look like? I mean even I could do this in less than one hour, just dive into the code files and delete some letters and numbers, and the transfer button should turn non-functional right? 😁

Edited September 8, 2022 by enkidu.5937

[enkidu.5937]

On 9/7/2022 at 4:13 PM, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Actually, you are both incorrect..  It is intended to be:

World 1:  Alliance + Alliance + Guilds + randoms

World 2:  Alliance + Alliance + Guilds + randoms

World 3:  Alliance + Alliance + Guilds + randoms

 

With each alliance making up approximately (their words not mine) 20% of a world.

 

Again, the purpose is to have more granular sized units with which to create more even numbers matchups, while allowing guilds to recruit.

Oh boy, that’s only the dream of some excited Devs. Ofc it could look like that in the end. It could also look like EU looks today, that there are not enough servers to provide a link for every server. So it could look like:

 

some Teams = 500 highly active zone-blobbing PPKlers + Randoms

some Teams = 500 highly active off-hour stacking PPTlers + Randoms

some Teams = only Randoms + some random Guilds

🤪

 

The desired outcome of the Devs and part of the forum community shows again two things: a lack in basic math and a lack in understanding WvW and its core problems. Because with “Alliance + Alliance + Guilds + randoms“ we would need 30 Alliances + multiple random Guilds to create 15 teams in EU. And when an Alliance is expected to make 20% of a team, we would need 40% of the total playerbase to form alliances. 40%!!! lol 🥸     

 

So who claims that the new system will provide “more granular sized units”?

 

The new system is based on pure hope. I already wrote this years ago: The Devs do not do the world restructuring, they only destroy the servers and hope that the players do the world restructuring ! Players are supposed to create alliances that replace the servers, and that they do it balanced and fair. But we already learned that players don’t behave like that.

 

But hey, its already decided. So enjoy the experiment 🥳

 

See the live stream and the question how the Devs want to deal with players forming dominant mega-alliances:

Lead Dev: "The hope for us is we don't have to . . . [...] 500 players per alliance is a good number . . . [...] this is a really big experiment, we have a lot of ideas and theories how this is going to pan out." 🤪😆😝

Spoiler

 

Edited September 9, 2022 by enkidu.5937

[Cyninja.2954]

3 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

snip

Yes, obviously it is an experiment. The entire system is getting reworked because the current one is insufficient to keep the mode alive. It's a gamble and requires a lot of work and experimentation. The betas so far were promising at least in regards to activity and better distribution of players.

It could go completely wrong. It could release far to late once again, given WvW participation is once again in decline (with likely a post summer bump as usual). I'm sure a few players will dislike the new system and maybe even quit playing, which while unfortunate is inconsequential if activity overall increases.

You are correct, it is decided and unless the developers decide they can't pull it off, it will happen. Period.

I do wonder though, if alliances or the new matchmaking system does turn out to be a success, will all the doom and gloom "know-it-all forum armchair developers" come and apologize or admit they were wrong? One can only wonder. 🤔

Edited September 9, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[displayname.8315]

Locking servers messes with guilds.  The patchwork linking-and-relinking system is a jumbled mess.

 

It's just not a better design than actually curating teams in some sort of logical way.  Sure wish they would implement it sometime soon.

 

Missed the last beta but the posts I read said it was pretty good.

[Mabi black.1824]

2 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I do wonder though, if alliances or the new matchmaking system does turn out to be a success, will all the doom and gloom "know-it-all forum armchair developers" come and apologize or admit they were wrong?

wrong what? when I write you here my point of view, when I try to make you see things from a different perspective, when I communicate some of my concerns to you, I have no pretension to decide what is right or what is wrong. I just try to communicate. I'm afraid that when you put the new system live I will lose much of my interest in the game mode I prefer. if you have any good answer to give me, or rather if some developer could reassure me of what they foresee or what they plan to build around this development project to motivate, stimulate players in the long term, you will be really grateful. after all, the dialo is also provided for this, question------>responded.

[Karagee.6830]

16 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

wrong what? when I write you here my point of view, when I try to make you see things from a different perspective, when I communicate some of my concerns to you, I have no pretension to decide what is right or what is wrong. I just try to communicate. I'm afraid that when you put the new system live I will lose much of my interest in the game mode I prefer. if you have any good answer to give me, or rather if some developer could reassure me of what they foresee or what they plan to build around this development project to motivate, stimulate players in the long term, you will be really grateful. after all, the dialo is also provided for this, question------>responded.

why don't you make an alliance with the people you like? Many of the current servers will have community alliances.

[Dawdler.8521]

6 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

Oh boy, that’s only the dream of some excited Devs. Ofc it could look like that in the end. It could also look like EU looks today, that there are not enough servers to provide a link for every server. So it could look like:

 

some Teams = 500 highly active zone-blobbing PPKlers + Randoms

some Teams = 500 highly active off-hour stacking PPTlers + Randoms

some Teams = only Randoms + some random Guilds

🤪

 

The desired outcome of the Devs and part of the forum community shows again two things: a lack in basic math and a lack in understanding WvW and its core problems. Because with “Alliance + Alliance + Guilds + randoms“ we would need 30 Alliances + multiple random Guilds to create 15 teams in EU. And when an Alliance is expected to make 20% of a team, we would need 40% of the total playerbase to form alliances. 40%!!! lol 🥸     

 

So who claims that the new system will provide “more granular sized units”?

 

The new system is based on pure hope. I already wrote this years ago: The Devs do not do the world restructuring, they only destroy the servers and hope that the players do the world restructuring ! Players are supposed to create alliances that replace the servers, and that they do it balanced and fair. But we already learned that players don’t behave like that.

 

But hey, its already decided. So enjoy the experiment 🥳

 

See the live stream and the question how the Devs want to deal with players forming dominant mega-alliances:

Lead Dev: "The hope for us is we don't have to . . . [...] 500 players per alliance is a good number . . . [...] this is a really big experiment, we have a lot of ideas and theories how this is going to pan out." 🤪😆😝

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Where do you think the 500 players in a maxed out alliance come from?

North Korean contractors thats never played GW2 before?

If there is 25000 players under the current system it will be 25000 under world restructure. It doesnt matter how many alliances or guilds or randoms exist. Its the same players.

[Karagee.6830]

I think alliances will be more balanced than the current system as a whole.

However, I also think that there will be more stacking at alliance level in a different way than today: more people sticking to alliances that cover their preferred time slots or play the way they like to play (k-trains, pure fighting, roaming opportunities etc)

Edited September 9, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Mabi black.1824]

34 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

why don't you make an alliance with the people you like? Many of the current servers will have community alliances.

dear karagee, 

I have no problem doing it, indeed I have already done it, but this does not improve my concern , I still miss the purpose for which I should make a tag or why should I commit to defend or capture anything, why would I find myself doing it? for your alliance, because we want to build a ranking of alliances, to stimulate competition between players. perfect and how do we do it? my alliance of 3 guilds has 150 players, your grand alliance has 400, how do we compare? my alliance had some problems after 4 months, some left and others arrived so we built a new alliance and started over, but I was engaged in competition against your great alliance now that I have lost all the parematri how do I compare?

or I dolo 6 months my alliance is canceled because the leader for a series of personal problems has decided in this way. so I find myself in the middle of the street, wandering like a ghost, while I was trying to compete with your great alliance.

 

so all my worries are still there as before, question ----------> answer ---------> sorry answer not relevant, you can try again and maybe you will be luckier ☺️

 

[Mabi black.1824]

seriously, I'm really missing a piece of this development project, and not a small piece as the new granularity of the new system will be, but a really big piece.

[Strider Pj.2193]

2 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

seriously, I'm really missing a piece of this development project, and not a small piece as the new granularity of the new system will be, but a really big piece.

How many people on your current server do you know?

 

Stat with me here.  🙂

[Mabi black.1824]

55 minutes ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

How many people on your current server do you know?

 

Stat with me here.  🙂

I know many players I know well, I don't think they are not many. I don't understand the relevance of the question though. are already in a guild our guild is already in an alliance or possible alliance.

[latlat.4516]

So I play on EU, and I'm really involved one of the French communities that organize WvW content. We're not really "hardcore" WvW players, but we do play a lot each and every week accros multiple servers (AR, JS and VS, mainly).

The majority opinion in our community, which is shared among most of the highly involved french community leaders, is that the alliance system will bring far more balanced match ups if all promises about granularity are kept (and, yes, those are not 'small details'. Data granularity is litteraly the reason why anet can't balance the current system. Some other reasons that were favorably welcomed are match up composition locking and more frequent "relinking". And those opinions were actually validated by every beta until now, except the last one during the week end (it was much more balanced during the week days). 

For the less involved people that took the time to integrate one of the many community guilds in this game that propose WvW content, it was the ability to play with people that 1/ won't complain they don't speak english or 2/play with people on other servers without needing to spend money or pray every 2 months it's their turn to be linked with AR. 

As it was said here, nearly all those that complained about the system that was showed in the beta (exit the bugs) were people that either are entirely relying on their server community to bring them content, or were not involved enough in their guild to catch the news about the upcoming beta and were left alone by the matchmaking. I've yet to hear a real complain that is not a misunderstanding or a straight-up lie from anyone else. 

Also, but we could also far more easily hold (public) special events like "full MM necro/ranger/team color/armor type" runs, with more attendance than when we hold those events in the server-based current system, even PUG and non-French. As far as the new system goes, it's a full win situation for us, but it's probably because we built our community on a trans-server & language basis than a server basis. 

 

Also, I've read about "big guilds going to their alts on lower match ups". I'm really sorry if that happens on NA, but there are three main reasons a "big" guild migrates on French servers: in order to do a scrim, because there was a rift in the community in some meeting or if they think their server is not active enough. Never "in order to demolish weaker servers to boost their stats"

[enkidu.5937]

6 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Yes, obviously it is an experiment. The entire system is getting reworked because the current one is insufficient to keep the mode alive. It's a gamble and requires a lot of work and experimentation. The betas so far were promising at least in regards to activity and better distribution of players.

 

It could go completely wrong. It could release far to late once again, given WvW participation is once again in decline (with likely a post summer bump as usual). I'm sure a few players will dislike the new system and maybe even quit playing, which while unfortunate is inconsequential if activity overall increases.

 

You are correct, it is decided and unless the developers decide they can't pull it off, it will happen. Period.

 

I do wonder though, if alliances or the new matchmaking system does turn out to be a success, will all the doom and gloom "know-it-all forum armchair developers" come and apologize or admit they were wrong? One can only wonder. 🤔

 

My serious +1 for your motivating summary! I totally agree, except . . .

 

6 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

You are correct, it is decided and unless the developers decide they can't pull it off, it will happen. Period.

 

. . . except, I never said “period” 😉  Alliances will inevitably be implemented, but we should continue to suggest improvements / ideas, and more importantly imo, we should make clear what we love in the current WvW! The Devs are passionate and willing to communicate.

 

I still accuse them to lack basic math and understanding of player behavior in WvW, sry^^. But to be clear, I think that introducing alliances can be a good thing [sic]. I just want to see two things added:

 

1. The Devs should at least test two obvious and easy things, before they delete our Servers:

-> restricting mass transfers directly after team creation

-> adding 3 additional servers (to increase granularity, to ease guild recruitment, and to provide every EU server with a link, except Baruch haha,)

 

2. The Devs should start to talk about the good things we have now!

-> I only heared the Devs speaking about the problems, not the good things we have. Imo, a big overhaul can only be successful, when the good things are kept, or at least are named and considered. Devs said, suggestions from the forum are secondary for them (it was in the live stream I’ve linked in my above post), and they primarily listen to our problems and try to find a solution. Ok good, but I miss that they also listen to what we have loved over the last 10 years.

-> Maybe keep the old Servers with their 10 year history, communities and their feature as non-player-controlled entities, and add player-controlled entities (Alliances), and add the option to be unaffiliated randoms. Worth a testing? 😘

 

 

6 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I do wonder though, if alliances or the new matchmaking system does turn out to be a success, will all the doom and gloom "know-it-all forum armchair developers" come and apologize or admit they were wrong? One can only wonder. 🤔

 

If alliances will work, I will not come here and apologize that I’ve pointed out imo problems and made suggestions. If alliances will work, I will come here and thank the Devs and the communities. And tell that I’ve bought the X-pac and maybe some shiny skins as well. 😇

 

For now, I remain to thank the (former) Devs and all server communities, cause they have provided me with the, most likely, best online experience I’ve ever had. I enjoyed the 10 years on my server, because everyone was involved, including newbies and randoms. I cannot ask for more!

 

I’m a proud member of our server community guild for many years now. The guild was prepared as an Alliance, reaching the cap of 500 already years ago. I recently told them that they can kick me, if they need my slot for another player that is more active and more excited about Alliances. I’m 100% sure that this longlasting core community will still have a great time, even after Alliances have been released.

 

My post is not representative for the people on my Server, but let me add:

RIVERSIDE, motherkittens! 😎