Current server system is so bad and future is looking bleak

[senftube.6081]

This mode is bad. Balance is bad and the devs are also bad because they only care about PVE. 10 years and it is the same comedy like day 1.

[Xenesis.6389]

7 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

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?

World restructuring/alliances isn't for the sole purpose of competition, there is no ranking of alliances it's ranking by worlds. The motivational change you are looking for isn't going to come from world restructuring, that's a game play issue, it'll come from revamping or tweaking the current system of ppt/ppk/rewards/motivations to play, if they bother to do so.

Even if they decide to put in achievements or leaderboards or extra goals at the alliance level, it'll be fluff and a complete farce on that level as we know stacking will always win out in the end, and if it's anything to do with killing players we'll get a bunch of fight guilds stacking together to get these. Stating this I can see this happening with anet running around with fight blobs all the time now. But I hope they have some sense and don't put these things at alliance levels, but at the world level.

 

Purpose of world restructuring/alliance is:

1. Get guilds and friends playing together without the stress of constant transfers or lockouts.

2. Prevent constant bandwagons that empty out servers, because people want to play with guilds or friends, or they're bored and keep jumping to easier tiers.

3. Even out the populations a little more, especially the pug populations that are quite obviously stacked on some servers.

 

Once they have that sorted the next step would be tweak rewards and moving on to trying tournaments again. But don't hold your breath on that happening in this lifetime.

[Mabi black.1824]

13 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

World restructuring/alliances isn't for the sole purpose of competition, there is no ranking of alliances it's ranking by worlds. The motivational change you are looking for isn't going to come from world restructuring, that's a game play issue, it'll come from revamping or tweaking the current system of ppt/ppk/rewards/motivations to play, if they bother to do so.

Even if they decide to put in achievements or leaderboards or extra goals at the alliance level, it'll be fluff and a complete farce on that level as we know stacking will always win out in the end, and if it's anything to do with killing players we'll get a bunch of fight guilds stacking together to get these. Stating this I can see this happening with anet running around with fight blobs all the time now. But I hope they have some sense and don't put these things at alliance levels, but at the world level.

 

Purpose of world restructuring/alliance is:

1. Get guilds and friends playing together without the stress of constant transfers or lockouts.

2. Prevent constant bandwagons that empty out servers, because people want to play with guilds or friends, or they're bored and keep jumping to easier tiers.

3. Even out the populations a little more, especially the pug populations that are quite obviously stacked on some servers.

 

Once they have that sorted the next step would be tweak rewards and moving on to trying tournaments again. But don't hold your breath on that happening in this lifetime.

basically you are telling me that to make them so easier for players who want to play together, and to get more similar teams, we choose to delete any type of competition log or any type of ranking to climb.

and, add, that we will think about it later if the developer has the time and desire to do it.

but is it possible that you do not see that there is a problem?

Is it possible that you too are not missing some pieces to this development project?

[Riba.3271]

14 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Purpose of world restructuring/alliance is:

1. Get guilds and friends playing together without the stress of constant transfers or lockouts.

2. Prevent constant bandwagons that empty out servers, because people want to play with guilds or friends, or they're bored and keep jumping to easier tiers.

3. Even out the populations a little more, especially the pug populations that are quite obviously stacked on some servers.

1. Issue is that lot of gaming friends and guilds come together periodically on same servers and do not use external communications like discord. For example they might only play Summer and when they come up they'll be in random alliance or no way to contact people inside game before choosing the group they fight for. Lets say a commander comes back and sees state of their matchup being all closed commanders and no one defending anything, they won't be very motivated to take a go at it again.

2. Issue with this logic is that these people that are crying about servers being emptied, can transfer as well. So server and seeing people they haven't seen in a long time around holds meaning to them. Being in "equal server" doesn't necessarily mean they're happier as it is obvious they think server communities matter.

3. Well, this is mostly due to fault with the linking system. Let me explain why: Lets say at start of "linking system" each main server had 5 raiding guilds. Over time each of these main servers have lost at least 3 of those to smaller link servers, thus full status is reached 3 guilds easier and those servers can only fit 2 right now since amount of non transfer pugs is constant. Eventually one of those 2 is going to move away and they can only fit 1 before being full.. You can see how this will lead into split of all guilds on ex-empty servers and all pugs on another.  Proof of this occurance is the fact that at start of linking system, very few players were from links and now the percentage is over 30. Now all servers go open sometimes but guilds don't have any reason to dish out 1800 gems for same matchups and to play with other strangers longterm.

 

Final words: Anyways stacked alliances or stacked servers, it doesn't matter, you can't get rid of them. Id rather take the system where stacked servers fight other stacked servers in tier 1 and having a choice to go there rather than having no choice and flipping a coin whoever will landslide next matchup.

Edited September 10, 2022 by Riba.3271

[Dawdler.8521]

20 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

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,)

Like kicking a can on the beach, the proper way to cut your toes up for no meaningful purpose. Because picking it up is done later.

Edited September 10, 2022 by Dawdler.8521

[Xenesis.6389]

6 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Is it possible that you too are not missing some pieces to this development project?

There is no competition between alliances, just like there's no competition between guilds. They are still going to have entire worlds filled with more than just alliances, that is where the competition will be, as it is now, as poorly as that is currently. To make it a competition about alliances would be a giant mistake and pointless because numbers win in every single scenario in wvw. I added the caveat that I could see them going down that road because of certain relationship I see happening (I'm not going to elaborate on that because I will get in trouble for it, again).

 

We've all tried to explain world restructuring to you over and over, I really don't know why I bother responding to your post anymore.

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

1 hour ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

There is no competition between alliances, just like there's no competition between guilds. They are still going to have entire worlds filled with more than just alliances, that is where the competition will be, as it is now, as poorly as that is currently. To make it a competition about alliances would be a giant mistake and pointless because numbers win in every single scenario in wvw. I added the caveat that I could see them going down that road because of certain relationship I see happening (I'm not going to elaborate on that because I will get in trouble for it, again).

 

We've all tried to explain world restructuring to you over and over, I really don't know why I bother responding to your post anymore.

 

Yeah…. I tried again, and after the snarky response, I stopped.

 

The betas have made it easy for the people opposed to world restructuring to snipe it.  And ‘pretend’ they understand it.  Honestly, either they are truly clueless or disingenuous.  Either one isn’t worth the time or effort with three of the posters in particular 

[Xenesis.6389]

6 minutes ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Yeah…. I tried again, and after the snarky response, I stopped.

 

The betas have made it easy for the people opposed to world restructuring to snipe it.  And ‘pretend’ they understand it.  Honestly, either they are truly clueless or disingenuous.  Either one isn’t worth the time or effort with three of the posters in particular 

Yeah won't happen again. I suppose we'll need for alliances part to be in beta for them to understand how the structure is actually going to be like. But it's whatever kinda tired of going over this stuff.

[enkidu.5937]

9 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

basically you are telling me that to make them so easier for players who want to play together, and to get more similar teams, we choose to delete any type of competition log or any type of ranking to climb.

 

and, add, that we will think about it later if the developer has the time and desire to do it.

 

Yup, the Devs will first delete the current servers, replace them with mostly random shuffled piles of players for better balance, to make winning more meaningful . . . 😆

 

. . . and after a year, when even the last competitive player stopped to defend their keeps, the Devs will realise that no one cares if “Random Team Boogaloo” beats “Random Team LootAlot”. 😵

[displayname.8315]

3 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

 

Yup, the Devs will first delete the current servers, replace them with mostly random shuffled piles of players for better balance, to make winning more meaningful . . . 😆

 

 

. . . and after a year, when even the last competitive player stopped to defend their keeps, the Devs will realise that no one cares if “Random Team Boogaloo” beats “Random Team LootAlot”. 😵

 

After a year?  People stopped no-lifeing to win years ago.  Haven't seen a guild with attendence requirements or any guild calling themselves hardcore WvW in years.

 

The occasional 24hr raids were fun but nobody is serious like that anymore.  It's just fun to play the game and would be really nice to be able to just log in and play without the huge gaps of downtime.

[Chaba.5410]

On 9/9/2022 at 9:56 AM, enkidu.5937 said:

 

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

 

-> restricting mass transfers directly after team creation

Transfer restrictions were already tested and found to cause more harm than good so it was removed.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Linked-Worlds-Transfer-Restrictions

Edited September 12, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[enkidu.5937]

2 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Transfer restrictions were already tested and found to cause more harm than good so it was removed.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Linked-Worlds-Transfer-Restrictions

 

You are very confused. Devs did not test restriction of mass transfers directly after team creation. Your link refers to a Beta in 2016 and what they did was:

 

Most Servers were not even linked at that time and for the Servers that were linked, they only lowered the population cap. So some of these linked servers closed for transfers, though they were not really "full". Thats it.

 

Quote

• Anet on the Beta 2016
•  
• - Will not release world pairings in advance to reduce gaming the system.
• - Language/National worlds will only be paired with other worlds of the same language.
• - World Linking is not a complete fix for population imbalances but we felt it was a necessary step.
• - We can link many worlds together, though in this Beta worlds will only have a single partner (if they are linked at all). Many high ranking worlds in EU will not be linked with another world.
• - Worlds that are paired will have lower population caps.
• - At most we’d re-link worlds every 3 months.
• - World Linking decisions were primarily based on a combination of both Glicko rating and time-sliced activity levels.

 

[Mabi black.1824]

On 9/10/2022 at 6:39 PM, Xenesis.6389 said:

We've all tried to explain world restructuring to you over and over, I really don't know why I bother responding to your post anymore.

hey xenesis , 

I instead thank you for responding to my posts, we tried to dig a little deeper this topic. and I also thank the others who have explained to me the whole long history of these covenants. in any case you are right, I wanted to share all my concerns about this development project , I entered the forum on purpose, and I did it even sometimes too much , with the hope of intercepting some developer , get information etc.

it did not happen, but it does not matter, we can say mission accomplished.

I will cross my fingers and wait like everyone else and I will not add more posts or answers on the subject.

I wish everyone good play and fun, in gw2 but especially in real life, because always remember it:

if when you are an adult and you have kept that desire to play that you had as a child and you will have the time to do it, then you will have a successful life.

[Gehenna.3625]

On 9/9/2022 at 10:03 PM, Xenesis.6389 said:

Purpose of world restructuring/alliance is:

1. Get guilds and friends playing together without the stress of constant transfers or lockouts.

2. Prevent constant bandwagons that empty out servers, because people want to play with guilds or friends, or they're bored and keep jumping to easier tiers.

3. Even out the populations a little more, especially the pug populations that are quite obviously stacked on some servers.

1. Not everybody who plays WvW wants to do that though. I believe that a large section of the WvW players are solo players who do not want to join a group and/or pip hunters for the rewards or indeed just pugs that are in non-WvW guilds.

2. It could prevent that, but the only place where servers actually exist is in WvW. So instead of servers being emptied out, you may get guilds that empty out. And very much for the same reasons. In the end there will still be a tier system in the background I would think but on a guild and/or alliance level. 

3. The issue for pugs in the restructuring is that they will be put with different alliances constantly. This will make it harder for pugs to connect with people. I'm a pug. I roam a lot but also join with tags at times. On my server I run into the same guilds and people a lot. I will lose that connection. 

My point is that this restructuring is mostly geared towards guilds. I get that, but a large part of the WvW population is not part of such guilds for various reasons. A lot of introverts in this game that just don't necessarily care to join groups. You know them. It's the 15 people that run with a public tag while the squad itself has 20 members.

Restructuring may be great for certain groups of people, but bad for others. It might cause a reduction in overall population unless they start thinking (and communcating) in terms of what do we do for the rest of the population. And what do we do for new players that are guildless and just wanna try out WvW. I feel that part is missing and it may lead to a lot of people leaving WvW because it's simply not playable for them. At least if they don't address it. And a smaller WvW population is bad for the mode overall. The more niche it becomes, the less Anet will invest in it and the less exciting it is for people to keep WvW'ing.

The current situation isn't great. I just fear that it will worsen for a lot of people that aren't in guilds specifically and that would reduce the overall population of WvW. Some people might think they couldn't care less about that, but when the new situation becomes a reality it may be bad for them as well in the long run.

Just think of the idea that you only fight against people that are good at WvW and particularly the PvP aspect of it. This means the fights will always be tough, but more to the point, some guilds/alliances will be better than others and you may not get a chance to win a lot. That would discourage a lot of gung ho players as well.

All I'm saying is, be careful what you wish for, cause you might get it. And you may not have thought it through as well as you thought you had. You can make choices, but you can't choose the consequences.

 

[Blackfish.7349]

On 8/25/2022 at 5:00 PM, Riba.3271 said:

From what I have seen is that alliances is that people will have even less incentive to tag up since all the commanders building their server or fighting to keep it alive will be gone. This leads to other commanders having less fights too and tagging up less too. It is same slow cycle towards death of WvW as links were.

 

For example, right now if I tag up it will be like 30% perma Jade seas (our link players), who I do not care about training or entertaining. With alliances it will be over 80% random people that I would have to stick my face to their face and say "WILL YOU JOIN MY ALLIANCE" to have any meaningful progress. We all know this will be followed by their alliance talking badly behind the scenes for trying to steal their members as if I knew they were already part of alliance. Lol... People..

 

Whereas linking system is 5/10 system at best, alliances are 6/10 at best as populations will finally be balanced. Original server system was 10/10, just held down by glicko rating and too many servers.

In the past if you wanted to transfer to stacked server, you not only needed to wait for the server to open up but then dish out 1800 gems. After that you fought other stacked servers in high tiers. Now you just go to the link for 500 gems and enjoy your megamonster server facerolling all low pop linkings.

 

What I am trying to say is that while alliances are terrible illogical system, at least it is fair and better than current system that allows unlimited transfers and has terrible matchmaking. Original server system was obviously the best and most polished since it was spent half a decade designing taking model from other succesful RvR games, not slapped together during some company meeting and announced day after for sales.

You are using biased data to drive your conclusions to an intended ending. Either you do not understand what alliances are about or you are the typical server pride nostalgic guy.

In the new alliance system, the commander will now tag up for his alliance, not for a server (you still thinking on the old server context). This alliance is formed by people that share common interests and, due to the anet annnouncement on a change to competititve rewards, a common goal of winning to maximize rewards. You are giving a wrong example of a commander losing motivation because he is tagging for server pugs outside his alliance...he/she will be tagging for his/her alliance, and if this alliance gets to substantial number of members with common interests...I think that he/she can be "very" motivated to do it, as he/she will surely get more stable player base with common interests to get inside tag, train, improve,...

You talk about alliances "stealing players" to other alliances. This is also a biased opinion, which uses the negative word "steal" to qualify the alliance system. Players or guilds moving from one alliance to another looking for common interests or personal improvement is not negative, on the contrary, it is very positive and such behavior exists in many aspects of real life.  Are sports franchises stealing players when one of them changes team? Is a city stealing citizens when they move to another one in the search of a better life? Best alliances will look for the best players and there will be alliances for all levels and all playstyles. If you do not intend to compete you probably will not get into a competitive alliance and you will probably get less rewards in the long run. That's how life actually works. What is a current nonsense is getting the same reward as a competitve player just by staying afk in the garrison and taking a camp from time to time. Can it be that a good alliance ends a 8-week streak in a bad tier because the rest of alliances/guilds/pugs of the constructed server are very bad? Yes, it can be, but this possibility depends on the matchmaking of anet, we cannot control that, and statistically, in the long run, you will get what you deserve. 

Alliance and competition is one of the best things that can happen to WvW. A unique game mode that no other game has at the same play level as GW2. All types of players will fit inside. Those competitive will get their place at top alliances and those that are not will continue to play the same way just by forming an alliance or guild with their mates to assure they play together. Just do not expect to earn the same as competitive in the long run.

PS: For me, a competitve alliance is not a ppk focused alliance. WvW is a 24/7 game and, to win, you need a combination of playstyles: coverage, ppt and ppk are all equally needed inside an alliance to stay in higher tiers, so a diversity of players can fit into a competitive alliance. It will be a labor for the alliance/guild leaders to assemble a good one.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by Blackfish.7349

[Dawdler.8521]

53 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

3. The issue for pugs in the restructuring is that they will be put with different alliances constantly. This will make it harder for pugs to connect with people. I'm a pug. I roam a lot but also join with tags at times. On my server I run into the same guilds and people a lot. I will lose that connection. 

Pugs/randoms are called that for a reason. You dont require weeks of socialization and a degree in behavioral sciences to learn how to approach a commander and join the squad. You just join.

In fact its often the most popular guilds and commanders that transfer to other worlds and bring the bandwagoners with them.

You're clinging to people that would leave you stranded in a heartbeat. Because you know... pug.

[enkidu.5937]

18 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Pugs/randoms are called that for a reason. You dont require weeks of socialization and a degree in behavioral sciences to learn how to approach a commander and join the squad. You just join.

In fact its often the most popular guilds and commanders that transfer to other worlds and bring the bandwagoners with them.

You're clinging to people that would leave you stranded in a heartbeat. Because you know... pug.

Your posts are getting completely absurd. He explained what he will miss in the new system and you tell him he doesn't need that. Oh boy, on my server there are hundreds of so-called "randoms" that don't have a WvW guild, don't visit community meetings etc., but are well-connected with their team, cause they play there for years. Since you don't understand the current situation and benefits of the server system, you consequently will never be able to understand the problems Alliances will bring.

 

"You just join", ya ofc that's how WvW works, people just join squads and coms just welcome them, not 🤪

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, enkidu.5937 said:

Your posts are getting completely absurd. He explained what he will miss in the new system and you tell him he doesn't need that. Oh boy, on my server there are hundreds of so-called "randoms" that don't have a WvW guild, don't visit community meetings etc., but are well-connected with their team, cause they play there for years. Since you don't understand the current situation and benefits of the server system, you consequently will never be able to understand the problems Alliances will bring.

 

"You just join", ya ofc that's how WvW works, people just join squads and coms just welcome them, not 🤪

If you claim you are a pug, then accept what pug means and all the drawbacks that come from not being part of a guild.

And ya thats how squads work when they are open invitation on map for pugs. Worst case scenario, they expect you to be a certain class. Which as a pug, you'd learn quickly if you spend even a low amount of time in WvW.

World restructure changes nothing on this - the last beta week had plenty of pug commanders active. I personally saw commanders I havent seen in many months because you know... they move around due to transfers and links. But playing with them couldnt possibly count for something because oh no, the world restructure only take people away from you.

Sometimes I'm starting to wonder if people want to hold their entire world hostage so that their "friends with benefits" can be forced to play with them.

[Strider Pj.2193]

2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

 

Sometimes I'm starting to wonder if people want to hold their entire world hostage so that their "friends with benefits" can be forced to play with them.

This.  Sooooo much this. 
 

[Xenesis.6389]

5 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

1. Not everybody who plays WvW wants to do that though. I believe that a large section of the WvW players are solo players who do not want to join a group and/or pip hunters for the rewards or indeed just pugs that are in non-WvW guilds.

So what's the problem with the new system if you're just a solo player? I'm a solo player, my main wvw guild has been dead for years now. I don't have an issue with the changes because if I really wanted to stay with a group of people I would go join them, or I would suggest to get them join an alliance. Again, MAGUUMA has a lot of solo roaming type players and even they managed to create a community guild for those players.

 

5 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

2. It could prevent that, but the only place where servers actually exist is in WvW. So instead of servers being emptied out, you may get guilds that empty out. And very much for the same reasons. In the end there will still be a tier system in the background I would think but on a guild and/or alliance level. 

And the issue with a guild emptying out is what exactly? those players will still be on the world until the next world recreation, you're not going to lose all those players. Then recreation comes and the worlds are again shuffled, if those players went on to not joining a guild they'll be solos shuffled, if they went and joined a different guild or alliance they will be placed with that group on their world.

The only issue is how loose of a restriction they will place on transfers during the 8 weeks. If it's as open as it is now then it will be a problem and really solves nothing, but I don't think it will be and here's one reason why. Currently we have servers ranging from medium/high/veryhigh/full, with no hard cap on full, so a server could be 2x the population in full compared to another full server that just went over the threshold. There is nothing that can be done currently with servers as that, it's up to the players to move and evening it out on their own.

With the new worlds it will be recreated every two months with the sorting balance there basically should only be two statuses, veryhigh/full. There shouldn't be a situation where a server gets emptied out to a medium status to bandwagon onto another veryhigh status server because it should lock long before that could happen, there wouldn't be much space to move zerg guilds or alliances around.

Why would there be a tier level on guilds and alliances when worlds are still around? If that was the case then they might as well have just spent time creating battlegrounds instead as a more appropriate place to have even group fights for rankings. The only rankings we ever had for guilds was gvg and even that is in shambles as the players don't even want to put in the effort to maintain it, they wanted anet to fully automate it for them.

 

5 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

3. The issue for pugs in the restructuring is that they will be put with different alliances constantly. This will make it harder for pugs to connect with people. I'm a pug. I roam a lot but also join with tags at times. On my server I run into the same guilds and people a lot. I will lose that connection. 

No, they will be placed with different worlds, you will meet difference or familiar alliances and guilds, much like you would when a relink happens and you connect to a different server. If you run with a certain guild a lot then join them? Are you actually connected to those people or are you leeching off them? Don't get me wrong, I play the exact same way, I'm mostly solo, I log on during primetime, play a useful class, run to the oj's, put in two hours and then log. If I felt any connection to any of the guilds I run along with I would join them, but I enjoy my freedom to play my way. A lot of guilds don't even care about pugs.

 

5 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

All I'm saying is, be careful what you wish for, cause you might get it. And you may not have thought it through as well as you thought you had. You can make choices, but you can't choose the consequences.

I actually don't care how this ends up. I don't run in a guild, my main wvw guild has been dead for years. This isn't my main concern for wvw, boon ball combat is, I'd sooner quit the game over boon ball than what server I'm on, there's even times I limit my play because of the community I'm surrounded by but I haven't completely quit yet.

In the end it's not that much different from linking, and it'll give you more options to stay connected to groups you actually connect and want to play with. World restructuring change could be the opening for more things such as tournaments to happen once again. Anything is better than the current system of bandwagon dead servers over and over again with bored fight guilds in an entirely meaningless ranking of tiers, we're just yoyoing up and down while avoiding blackgate and maguuma, on a meaningless threadmill we're pretty much only playing to get legendaries eventually.

Practically every single server has been a victim of a bandwagon at this point, yes even the current tops of maguuma and blackgate who's the grand daddy of it all. World restructuring could put in a little meaning to winning as a world again, it'll give you the opportunity to form tighter bonds with those in your actual community if you really choose to do so.

[Chaba.5410]

13 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

You are very confused. Devs did not test restriction of mass transfers directly after team creation. Your link refers to a Beta in 2016 and what they did was:

Only they did test restrictions of mass transfers directly after team creation.  When there was a relinking of servers (team formation), the linked servers would be artificially marked as Full for a time period after the relinking.

There's nothing functionally different about marking a server as Full and restricting mass transfers.  People could not transfer to Full servers.  How do you think transfers are supposed to get restricted after team formation in the first place?  The test you asked for was already done.

Your point about it being a beta in 2016 is irrelevant.  You are asking for a transfer restriction test before they delete servers.  The world restructuring beta tests don't even have the transfer functionality implemented (is why Anet devs can't freely transfer to those beta teams) so it's really a mystery as to what exactly you are asking for that's functionally different from anything done currently or in the past.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[enkidu.5937]

6 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I personally saw commanders I havent seen in many months

This is indeed the best hope I have for this Alliance restructuring thing: the Pugmanders will rise again . . .  until their random squads get farmed by professional Alliance raids 😏

[Xenesis.6389]

Alliance raids.. oh you mean having two guilds pincher attack enemies... like they already do now....

[Reborn.2934]

On 8/25/2022 at 6:00 PM, Riba.3271 said:

From what I have seen is that alliances is that people will have even less incentive to tag up since all the commanders building their server or fighting to keep it alive will be gone. This leads to other commanders having less fights too and tagging up less too. It is same slow cycle towards death of WvW as links were.

 

For example, right now if I tag up it will be like 30% perma Jade seas (our link players), who I do not care about training or entertaining. With alliances it will be over 80% random people that I would have to stick my face to their face and say "WILL YOU JOIN MY ALLIANCE" to have any meaningful progress. We all know this will be followed by their alliance talking badly behind the scenes for trying to steal their members as if I knew they were already part of alliance. Lol... People..

 

Whereas linking system is 5/10 system at best, alliances are 6/10 at best as populations will finally be balanced. Original server system was 10/10, just held down by glicko rating and too many servers.

In the past if you wanted to transfer to stacked server, you not only needed to wait for the server to open up but then dish out 1800 gems. After that you fought other stacked servers in high tiers. Now you just go to the link for 500 gems and enjoy your megamonster server facerolling all low pop linkings.

 

What I am trying to say is that while alliances are terrible illogical system, at least it is fair and better than current system that allows unlimited transfers and has terrible matchmaking. Original server system was obviously the best and most polished since it was spent half a decade designing taking model from other succesful RvR games, not slapped together during some company meeting and announced day after for sales.

 

so transfers are destoying WvW now?

 

why transfers cost didn't destroy WvW the first 3 years and the problems started after the 1st expansion that made the Guild Upgrades extremely expensive for WvW guilds? 

 

Also you are all referring WvW guilds while nobody says what players are playing in WvW guilds.

 

let me help you.

 

WvW guilds had players hating to play ... PVE and GW2 became a heavy PVE game after expansions!

 

I spent almost 1 year to play and unlock maps, armors and recipes necessary for character's and account's progression and i did it only to know what was the reason WvW addicted players left gw2 and to know what will be the needs for a new formed dedicated to help my server wvw guild (i paused its progression when i learned about the guild alliances 7 months ago).

 

WvW players will never do what i did because i have plenty time now and when i realized that they will totally destroy WvW with guild alliances after beta week i stopped playing gw2 too, since there is not any reason to form a wvw guild to help my... server anymore.

 

Guild Alliances will be the end of WvW for sure because guild's identity is a subclass of servers and people that play on wvw are not playing only for their guilds but the no raid times they are playing for their Server and the end game is visible for the WvW players of Servers on Rank Page while it's not for PvP players and i really never understood why people are still playing PvP ....

 

what is your end game PvP player other than ... drops and skins? Seriously ? come on

p.s. also, if you want to know how they can do the guild alliances a no destructive update for WvW read my blog post here

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Reborn.2934

[Xenesis.6389]

3 hours ago, Reborn.2934 said:

so transfers are destoying WvW now?

 

why transfers cost didn't destroy WvW the first 3 years and the problems started after the 1st expansion that made the Guild Upgrades extremely expensive for WvW guilds? 

Actually they did destroy wvw for the first 3 years.

First 6 months had open free transfers, super stacking began to happen within the first month after everyone figured out titan alliance winning with time zone stacking.

Then later we had fights guilds moving to take over tier 2 and then 3 for their playground because tier 1 was blobville.

At the end of year 3 and months before the expansion release we had guilds transferring down to tier 4, I remember Ehmry bay getting popular.

Then later on we had glicko walls, with stack servers trying to keep themselves in tier 1, which triggered the massive Ons alliances to stack on yaks bend to try and break the glicko ceiling to tier 1.

Lets not forget the free transfers anet offered for two of the tournaments.

So yeah, transfers were damaging before and after the expansion, everyone was just too busy to notice while trying to win the arms race when they thought winning meant something still.