Why do we need Alliances?

[Nymthalas.4019]

On 10/16/2022 at 3:00 PM, Playmate.8521 said:

Server Pride/Communities <- Alliances destroy "my Team" - it isnt possbile to get all people together - on our Server it was possible. Many People i know (veterans) said already, they will stop playing wvw when alliances really start - and i can understand it. I repeat, NOW it was just sending ppl on different "new" servers. There will be no stability anymore, because when your "server" is bad you choose for the next week a other server from your list/create a new guild. It will be worse than it is now with the server hopper.  (Btw an alliance was a community of 10 guilds and not just one guild randomly mixed with other guilds)

 

 

Server Balance (For balanced activity in matchups!): <- one server will be always ***** up. People from our Guild, which didnt get on the right server are now on servers without any activity. I know its just a beta test but this is how wvw works. Its impossible to get a balance between the servers. If you want balanced fights you need to organise GvG - you cant control wvw activity (maybe when you reduce the maximum players per map). 

 

I repeat this part again - it just helps the serverhopper-guilds because they dont have to spend money to change servers. Reduce one Server and make wvwvw to wvw (2 teams) and then you have a better chance to get balanced matchups but not with 3 teams. Just look how it was in GW1 with the kurzick and luxon fights/pride. The solution is near and still so far. But lets destroy wvwvw first. 

1. They said when alliances are here you won't be able to change selected wvw guild from week to week. So all this seems like an excuse.

 

2. You select your guild in the WvW panel, if you dont get to go with that guild, that is an alliance beta bug.  If you don't select the guild in the WvW panel.... well it's easy to blame others for your mistakes.

 

3. I will have to repeat what I said on the first point, you will still have relinks, but it will be mixing alliances (player made) and free agents/small guilds. So you will be able to swap guild only on relinks, so it will have the correct player count on matchup calculation.

Matchup will still have flaws, afaik some are already thought to be dealt in the future. But nope, none of your concerns is a flaw, because you are looking at alliances with a huge bias, and not really analyze all the info they've given.

 

On 10/17/2022 at 1:45 AM, jul.7602 said:

I think this is missing the point. The objective is not to compute the exact population a potential server. Indo's been playing this game for over a decade, and leading one of the largest communities for almost as long, with possibly a dozen+ officers/secondary leaders. I'm fairly certain that however he selects his servers; he has a relatively informed view on the number of active wvw guilds on that server. In spite of this, people generally don't think too much about the balance of WvW when they decide to transfer. As I said before, people can, and will stack alliances the same way we stack links, and there is nothing anet can do about it. 

When the people will be placed in teams based on the selected alliance just before relink automatically.... again your statement is wrong. You won't be able to switch alliance mid time, it will be effective on next relink.

 

As I have read other people clarifiy before, you can make a big community guild for the people of your server you want to play with, nothing is preventing you, in fact I'm glad you have that people you like to play with, but the rest of the players also have those people, and that people might also want to choose and might prefer go with some other friends of them they couldn't right now because of how servers work, and your are NOT entitled to force that people to play with you.

As for balance... they want to balance population(based on WvW playtime) but not MMR or something like that YET,  to avoid having matchups in which there is a server who barely fill up 1 map, and other which has queue is multiple maps most of the time. Which is a start for balancing.

[Mabi black.1824]

20 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Except you aren't being treated differently and you are most certainly not being discriminated against. I am sharing my opinion on a matter. I have just as much impact on the alliance system as you: none. I'd appreciate if you either brush up your English language skills or refrain from using terminology which is inappropriate. In this case I recommend you refrain from using terms like discrimination in this context because quite frankly: it's way off the mark.

You must forgive me,

If this word for some reason annoys me I will never use it again.

But,

how can you tell me that I am not treated differently? You can continue to jump between the various servers and you remain your point of reference. I am denied the ability to stand still in my server (or whatever new server you want to assign me) and delete my reference point. Let's try to reason together in a detached and rational way. This PvP game mode Which is called world vs world, plans to put different worlds in competition with each other. They built a medal table that refers to these worlds. They have constructed a ranking that refers to these worlds. 1 up and 1 down refers to worlds. Entire communities are built within these worlds. Perfect, now these worlds know that year big problems at the moment to be able to compare correctly , for all the reasons that you and I know very well. 

Even Arenanet has shown to have this awareness, so much so that it has decided to dedicate the development to improve the balance, to build these worlds in a better way. Perfect reasoning works, the only problem that puts everything I wrote above into question and deprives it of any meaning is that the mechanics that leads you to achieve a balance between the worlds, provides to erase these worlds, or rather to empty them from anything they can rapresent.

It is precisely for this reason that I am writing to you, and I am suggesting you to reason, and to consider that it is necessary to add something to this new mechanics of alliances, so that it works correctly, bringing a better balance, maintaining the concept of the world, unique and true central element on which this mode was once thought and designed.

[Cyninja.2954]

12 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

how can you tell me that I am not treated differently? You can continue to jump between the various servers and you remain your point of reference. I am denied the ability to stand still in my server (or whatever new server you want to assign me) and delete my reference point. Let's try to reason together in a detached and rational way. This PvP game mode Which is called world vs world, plans to put different worlds in competition with each other. They built a medal table that refers to these worlds. They have constructed a ranking that refers to these worlds. 1 up and 1 down refers to worlds. Entire communities are built within these worlds. Perfect, now these worlds know that year big problems at the moment to be able to compare correctly , for all the reasons that you and I know very well. 

Being treated different means:

you see different treatment than others. Not that you might agree or disagree with something.

All changes are affecting all players equally.

How each individual player might feel about this is irrelevant in regards to discrimination. If some players got preferred treatment in regards to the change, then you might be able to argue that, which given you have 0 rights to anything in this game and Arenanet has pretty much full legal control is still questionable.

Discrimination is not based around feelings. The word in general sees use when dealing with minorities which are being treated differently or which are being oppressed. Hardly fitting for a debate about things in a video game.

12 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Even Arenanet has shown to have this awareness, so much so that it has decided to dedicate the development to improve the balance, to build these worlds in a better way. Perfect reasoning works, the only problem that puts everything I wrote above into question and deprives it of any meaning is that the mechanics that leads you to achieve a balance between the worlds, provides to erase these worlds, or rather to empty them from anything they can rapresent.

It is precisely for this reason that I am writing to you, and I am suggesting you to reason, and to consider that it is necessary to add something to this new mechanics of alliances, so that it works correctly, bringing a better balance, maintaining the concept of the world, unique and true central element on which this mode was once thought and designed.

What and how the developers implement alliances will be seen once they are done (if they get done). It is far to early to make any distinctions on what the developers might be thinking or planning given the slow progress the development has been. The one things that can be assumed: the changes they aim for will be a compromise between what is possible, necessary and useful with potential improvement down the road once the system is in place.

Given their primary intent seems to be: to design a flexible system which can adapt easily to fluctuating player numbers, in order to not have to deal with this a few years down the road again, it is unlikely that fixed servers will remain a thing. How any of us feel about this personally makes pretty much no difference here, unless a vast majority of the player base suddenly decides to disagree, which is hardly the case atm.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

3 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

All changes are affecting all players equally.

How each individual player might feel about this is irrelevant in regards to discrimination

I disagree, not that we have to be mind you, but I think your remark is superficial and even dangerous (in terms of free thought). I try to explain, even the government of a large country issues its own laws, these laws concern the entire population, this excludes a priori does not mean that a part of this population can feel discriminated against. Or again, a great country and a great nation could decide to go to war. This decision certainly involves all the citizens of this nation, but this does not exclude that someone may feel discriminated against, because his free thought goes in the opposite direction, peche would like to give voice to his free thought but it is as if no one listens to him or even worse because someone prevents him etc etc. 

ancora una volta vediamo le cose con una prospettiva diversa.

Returning to the merits of our reasoning, much more frivolous, since we talk about a good game and spends time, with this development project (as we know it at the moment, based on the public statements of Anet) you can continue to enjoy and play this mode as you did before, while I did not, from this comes my feeling,   to feel discriminated against.

[Mabi black.1824]

3 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

then you might be able to argue that, which given you have 0 rights to anything in this game and Arenanet has pretty much full legal control is still questionable.

That's for sure.

I am not looking and I believe that no one here is looking for burdens and honors to be able to discuss on an equal footing with Arenanet. But they wrote somewhere that this moment of '' work in progress '' is the right time to give any kind of feedback, through what we can see with our innocent eyes of simple players. And since I see a possible problem, I just point it out.

[Chaba.5410]

On 10/18/2022 at 12:12 AM, Mabi black.1824 said:

I don't know what to tell you about this,

or I have I completely missed the point or you have completely lost the point. We are in a PvP mode I imagined a player (or group) who wanted to confront another player (or group) to demonstrate their skill and supremacy. I saw that there is a register, a ranking and a medal table. The feeling is that the project put in competition (as the word itself of the world vs world mode says) entire worlds with each other.

This was in reference to the argument about WvW not being a competitive game mode.

It's important here to separate the concept of PvP from "competitive".  PvP can exist without it being competitive.  You see this every time a blob runs over a small group.  You see this when some "off-hours" players can capture an entire map without any challenge from the opponent.

We see this distinction with sports too.  The rules of the game might promote competitive play, but not all matches will be competitive.  The best matches are always competitive, when the two teams are really good and fans aren't sure which team is going to ultimately win.  Fans may leave matches early when it's clear that one team is far more skilled than another and winning already early on by a lot.  Those are not competitive matches.

The rules and structure of WvW do not promote competitive play.  It may look like it does, but it's a design based on the rules of sPvP where there's an expectation that teams will be numerically equal.  The whole structure falls down even in sPvP when teams are missing players from a disconnect or ragequit.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I disagree, not that we have to be mind you, but I think your remark is superficial and even dangerous (in terms of free thought). I try to explain, even the government of a large country issues its own laws, these laws concern the entire population, this excludes a priori does not mean that a part of this population can feel discriminated against. Or again, a great country and a great nation could decide to go to war. This decision certainly involves all the citizens of this nation, but this does not exclude that someone may feel discriminated against, because his free thought goes in the opposite direction, peche would like to give voice to his free thought but it is as if no one listens to him or even worse because someone prevents him etc etc. 

Listen, you can bring whatever nonsense you feel reasonable forth, you are not being discriminated against in this situation.

Your thoughts aren't being stifled. You aren't being repressed or oppressed. You are facing a disagreeing opinion on a message board for a video game.

Any action taken by the developers affect all players equally.

It's not discrimination and using that term is strait up inappropriate and puts to shame people that actually do face discrimination and that is all I am going to say in this matter. I do not feel I want to continue this discourse any longer.

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

ancora una volta vediamo le cose con una prospettiva diversa.

Returning to the merits of our reasoning, much more frivolous, since we talk about a good game and spends time, with this development project (as we know it at the moment, based on the public statements of Anet) you can continue to enjoy and play this mode as you did before, while I did not, from this comes my feeling,   to feel discriminated against.

and any changes the developers make are within their rights to do so. It's in the Terms of Service you agreed to.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Cyninja.2954]

29 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

That's for sure.

I am not looking and I believe that no one here is looking for burdens and honors to be able to discuss on an equal footing with Arenanet. But they wrote somewhere that this moment of '' work in progress '' is the right time to give any kind of feedback, through what we can see with our innocent eyes of simple players. And since I see a possible problem, I just point it out.

 

and not a single person has or is preventing you from doing so.

[Mabi black.1824]

39 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

This was in reference to the argument about WvW not being a competitive game mode.

It's important here to separate the concept of PvP from "competitive".  PvP can exist without it being competitive.  You see this every time a blob runs over a small group.  You see this when some "off-hours" players can capture an entire map without any challenge from the opponent.

We see this distinction with sports too.  The rules of the game might promote competitive play, but not all matches will be competitive.  The best matches are always competitive, when the two teams are really good and fans aren't sure which team is going to ultimately win.  Fans may leave matches early when it's clear that one team is far more skilled than another and winning already early on by a lot.  Those are not competitive matches.

The rules and structure of WvW do not promote competitive play.  It may look like it does, but it's a design based on the rules of sPvP where there's an expectation that teams will be numerically equal.  The whole structure falls down even in sPvP when teams are missing players from a disconnect or ragequit.

That is a very good point and I completely agree with you. It must be said that our mode provides for a prolonged competition, inevitably leads to '' moments '' where you will have higher numbers alternating with others where you will have lower numbers. We will always have this in WVW. But if in its entirety of the week you see a rather similar flow between the different teams, I guess it is enough to be able to argue that the balance is achieved. 

PvP itself is competitive, of course we can do it, indeed we have been doing it for a long time now in WWW in a non-competitive way for all the reasons we know. If we get a good balance between the teams we will be able to play a competitive PvP and I imagine it will be more fun for everyone.

[Mabi black.1824]

5 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

it is unlikely that fixed servers will remain a thing. How any of us feel about this personally makes pretty much no difference here, unless a vast majority of the player base suddenly decides to disagree, which is hardly the case atm.

It would be really interesting to verify this. I would like to ask this question to WWW players. But the question is not to get balanced teams compared to what they have now. For a correct survey you need to ask the correct questions. I would gladly ask the community if , if it could choose, would you prefer to get balanced teams and keep the current mode based on the same teams? Or you prefer to get balanced teams and change the mode by depriving the teams themselves of any meaning.

[Trebuidoi.4701]

The current system is bad because guilds can hop to and stack link servers and ergo the host. Alliances will still be stacked and devoid of content once the dust settles and it will be the guilds again killing the mode. It has a lot more to do with the community than the game or Anet.

 

Fight guilds need to realize when you grow to a blob and "steal" players (your former content) from other servers, you get no (quality) content at the end of the day. You chase and farm people half as good as you, what fun. We need to foster a community that actually likes to fight near equal skilled players, not just stacking numbers and scaring everyone away. This is painfully obvious and apparent in the OCX timeslot on the NA servers.

 

Perhaps for the next beta, you let guilds actually try to properly network and set up an alliance and see what happens? While there were a lot of people on for this event, I felt just as bored as last week.

[subversiontwo.7501]

6 hours ago, BishiDe.6925 said:

Perhaps for the next beta, you let guilds actually try to properly network and set up an alliance and see what happens? While there were a lot of people on for this event, I felt just as bored as last week.

Guilds have been doing that for every beta so far. The difference between a beta alliance-guild and an alliance of guilds is only technical. The only thing that has changed from beta 1 to whatever this beta is that Anet's shown lack of progression has made players lukewarm and alliance-guilds smaller as a result. I am currently in a beta-only alliance-guild comprised of 4+ guilds. It only has 102 members however. For beta 1 the same guilds were embroiled in a server-wide overview looking at how some 900+ players could be fit into a beta guild.

In the last beta I played with a guild that stayed by itself and it still cut through all prime-time content like butter that week because the general disinterest has left an overall lack of competent guilds or other forms of groups. There are huge differences between groups and groups, beyond the solo- and group divide.

What could be argued (but this is something Anet are said to build into the system) is that - whether you look at the live system or the beta system - groups that have only around 250 players can already be very dominant in their region. Few full (500) groups have come to dominate the betas as a result. That doesn't mean that no one has made a full 500-player beta guild. It simply means that it takes less to be dominant or driving in WvW with current regional population totals and ambition/experience levels. It suggests the hype for beta 1 or fears for the live system to cause a ramp-up relied heavily on outside/returning players.

Edited October 20, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501