ANET, Know your playerbase

[Swagger.1459]

On 10/19/2022 at 6:47 PM, Counterakt.9106 said:

the point is alliances design seem to cater to a very small but extremely vocal percentage of the player base.

 

Alliances spawned from the constant daily crying on the forums about X servers winning more consistently, various match-ups, and population "balance" in a 24 hour/day mode that players think the devs can force players to log in and participate equally on every server 24 hours a day... This has nothing to do with "very small but extremely vocal" minority.

 

Guilds are more important than "servers", and Alliances make sure all guild members can play together if they choose.  

 

 

 

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Swagger.1459

[JTGuevara.9018]

46 minutes ago, Swagger.1459 said:

 

Alliances spawned from the constant daily crying on the forums about X servers winning more consistently, various match-ups, and population "balance" in a 24 hour/day mode that players think the devs can force players to log in and participate equally on every server 24 hours a day... This has nothing to do with "very small but extremely vocal" minority.

 

Guilds are more important than "servers", and Alliances make sure all guild members can play together if they choose.  

 

 

 

 

NOPE. History will not be rewritten in my presence. I remember post after post BEGGING for alliances on these forums. Way before that hashtag was even a thing.

[Dawdler.8521]

6 hours ago, Counterakt.9106 said:

I think guilds will lose relevance and alliances will soon become mega guilds. In my current link, I see massive lagfest boon balls going at each other pretty much through prime time. They even wear the alliance tag instead of their guild tags.

Ok but I'm not sure what that has to do with your scenario of players dispersing due to an alliance falling apart. More questions then:

What's the difference between a 500 player capped alliance (your "mega guild") and a 500 player capped actual guild, except for internal organisation? And does not the boonballs exist throughout prime every day in WvW whether it be last week, this week or next week?

[Mabi black.1824]

7 hours ago, Swagger.1459 said:

Guilds are more important than "servers", and Alliances make sure all guild members can play together if they choose. 

The question is not who is more important. The point is that alliances come to give more balance. So they have nothing to do with the guild or a set of guilds. The guild has no balance one is different from the other as it is expected to be since the dawn of time. The development of Alleanza concerns servers, it was created to improve the balance between servants, and in your opinion why? Because they can compare and compete more consistently, and honestly. 

With this Anet gets the chance to make the competition between these servers credible again so that its players can have much more fun. Alliances are fine, they are just bigger pieces inside a server. The real issue is about building teams. the fact that it is repeated every 8 weeks. This gives little space to the players to make a group and build a common action that aims to win and compete against all other teams.

If you don't want to leave anyone behind with this update you have to give your players at least a 12-month season (as in any sports competition). You don't have to add prizes or money in this mode to stimulate players. You have to build an official and credible tournament, and put a nice prize only for the first three teams, then you will still see your players organize and commit, to do what WWW has always provided.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Mabi black.1824

[Thea Cherry.6327]

On 10/20/2022 at 8:14 AM, Sviel.7493 said:

Part of the reason the hardcore guilds dominate feedback is because they have organized communities and representatives that can reasonably claim to speak for a bunch of people.  Even if the devs made a good faith effort to get feedback, a disproportionate amount of readily available responses will be from that organized group.

That said, they do have these forums and other avenues, but that's still just fractions of the playerbase.  In the end, they may be best served by seeking less feedback since the little they get tends to be skewed.  Either way, I don't think it's a good look that they seem so in the pocket of a few large guilds--especially since those guilds are, ultimately, a small portion of the WvW population and an even smaller portion of what the WvW population needs to be.  Catering to them at the expense of everyone else is not the path to growth.

 

It seems like a lot of non HC guild players were exhausted a long time ago, since a lot of us complained a lot in the national forums, during conversations with the very rarely seen devs or the round table format back in the day. Especially during the round table the divide between devs and players became obvious, when the ANet representive was suprised the WvW community does not count EOtM as real WvW. And even during these round tables they took some of the feedback from downright brainless people and implemented things like the siege blockers, which were never needed if you asked the servers who are specialized in siege.

 

There was a lot of stuff that was bugging my guild mates and server friends, from no rewards for scouting, the Baruch problem, lack of rewards and that those tournaments from 2014 were not repeated anymore. For me it was a general problem of the direction ANet took, give a little bit to PVE, go full into PVP for the esports glory and neglect WvW entirely with some band aid here and there. The server linking was the final straw for a lot of players from our server and many just quit entirely and tbh i think the alliance system is as bad, because it seems it is not fixing the WvW problems at all.

[ugrakarma.9416]

lol,the OP is so precise and fun,  i laughed loud of the "server moms" 😄😄

this is the perfect guide for "wvw fauna".

Edited October 21, 2022 by ugrakarma.9416

[ugrakarma.9416]

On 10/19/2022 at 7:47 PM, Counterakt.9106 said:

I am not saying these groups are black and white. There are a lot of people people that belong to 2 or more of these categories. The point is alliances design seem to cater to a very small but extremely vocal percentage of the player base. The people that this will affect negatively don't typically read or contribute to the forums.

Servers have a sort of permanence. I could go on hiatus for 6 months and come back and it will be there. Alliances are too fluid. You go for a month and come back someone else has taken your place. You will have to start all over again in a totally new community. This is one of the main reasons I avoid joining guilds and the reason I don't like alliances. 

 

sure, i myself was a bit of all, except roamer perhaps. i had a hardcore time once, years ago. then i get tired.

now im a mix of "cloud" and "server mom" lol.

[Counterakt.9106]

18 hours ago, Swagger.1459 said:

 

Alliances spawned from the constant daily crying on the forums about X servers winning more consistently, various match-ups, and population "balance" in a 24 hour/day mode that players think the devs can force players to log in and participate equally on every server 24 hours a day... This has nothing to do with "very small but extremely vocal" minority.

 

The vocal minority were the ones who were crying every day in the forums. They were mostly guild leaders. Casuals never asked for alliances in the format that is presented now, which btw, doesn't really help with stacking (my link with indo's guild is repeatedly curb-stomping the other two alliances). So alliances don't help with the very thing that they were supposed to help solve. In addition it destroys the sense of community that players felt when belonging to a server. That is a regression in my opinion. Now are the game designers men enough to admit a mistake and change their roadmap or are the gonna plough through this until the game mode is dead?

18 hours ago, Swagger.1459 said:

Guilds are more important than "servers", and Alliances make sure all guild members can play together if they choose.  

You belong to different group in my list of categories, let us agree to disagree.

[Swagger.1459]

38 minutes ago, Counterakt.9106 said:

The vocal minority were the ones who were crying every day in the forums. They were mostly guild leaders. Casuals never asked for alliances in the format that is presented now, which btw, doesn't really help with stacking (my link with indo's guild is repeatedly curb-stomping the other two alliances). So alliances don't help with the very thing that they were supposed to help solve. In addition it destroys the sense of community that players felt when belonging to a server. That is a regression in my opinion. Now are the game designers men enough to admit a mistake and change their roadmap or are the gonna plough through this until the game mode is dead?

You belong to different group in my list of categories, let us agree to disagree.

Anet is fully aware there are diverse groups of players, and individuals, who play this game. They are also aware they won’t be able to please everyone. 

Alliances are guild and faction focused. You are just going to have to deal with this new format to wvw going forward. Embrace change, don’t be afraid of it. 

[Counterakt.9106]

18 minutes ago, Swagger.1459 said:

Anet is fully aware there are diverse groups of players, and individuals, who play this game. They are also aware they won’t be able to please everyone. 

Alliances are guild and faction focused. You are just going to have to deal with this new format to wvw going forward. Embrace change, don’t be afraid of it. 

 

Lol there it comes out finally. This change is what the boon blob wanted, shilled for in the forums and what they are getting. Unfortunately the silent majority in this game is going to get hurt by this. I am just trying to amplify those voices here. Maybe they will get vocal once it is fully implemented. But it would be too late at that time, the server shards can't be reverted, the damage to the community irrevocable.

I fully expect that ANET is not going to read this, and probably gonna go ahead with this half thought out idea, but at least I get to say 'I told you so'.

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Counterakt.9106 said:

Lol there it comes out finally. This change is what the boon blob wanted, shilled for in the forums and what they are getting. Unfortunately the silent majority in this game is going to get hurt by this. I am just trying to amplify those voices here. Maybe they will get vocal once it is fully implemented. But it would be too late at that time, the server shards can't be reverted, the damage to the community irrevocable.

What comes out, 1 forum poster triggering you because you dislike what he said? This suddenly becomes absolute truth?

There is around a 5-15 player strong vocal minority against the alliance changes. Probably about equal numbers in favor. Every time the beta weeks role around activity is way up (to a large part due to the weekly benefits too).

What I personally  fail to see is the flood of hundreds or thousands of players coming in and complaining or boycotting the mode. So maybe, just maybe the silent majority is not as critical of the changes as some like to make them out to be.

There are more players complaining about minor balance changes on a regular basis than there is players complaining about alliances.

1 hour ago, Counterakt.9106 said:

I fully expect that ANET is not going to read this, and probably gonna go ahead with this half thought out idea, but at least I get to say 'I told you so'.

You absolutely do. You also get to keep playing if alliances are a success and no one will hold it against you.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Dawdler.8521]

59 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

What I personally  fail to see is the flood of hundreds or thousands of players coming in and complaining or boycotting the mode.

Some of the first lines in team chat was that they where so thankful they where back. That the beta was kitten, it was so unbalanced. This is the best server.

The next 30 minutes where cries for commanders and getting roflstomped on HBL because of enemy zergs. 

I found it hilarous. Looking at random EU matchup history, last week was probably one of the most even weeks in all tiers for the past 6 months.

[Xenesis.6389]

On 10/20/2022 at 10:49 AM, Svarty.8019 said:

I agree with you and the OP, but guess what? When Anet played WvW on the livestream, they played as a havoc group. I can't believe they're experiencing first hand how miserable it can be to run small-scale and yet pander constantly to the whims of the field-standers.

 

And for the record, if you want to stack all your mates in a field for one hour a week, that's not hardcore in my book, that's casual. The hardcore, for me, are what the OP labels, somewhat derisively,  "server moms".

 

Rock on Server Moms, I'm with you!

Never seen them play as a havoc group on stream or in game, they're always in a big zerg or with a comped guild.

I realize their guild tag is going to attract a lot of attention if they roam or havoc, but feels like from all the changes whether it's dealing with the game mode from siege to fighting in structures, the lopsided boon ball balance, the lmao roamer specs they have now, that they don't ever play in those roles.

 

Hardcore= hard carried by support.

[Svarty.8019]

5 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Never seen them play as a havoc group on stream or in game, they're always in a big zerg or with a comped guild.

I realize their guild tag is going to attract a lot of attention if they roam or havoc, but feels like from all the changes whether it's dealing with the game mode from siege to fighting in structures, the lopsided boon ball balance, the lmao roamer specs they have now, that they don't ever play in those roles.

 

Hardcore= hard carried by support.

Here's just one example for you, since you don't seem to ever have seen the streams.

https://www.twitch.tv/guildwars2/video/750702837

 

Search Twitch for "Let's Play Guild Wars 2 World vs World"

[Xenesis.6389]

9 minutes ago, Svarty.8019 said:

Here's just one example for you, since you don't seem to ever have seen the streams.

https://www.twitch.tv/guildwars2/video/750702837

 

Search Twitch for "Let's Play Guild Wars 2 World vs World"

I've seen a couple streams, mostly the NA ones, and again never seen them roaming in those. Although seeing as one almost double downed to a shrine I can understand why.... Still nothing in the changes they've done says they understand the roles and those areas of the mode, and are in full support of the boon ball combat over everything else.

[TheGrimm.5624]

4 hours ago, Counterakt.9106 said:

The vocal minority were the ones who were crying every day in the forums. They were mostly guild leaders. Casuals never asked for alliances in the format that is presented now, which btw, doesn't really help with stacking (my link with indo's guild is repeatedly curb-stomping the other two alliances). So alliances don't help with the very thing that they were supposed to help solve. In addition it destroys the sense of community that players felt when belonging to a server. That is a regression in my opinion. Now are the game designers men enough to admit a mistake and change their roadmap or are the gonna plough through this until the game mode is dead?

You belong to different group in my list of categories, let us agree to disagree.

 

Counterakt, wasn't asking for the system either but realized going to have to deal with it. Made similar points like you did in the past. Is there a reason you don't think your community can stay together? Or a better question is what would prevent it from doing so and forming an Alliance once the tools are out there? I think the point you might be trying to make is that the big Guilds are probably going to get bigger and gain more influence and the smaller groups are not going to have a core person that is going to step up and bring together those smaller groups and non-guilded that are already the brick and mortar of the current servers together.

I do not think they would rollback this concept at this time. The good news with the beta(s) it gives people time to get into their mindset what's going to happen and those that are more passive in the servers to say uhoh and start thinking about it. After all the relinks we have been through see the same thing on a lot of servers of the various group sizes and you can tell from the conversations when two people not in the same guild are used to that 'lean across the fence' and chat interaction you are referring to. Those people are going to need to be more interactive in the future if they want to keep that relationship. 

[Swagger.1459]

5 hours ago, Counterakt.9106 said:

 

Lol there it comes out finally. This change is what the boon blob wanted, shilled for in the forums and what they are getting. Unfortunately the silent majority in this game is going to get hurt by this. I am just trying to amplify those voices here. Maybe they will get vocal once it is fully implemented. But it would be too late at that time, the server shards can't be reverted, the damage to the community irrevocable.

I fully expect that ANET is not going to read this, and probably gonna go ahead with this half thought out idea, but at least I get to say 'I told you so'.

And there we have it, a lack of understanding or misconception about the primary design purpose of WvW.

Ya see, WvW was primarily designed as a mode for large groups of players to go against large groups of other players. And to also fight over objectives. So naturally the devs will make major decisions about WvW tailored around the idea of large groups of players first. This obviously makes sense since Anet drew inspiration from the 3 way large scale battles offered by DAoC and wanted to replicate that style for GW2.

Everyone, devs included, are obviously aware there is player autonomy to play different ways, but that doesn’t change the primary design format of WvW aka “Mist War”. 

Alliances will also help to strengthen guilds and offer more meaning to being in a guild. More incentive for players to work together for common goals. 

I would suggest getting involved with a guild and work on building your alliance, it will be much more productive for you. You’ll probably be happier by investing in a guild once Alliances are officially launched. Besides, you can still do all the old stuff you like to do when Alliances is live, not like it changes those play options. 

GL!

Edited October 22, 2022 by Swagger.1459

[Chaba.5410]

If it isn't obvious yet, World Restructuring is just a way to merge servers without actually having to merge servers or call it merging servers.  And it will continuously merge servers on a periodic basis as players come and go from the game.  It doesn't matter where you think the idea came from.  It was always about finding a way to merge servers with minimal interruption to player communities.  At least you get some say in who you get merged with through guilds and alliances.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Svarty.8019]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

If it isn't obvious yet, World Restructuring is just a way to merge servers without actually having to merge servers or call it merging servers.  And it will continuously merge servers on a periodic basis as players come and go from the game.  It doesn't matter where you think the idea came from.  It was always about finding a way to merge servers with minimal interruption to player communities.  At least you get some say in who you get merged with through guilds and alliances.

I think it might be a different implementation of existing PvE megaserver technology.

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, Svarty.8019 said:

I think it might be a different implementation of existing PvE megaserver technology.

Not really, but in a sense it offer similar flexibility of shrinking or expanding WvW just like PvE instance open or close. If there is "too few" on average Anet can just cut an entire tier on reschuffle and opposite to that if there is "too many" (ie too many people queuing) they can add another tier.

Population shifts are inevitable through a games life and I for one is still amazed we are here, 10 years later.

EoTM is the "real" WvW megaserver and you can clearly see the differency here: EoTM sacrifice the core function of the WvW matchup system to make that megaserver work.

[Mabi black.1824]

15 hours ago, Swagger.1459 said:

Embrace change, don’t be afraid of it.

It is certainly not a matter of being afraid of change, especially here on this section of the forum for this modality that has basically never seen changes. Any changes are welcome at this point. 

Development said this is the appropriate time to give feedback on this "work in progress." So if I see something that might be a problem it's a good thing to come here and write it down. Alliances are born to improve the composition of the worlds, and recover credibility with respect to how these worlds compare and compete with each other.

The work that development is doing, as far as I could see even in the weeks of beta, will certainly lead to an excellent result in terms of truly similar teams.

On the other hand, however, this mechanic also involves erasing these worlds every 8 weeks and reforming them randomly, with the result of emptying these worlds of all meaning. They will no longer have the opportunity to confront each other or in any case confront each other will no longer mean anything. In my opinion this is a problem, and so I'm here and I tell you: why do we have to solve one problem to create another?

Whether this new problem affects many players or few players, I do not know. But in any case, we know that we are creating a new problem. So it is better to talk about it and maybe find a compromise to overcome or avoid all this. If alliances resolve the balance between worlds without leaving anyone behind, it is only better for everyone.

Or you can pretend nothing, as if I had never written anything, of course Anet is free to do so we would miss high. Then when alliances go live (as we know them right now) I can give you 6 months, and we will find ourselves here complaining that you have no one to fight with, you have no one you can compare with, or why you see so few tag commander, dead mode and other similar nonsense.

And I will tell you that until you solve problems with an exclusive mindset, until you start thinking in the most inclusive way possible, you can only expect this.

[Mabi black.1824]

9 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

If it isn't obvious yet, World Restructuring is just a way to merge servers

Of course you're right.

But the question is why does development want more granularity?

Why does development want to get really similar servers?

Because he wants to give his players a way to compare themselves honestly, because he wants to recover a credible confrontation. Perhaps because he has read hundreds of times on this forum that winning or losing has lost all kinds of meaning. And since we are in a PvP mode grant to large groups called worlds To compete with each other is good and right.

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Of course you're right.

But the question is why does development want more granularity?

Why does development want to get really similar servers?

Because he wants to give his players a way to compare themselves honestly, because he wants to recover a credible confrontation. Perhaps because he has read hundreds of times on this forum that winning or losing has lost all kinds of meaning. And since we are in a PvP mode grant to large groups called worlds To compete with each other is good and right.

No, to all of that. We might want to believe that balance is the primary concern or driving force behind this change, but it is not. It's a nice side-effect attained from the decision in how to realize the primary goal.

The main reason for alliances is the same as in PvE: make the maps and content player number future proof.

That and reduce the workload for the developers with manual re-linking, etc. Everything else that goes along with it is just a logical and sensible approach to work towards that design decision. Keeping fixed server sizes makes no sense, just as it didn't in PvE, if the goal is to future proof this content without having to deal with fluctuating players numbers (unless someone can come up with a good alternative idea which is less intrusive based around a fixed server system. Haven't seen any such idea so far).

Just like the main reason for strikes versus raids was to move towards a more scale-able system of content delivery for multiple difficulties (and fractals versus dungeons before that), just like removing unique abilities and effects and streamlining classes did for balance, just like streamlining loot did for unique rewards. All the changes serve the purpose to make the game more easily manageable as it continues to grow while keeping content and modes somewhat relevant.

As such all the discussions, bickering, complaining, praising, etc. is pointless. Most players don't even realize what the main goal is and are giving suggestions, advice, ideas based around a completely misunderstood goal. You want to give good ideas and suggestions? Start taking into account what the main goal behind the alliance system is.

The only things which can stop the alliance system right now is its own sheer complexity. Arenanet might give up midway down the road IF they can't make it work according to the minimum standards they have set themselves. That's basically it. All these suggestions and demands to fuse the system or go a different way (as long as they don't also full-fill the main reason behind the change): completely pointless.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Swagger.1459]

2 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

On the other hand, however, this mechanic also involves erasing these worlds every 8 weeks and reforming them randomly, with the result of emptying these worlds of all meaning.

A “world” will be made up of guilds and alliances. Players stay with their guild and their respective alliance, which will number up to a possible 1,500 people… so what’s the real problem? The reassigned name of a “world” after 8 weeks? You still get to play with your guild and alliance. 
 

For balance reasons, some guilds and alliances may be mixed, but it’s exactly what happens now with matching servers and transfers… But the benefit to alliances is that you can play with all your guildies and chosen formed alliance. 
 

 

[enkidu.5937]

21 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

There are more players complaining about minor balance changes on a regular basis than there is players complaining about alliances.

Yup because disliking minor balance changes does not make people quit, they complain and continue playing.

 

But the huge amount of players that get pissed by this alliance crap will just leave when it goes live, no reason to complain, desicion is already made, by the Devs and the player base.