Why Change WvW?

[Alsandar.7420]

I play WvW 6 days/week with my guild. It’s fun! We’re all very happy and have a great time. Even against Maguma. 
 

So why change WvW? What are the changes supposed to improve?

Edited October 20, 2022 by Alsandar.7420

[TheGrimm.5624]

47 minutes ago, Alsandar.7420 said:

I play WvW 6 days/week with my guild. It’s fun! We’re all very happy and have a great time. Even against Maguma. 
 

So why change WvW? What are the changes supposed to improve?

 

Population balance & rebalancing, allow people to form larger groups of people and guilds, improved rewards, more reasons to defend and reasons to win. Key to changes is to create better matchups over the long haul. There are various website blogs that spell it out further and there's a couple of forum posts on the top pages where these links have also been reposted. Plus a potential to allow other development in the game mode after the Alliances changes are deployed. 

[Alsandar.7420]

What about serving identity?

What are we fighting for in the beta? It doesn’t matter who’s ahead in the beta. We can’t rank up or rank down. No one seems to care about BL’s in the beta.

I just don’t get why it’s needed. I can’t think of a benefit to anything I’ve seen so far

 

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Alsandar.7420

[Angelz.9713]

Because Guilds would like the option of all being on the same server without having to have everyone switch with gems. A better system of aligning with a guild would be super nice and its been promised for years. 

[Alsandar.7420]

1 hour ago, Angelz.9713 said:

Because Guilds would like the option of all being on the same server without having to have everyone switch with gems. A better system of aligning with a guild would be super nice and its been promised for years. 

Well, if that’s the real problem, they could remove the gem cost. Then it would be just like pve. You could right click a person in your raid group, then click join on map, and join them in ebg

[AphoticEssance.7592]

What if a group does not care about being in a mindless blob? How does alliances fix that?

[AphoticEssance.7592]

I mean... alliances will never happen. It has been a 4 year meme.. but still ... I like 15s or 20s.. blob fights are mega boring

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Alsandar.7420 said:

What about serving identity?

What are we fighting for in the beta? It doesn’t matter who’s ahead in the beta. We can’t rank up or rank down. No one seems to care about BL’s in the beta.

I just don’t get why it’s needed. I can’t think of a benefit to anything I’ve seen so far

 

 

 

lol, I was trying to give you a neutral answer. I am more on the server side of the fence here. Overtime the complaints about the server linking's creating imbalances and transfer options lead ANet to the point where they determined the issue with relinking was too big of chunks of people at a time and if they wanted to be able to draw up better teams then they needed to break a server down into more flexible numbers. Hence what we are testing is how well their algorithms are doing into fitting people into groups and how those weeks work or don't. You can review my post history and see I am on the server  pride side but it seems along the way we lost that argument so now its a matter of making the best result we can. 

To be fair it doesn't matter who is ahead on a normal week, which is what is lined up after the Alliance change. More reasons for people to win. And I admit in my own hope more reasons for people to try and take, and hold. Holding has been something that has slowly keeps going away from the game mode. I hear you beta weeks are rough but its almost back to normal and hopefully they have more data to check their calculation and/or to narrow down bugs in the system.

[TheGrimm.5624]

55 minutes ago, AphoticEssance.7592 said:

What if a group does not care about being in a mindless blob? How does alliances fix that?

 

Roamer/havoc here myself. Does roaming and havocing need to be fixed? Ideally Alliances will allow havocs/roamers to also group into an Alliance if they want, and or the way the Teams are to be drawn if they don't then they will be grouped into Teams as well but potentially spread us out. Team A gets a 40 hour havoc, Team b gets a 40 hour havoc and so fourth. You don't have to be an Alliance and a Team is made up of Alliances, then Guilds then non-guilded. The system will try and distribute these groups around in roundly equal numbers to form the Teams. So nothing will require people that don't zerg will have to. I think we are seeing more zergs this week because of the bonus XP and the chaos of the new teams that are just for the week. So no Alliances are not about requiring more people to play large scale and a lot of havocs aren't as active this week because as stated the week doesn't matter except for those looking for the XP gain. 

[enkidu.5937]

4 hours ago, Alsandar.7420 said:

What are the changes supposed to improve?

Anet tries to introduce a QoL tool for guilds which they call "alliances". The alliance leader doesn't have to manage 500 ppl but can just invite a handful of guilds that manage themselves internally. Though I highly doubt that it will be so easy

-> drama inc. 😎

 

The other big "innovation" is they will delete all servers. So you either join a player-controlled guild / alliance or become random filling mass

-> more drama inc. 😝

 

So, after that exodus, Anet hopes that the players will do a huge "world restructuring" by themselves 🤪😵😆, start to create guilds and alliances, build new communities, so Anet would get more puzzle pieces for team creation. Ofc thats not gonna happen, most people enjoyed to play in a constant team without the drama of player control and not in a mostly random team under player control.

 

To sum up this pile of kitten: Anet will create a second EotM that no one needs and literally no one has asked for and a shitton of drama 🥳

[Chaba.5410]

4 hours ago, Alsandar.7420 said:

I play WvW 6 days/week with my guild. It’s fun! We’re all very happy and have a great time. Even against Maguma. 
 

So why change WvW? What are the changes supposed to improve?

What do you find fun? When your guild is rallied, are you caring about your server's placement at all and how it's score will affect your match next week? Are there moments when it's not so fun and why?

Edited October 20, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Mabi black.1824]

5 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

What do you find fun? When your guild is rallied, are you caring about your server's placement at all and how it's score will affect your match next week? Are there moments when it's not so fun and why?

This is an unfair question. We all know what are the problems that our mode has right now to get balanced teams. It is clear to everyone that the competition between servers is questioned and is lacking precisely because of the same problems. But this does not mean that the new system of alliances (as we know it at the moment) which simultaneously provides for the loss of any meaning that a server could have, as the only solution.

It is just one solution among many other solutions, or it is only a part of the solution that necessarily needs to be expanded and integrated and contextualized in this mode of world vs world.

[Custodio.6134]

Additionally: don´t forget that guilds are ALREADY an essential core-part for every pug-player. 

The vast majority of commanders are either not only a part of a progressive WvW-guild, they often also are their internal raidleads. It´s those commanders, that go for a public tag and get everyone together for the big blob-fights and sieges. And if you look at arcdps in a public frequently, you will probably notice mostly the same players being top-dps/strips/cleanses consistently. Take a look at their guild-tags, and you will most likely notice that the majority of them are progressive or semi-progressive guild-players. Guilds are very often providing the core of a squad, carrying through the rest of the squad. 

 

Alliances essentially will change nothing about the pure zerg-gameplay itself. 

 

For roamers: why do you even care so much about other players? roamers are usually solo-players, or some small groups of players that can easily organize in small guilds (which the system will be based on) or just join a big alliance/guild (which is what currently already happens in the beta-tests, as alliance-functionality isn´t implemented yet). 

so again, there´s almost no change here either.

 

The big points where WR has impact are:

1. team-balancing, because the playerbase gets divided into more granular portions of players, which makes building balanced teams way easier than huge, chunky servers that need to be linked

2. player organization, as guilds are pretty much guaranteed to have every member on their team (even if they haven´t been a WvW-guild before)

3. team-stability, because so far, ANet told us that mid-season-transfers won´t be a thing anymore, so sudden mass-exodus after "relink" is simply not possible in the new system. 

4. player-choice about their teammates. If you really care about the social aspect of the game and don´t want to get seperated from "your people", you can just join their alliance. If you don´t want to do that, you probably don´t care as much about them as you tell yourself you would. 

[Noc Rubu.5804]

8 hours ago, Alsandar.7420 said:

Well, if that’s the real problem, they could remove the gem cost. Then it would be just like pve. You could right click a person in your raid group, then click join on map, and join them in ebg

Ah, but Anet makes money off gem costs... 🙂

[Chaba.5410]

2 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

This is an unfair question. We all know what are the problems that our mode has right now to get balanced teams. It is clear to everyone that the competition between servers is questioned and is lacking precisely because of the same problems. But this does not mean that the new system of alliances (as we know it at the moment) which simultaneously provides for the loss of any meaning that a server could have, as the only solution.

It is just one solution among many other solutions, or it is only a part of the solution that necessarily needs to be expanded and integrated and contextualized in this mode of world vs world.

What would be unfair would be to presume to know what the OP is finding fun just because I'm a longtime player. There's nothing wrong with hearing someone out and asking for further details.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Svarty.8019]

13 hours ago, Alsandar.7420 said:

So why change WvW? What are the changes supposed to improve?

To answer this question I would need to provide you with a very long document, and I don't think you're really inclined to read such a weighty tome.

 

The TL;DR is that it could be a lot better. My advice to Anet is, DO adjust WvW, but don't try to curate the experience. Give players tools, instead, and let them create the content with those tools.

 

Giant zergs should have more resistance, it's boring when it's easy.

Smaller zergs should be able to sneakily ninja things, it's boring when it's too difficult. 

 

Also,

• remove shield generators completely. They're OPAF when used by giant zergs.
• make Siegeraiser/Siegecrusher trigger off 2 people and give him permanent Righteous Indignation buff.
• bring back banner rezzing the lord in some form - it's amazing fun! If you want to limit it, make it a skill on the turtle banner that also destroys the banner .. or something.. anything!
• improve all of the underperforming guild upgrades, centaur banner is a joke, as are auto-turrets and armored dolyak and hardened siege. The alternatives are hugely better.
• reduce effectiveness of watchtower, it's easy mode.

 

These are just some examples of the thousands and thousands of completely ignored suggestions that would improve WvW.

It's extremely disappointing that they didn't even fix dolyak desynchs or that green dolyak that gets stuck at garrison. There are lots of band-aid invisible walls and arbitrarily chosen places where we can't build siege, which only frustrate players who value the freedom to do so very highly.

 

That's why fix WvW. It could be so much better, even more fun!

Edited October 20, 2022 by Svarty.8019

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Soupeod.5714 said:

Ah, but Anet makes money off gem costs... 🙂

They might but that doesn't impact Teams:

* Alliances = no transfers, your WvW guild is what determines your server. This was in response to someone asking how will they stop bandwagoning if you can still transfer post alliances. Solo players will be able to choose but it will still have metrics to lock worlds.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Alliances

Edited October 20, 2022 by TheGrimm.5624
forum double spacing bug

[kash.9213]

4 hours ago, Custodio.6134 said:

Additionally: don´t forget that guilds are ALREADY an essential core-part for every pug-player. 

The vast majority of commanders are either not only a part of a progressive WvW-guild, they often also are their internal raidleads. It´s those commanders, that go for a public tag and get everyone together for the big blob-fights and sieges. And if you look at arcdps in a public frequently, you will probably notice mostly the same players being top-dps/strips/cleanses consistently. Take a look at their guild-tags, and you will most likely notice that the majority of them are progressive or semi-progressive guild-players. Guilds are very often providing the core of a squad, carrying through the rest of the squad. 

 

Alliances essentially will change nothing about the pure zerg-gameplay itself. 

 

For roamers: why do you even care so much about other players? roamers are usually solo-players, or some small groups of players that can easily organize in small guilds (which the system will be based on) or just join a big alliance/guild (which is what currently already happens in the beta-tests, as alliance-functionality isn´t implemented yet). 

so again, there´s almost no change here either.

 

The big points where WR has impact are:

1. team-balancing, because the playerbase gets divided into more granular portions of players, which makes building balanced teams way easier than huge, chunky servers that need to be linked

2. player organization, as guilds are pretty much guaranteed to have every member on their team (even if they haven´t been a WvW-guild before)

3. team-stability, because so far, ANet told us that mid-season-transfers won´t be a thing anymore, so sudden mass-exodus after "relink" is simply not possible in the new system. 

4. player-choice about their teammates. If you really care about the social aspect of the game and don´t want to get seperated from "your people", you can just join their alliance. If you don´t want to do that, you probably don´t care as much about them as you tell yourself you would. 

Roamers aren't solitary players, they're just free of sitting through squad prep times and being inundated with hit or miss decisions. 

Commanders being in a guild doesn't mean their guild is what propels the action. Most of the action I see for the longest amount of time while I'm logged on is from hidden tag fast moving squads and those are all different guild tags. Most people aren't even with that guild squad to get picked up on any charts. I know it's different server to server, but that take sounds straight out of a few years ago when servers like NSP were still an actual server. 

Guilds already have a huge impact on the playerbase and they made their mess. Giving them more control over the playerbase will go about as good as it sounds. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by kash.9213

[Custodio.6134]

Just now, kash.9213 said:

Commanders being in a guild doesn't mean their guild is what propels the action. Most of the action I see for the longest amount of time while I'm logged on is from hidden tag fast moving squads and those are all different guild tags. Most people aren't even with that guild squad to get picked up on any charts. I know it's different server to server, but that take sounds straight out of a few years ago when servers like NSP still an actual server. 

hidden squads are just... hidden squads. it´s totally up to the commander if he goes visible or not. Some commanders just go hidden by default, even if "public" because they don´t want non-voice players in their squad. 

this has NOTHING to do with guilds, it´s simply the commander's choice

[Dayra.7405]

We never get alliances.. They aren’t able to allocate enough devs that can handle this old code no one fully understand anymore.

ANet repeats the same Beta over and over again till enough people in the forum say: No

Then they will listen and stomp alliances.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Dayra.7405

[Mabi black.1824]

2 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

What would be unfair would be to presume to know what the OP is finding fun just because I'm a longtime player. There's nothing wrong with hearing someone out and asking for further details.

You are right, I had the presumption to already see the answer in your question.😅

[Nymthalas.4019]

14 hours ago, Alsandar.7420 said:

What about serving identity?

What are we fighting for in the beta? It doesn’t matter who’s ahead in the beta. We can’t rank up or rank down. No one seems to care about BL’s in the beta.

I just don’t get why it’s needed. I can’t think of a benefit to anything I’ve seen so far

 

 

Alliance identity?

[Nymthalas.4019]

12 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

 

Roamer/havoc here myself. Does roaming and havocing need to be fixed? Ideally Alliances will allow havocs/roamers to also group into an Alliance if they want, and or the way the Teams are to be drawn if they don't then they will be grouped into Teams as well but potentially spread us out. Team A gets a 40 hour havoc, Team b gets a 40 hour havoc and so fourth. You don't have to be an Alliance and a Team is made up of Alliances, then Guilds then non-guilded. The system will try and distribute these groups around in roundly equal numbers to form the Teams. So nothing will require people that don't zerg will have to. I think we are seeing more zergs this week because of the bonus XP and the chaos of the new teams that are just for the week. So no Alliances are not about requiring more people to play large scale and a lot of havocs aren't as active this week because as stated the week doesn't matter except for those looking for the XP gain. 

In the end I think havoc groups will get alliances,  because having a zerging guild and havoc guild in the same alliance will be beneficial for both, better than 2 zerg guilds or 2 havoc guilds in the same alliance.

[kash.9213]

46 minutes ago, Custodio.6134 said:

hidden squads are just... hidden squads. it´s totally up to the commander if he goes visible or not. Some commanders just go hidden by default, even if "public" because they don´t want non-voice players in their squad. 

this has NOTHING to do with guilds, it´s simply the commander's choice

Good, then you do understand. 

[Noc Rubu.5804]

11 hours ago, Nymthalas.4019 said:

In the end I think havoc groups will get alliances,  because having a zerging guild and havoc guild in the same alliance will be beneficial for both, better than 2 zerg guilds or 2 havoc guilds in the same alliance.

Hopefully all the havoc groups go to MAG. haha