Top 5 Misconceptions by Anet

[Chaba.5410]

15 hours ago, meerfunkuhtron.9725 said:

The only reason server identity has been null is because it was literally killed by Anet through world linking.

Oh it was?  Explain all the posts complaining about Maguuma then.  Why do so many players modify the way they play and abandon EBG when they see the word "Maguuma"?

Edited November 29, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

bc they are bad

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

9 hours ago, Custodio.6134 said:

Yep. The "server identity" won't be gone entirely, it will only be replaced with "alliance identity". It's literally the same. 

A handful of people, guilds, or even single persons keeping communities alive is also already a thing, so not really a big change is to be expected in that regard. 

don't fool yourselves, there is nothing left in this gamemode that could create something even close to an identity. only bad mentality, cowardish playstyle is left here. no-name blobs rampage around and are nearly unstoppable. it's a sad view honestly

 

every update makes the situation just worse. like this one, horrible. nobody wasted more than 5min for the whole update planning...

 

i'm closer to abandoning this game than ever before, there's no point anymore in playing a mode that gets actively destroyed without any reason

[meerfunkuhtron.9725]

19 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Which is the eqvivalent of alliances, hence the weird discourse between the sides. Every concern people have about it - such as "1 guild leader having the power to ruin it" to take a random example mentioned above, apply to the old server identity in the "better" days - 1 popular and famous (or infamous) commander leaving and *poof* the server is dead and everybody else leaves.

So, I can only speak from personal experience of course, but that was never the case for the server I was on. Our popular commanders were multiple, and they belonged not only to the big guilds, but also the small ones. When changes or important topics were being discussed, we had a round table that included all the guild leaders and commanders so each one of them had a a voice... making it so it's not just one person "holding it together". When a few inevitably left, we lamented their leaving, but that definitely didn't cause our server to decay. 'Cause afterwards, other individuals stepped up to take that person's place, and we moved on.

 

14 hours ago, Custodio.6134 said:

Yep. The "server identity" won't be gone entirely, it will only be replaced with "alliance identity". It's literally the same. 

A handful of people, guilds, or even single persons keeping communities alive is also already a thing, so not really a big change is to be expected in that regard. 

I think there's still a good difference between server and alliance identity, but for me, at this point it's largely conjecture and it will only be clarified once it goes live. I am curious though, 'cause I've been given different answers before and couldn't find the actual answer on the game's wiki... Are alliances shuffled from time to time still? Or are players free to pretty much keep the alliance they want for as long as they wanted?

[meerfunkuhtron.9725]

10 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Oh it was?  Explain all the posts complaining about Maguuma then.  Why do so many players modify the way they play and abandon EBG when they see the word "Maguuma"?

This is actually an interesting thing to point out 'cause I was talking about this with a guildie the other day...

My theory is that Maguuma has enough players within its server that, even though they might get paired with other servers, their playstyle still takes over. So yes, I think Maguuma is one of those servers that have kept a part of their identity intact, which is why they're pretty much (for lack of a better phrase) a "force to be reckoned with". They have an over-arching purpose, which guides how their players behave. This makes them stronger against others who are scattered. Which is a big part of the problem, IMO, with the way that WvW has become... because the rest of the servers either don't have enough numbers to drive their own goal (so server pairings are essentially working against each other/not putting their resources together), or it's filled with people who only care about PPT which leads to incredibly stale "matches", or it has way more new players than veterans so they don't know much about what to actually do (again, no goal to strive for).

6 hours ago, kamikharzeeh.8016 said:

don't fool yourselves, there is nothing left in this gamemode that could create something even close to an identity. only bad mentality, cowardish playstyle is left here. no-name blobs rampage around and are nearly unstoppable. it's a sad view honestly

 

every update makes the situation just worse. like this one, horrible. nobody wasted more than 5min for the whole update planning...

 

i'm closer to abandoning this game than ever before, there's no point anymore in playing a mode that gets actively destroyed without any reason

Honestly... it sucks, but I share your sentiment.
Case in point: Our t3 keep in our home bl was attacked, by a 30-ish enemy zerg. We had about 20+ people. It should have been a good time to defend, and yet I had to argue and convince people to stay and defend. We had enough, but apparently unless it was a sure win, no one was going to stick around.

Anet needs to come up with a way to encourage people to actually play the kitten game mode. Because at this point in time, from what I'm seeing, it's treated like a giant sPvP map with just zergs. People just want to cap points, then circle the map for other easily capped points. Players need to be incentivized to guard and defend their terrain, otherwise, just take away all these structures and replace them with a circle because that's how it's being treated anyway.

So I feel like, unless this also changes when the alliance update comes around, then things might not come out any differently. I'm assuming they're hinging on alliance leaders to motivate their members enough, so that the focus on just PPT wouldn't be the norm? To me, that's not enough. They actually need to change the way people are rewarded so that we're more encouraged to play the different aspects of the game, and not just abuse one aspect of it.

Edited November 30, 2022 by meerfunkuhtron.9725

[Custodio.6134]

9 hours ago, meerfunkuhtron.9725 said:

Are alliances shuffled from time to time still? Or are players free to pretty much keep the alliance they want for as long as they wanted?

If the players stay in their wvw guilds, and the alliance leaders don't kick a guild out, the alliance should stay pretty stable (ofc alliance management is still purely hypothetical, as we don't know the details yet!!!). 

But when it comes to world creation, yes there will be player movement. This is because

1. People/guilds may join/leave the alliance

2. "free agents" will be randomly assigned to fill the gaps

3. Guilds/alliances may disband and Form new ones

Keep in mind, that this will mostly be happening after the season whe the teams are rebuilt, but still may happen during mid-season. 

[Dawdler.8521]

35 minutes ago, Custodio.6134 said:

If the players stay in their wvw guilds, and the alliance leaders don't kick a guild out, the alliance should stay pretty stable (ofc alliance management is still purely hypothetical, as we don't know the details yet!!!). 

But when it comes to world creation, yes there will be player movement. This is because

1. People/guilds may join/leave the alliance

2. "free agents" will be randomly assigned to fill the gaps

3. Guilds/alliances may disband and Form new ones

Keep in mind, that this will mostly be happening after the season whe the teams are rebuilt, but still may happen during mid-season. 

Or in short, alliances are not teams.

 The content of the teams get shuffled because its Anet managed. The content of alliances does not because its player managed.

If this thread have proved anything, it is that this remain the top miconception by players.

[Custodio.6134]

Exactly

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

just that the "anet managed" system with serverlinkings has never really worked. so the @Dawdler.8521 complaint makes about zero sense.

 

they throw things around randomly, using some ppt algorithm that makes zero sense whatsoever, and repeat that simply. and all the pve/ppt farmer bandwagoners and other kitten ganker groups ,who only seek easy matchups, will just hop after the relinkings and within a few days u have to same mess again

[Diku.2546]

4 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Or in short, alliances are not teams.

 The content of the teams get shuffled because its Anet managed. The content of alliances does not because its player managed.

If this thread have proved anything, it is that this remain the top miconception by players.

 

It's like everyone is mixing up the Imperial Senate with the Rebel Alliance.

"Alliance, in international relations, a formal agreement between two or more states for mutual support in case of war."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/alliance-politics

Alliances are not teams - they're two or more states.  Ok, don't ask me what states are, but you can be certain it's not teams in international/galaxy relations - I think.

Wait a minute . . . I think I know why everyone is getting confused!

We should Directly change the Match-up Mechanic instead of In-Directly by Team Creation . . . imho
https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/89449/wvg-world-vs-globes/p1

Yours truly,
Diku

Credibility requires critical insight & time.
#MyEoDPurchaseComingSoon
#AlliancesWhen
#RoadMapWhen

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Diku.2546