Great balance this beta

[thisistheway.4301]

I was in Maguumaloo and we won all day every day, pretty balanced for me.
Anyway it was a beta wasn't it, I mean what is the significance of the word 🤔

Looking forward to more of that balance in the final realease, all day every day, thanks.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Typhoon.8645

[Stash.8401]

MOOGOOLOO

[TheGrimm.5624]

10 hours ago, godfat.2604 said:

I suspect they’re trying to somehow accommodate timezone in their algorithm now, even though it’s clearly done poorly. This will cause population imbalance during specific times, and further reduce activities. It would be interesting if we can see the activities over time for each match ups to understand if this is the case.

 

Based on ANet's prior statement this is being considered but not for the original launch. Which could be part of the problem between betas. Agree with your other comments. Its seems your mileage varies in betas and some of that might be people's interest in the betas and I think some of that is due to them not accounting for coverage. 

[Sarpan.9074]

On 12/5/2022 at 3:41 PM, Nikola.3841 said:

 

Don't blame Anet because Maguuma put whole server into 1 guild

I'd like to know how they did that with the two-day notice that most of us got.

[godfat.2604]

12 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Based on ANet's prior statement this is being considered but not for the original launch. Which could be part of the problem between betas.

Sorry, I realized I put the wrong tense in my comment you quoted. Typed on iPad so I didn't take enough of time to proofread. I fixed it into:

Quote

I suspect they’re trying to somehow accommodate timezone in their algorithm now, even though it’s clearly done poorly. This did cause population imbalance during specific times, and further reduced activities.

I think they should accommodate timezone, but I only meant to say this time it's not done in a right way. That said, maybe giving it some time for match making to work, it can stabilize. On the other hand, I think we can also give guilds options to tick the timezone they generally raid. I am not sure if this might be manipulated, maybe it's best determined by the system, but I suppose this information can be helpful for guild members as well.

20 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Its seems your mileage varies in betas and some of that might be people's interest in the betas and I think some of that is due to them not accounting for coverage. 

Yeah there's a lot of dynamics, and each match ups can be greatly different, each timezone can also be greatly different, each week and each days can be quite different, too. Like I can mostly only play on the weekend, I know much less about the weekday gameplay, and it's impossible to get every single point of time balanced. I think we should get this WR out of beta as soon as possible, and give it some time to see where it'll go. At worst, just don't reshuffle at all, keep all worlds intact, and it'll be no different than the old worlds without linking, except under different names. This system is simply more flexible to give us options.

[Stash.8401]

52 minutes ago, Sarpan.9074 said:

I'd like to know how they did that with the two-day notice that most of us got.

we were already in one guild

[MedievalThings.5417]

Anet does not need to intervene.  Players chose to make a single guild (500 person max) so they could be in the same guild for alliances, nothing more.  Mag is not the boogie man.  Individually they aren't even very good.  They have a handful of skilled players, like every other server, and then numbers, like some other servers.  What mag has is coverage in time zones their opponents don't.

 

Mag isn't taking everything because they are just that much better than everyone else.  Mag is taking everything because it is how they like to play, and when the other servers have no population, they take everything and tier it up.  A lot of other servers could do the same thing, but choose not to, because it isn't their playstyle.  Mag will push and fail, push and fail, push and fail until that time of day where you have half their numbers.  Then they will push, take it, and then PPT like no tomorrow, tiering everything up.

 

There is a reason you don't see mag outside SMC when they don't have a lot on.  Cause they don't fight with less, ever.  Nothing in the rules makes that a bad thing.  It's just how they choose to play.

 

Other servers could be more aggressive and take everything while everyone else is asleep, and tier it up, put ewp's on everything and only fight smaller groups.  But it's a pretty boring playstyle, so most people don't like to do it.  They DO like to do it.  They live for the forum posts, the toxic chat/dm's.  They love fighting 5 guys with 20+.  They have trouble getting 20 to fight 20, especially if it is a comp.  Because that is "boring" to them.

 

So no, Anet doesn't really need to do anything.  Alliances are not going to fix wvw.  Alliances are exactly what we have now, with everything the same, EXCEPT that the server name you log in as will be different.  The off hours taking everything will be the same.  And, if you are in a match with moogaloo, the off hours taking everything, will be them taking everything and tiering it up, just like now.

[Evenge.4067]

As long as players have any control over populations or gaming the system to increase their numbers, the game mode will not improve. Alliances won't change anything. Unfortunately too many players don't actually want to improve WvW, they just want to crush opponents with huge number advantage. 

[Chaba.5410]

12 minutes ago, Evenge.4067 said:

As long as players have any control over populations or gaming the system to increase their numbers, the game mode will not improve. Alliances won't change anything. Unfortunately too many players don't actually want to improve WvW, they just want to crush opponents with huge number advantage. 

Not clear what you are suggesting. Are you saying that guilds should be broken up and everyone randomly reshuffled and unable to transfer? That's the only way I can see removing any player control.

[Evenge.4067]

11 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Not clear what you are suggesting. Are you saying that guilds should be broken up and everyone randomly reshuffled and unable to transfer? That's the only way I can see removing any player control.

Mainly I would suggest that 500 is too large a limit for alliance numbers.  That number will enable almost whole WvW servers to maintain, henceforth changing nothing. 

[Chaba.5410]

52 minutes ago, Evenge.4067 said:

Mainly I would suggest that 500 is too large a limit for alliance numbers.  That number will enable almost whole WvW servers to maintain, henceforth changing nothing. 

How would they be able to reduce that limit when guild max is 500?

[Evenge.4067]

35 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

How would they be able to reduce that limit when guild max is 500?

Hell I don't know. Do you? I don't get paid to figure that out, but there are people who do, and they don't seem to be fixing a dam thing.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 minute ago, Evenge.4067 said:

Hell I don't know. Do you? I don't get paid to figure that out, but there are people who do, and they don't seem to be fixing a dam thing.

Yes you do. We all know how. It's called forcibly splitting up guilds, Anet kicking guild members from your rooster to set it to a smaller size (lets say cutting it in half to 250). It'll make literally everyone in GW2 pissed - especially huge PvE guilds getting hit by the WvW fallout - but if that's what you want it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

If not, then 500 is the minimum size for an alliance even if you dont like it.

[Chaba.5410]

29 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Yes you do. We all know how. It's called forcibly splitting up guilds, Anet kicking guild members from your rooster to set it to a smaller size (lets say cutting it in half to 250). It'll make literally everyone in GW2 pissed - especially huge PvE guilds getting hit by the WvW fallout - but if that's what you want it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

If not, then 500 is the minimum size for an alliance even if you dont like it.

Even if they don't reduce the guild limit and implemented some max limit within a guild for picking wvw, it would still upset the playerbase. Players would complain about everything they do now with elitism and someone else getting to decide if they can join a team with their friends.

[Evenge.4067]

5 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Even if they don't reduce the guild limit and implemented some max limit within a guild for picking wvw, it would still upset the playerbase. Players would complain about everything they do now with elitism and someone else getting to decide if they can join a team with their friends.

I think the players that would complain would be the ones who have taken advantage of the system by stacking huge numbers onto servers. 

Let em cry.

[enkidu.5937]

19 hours ago, Evenge.4067 said:

Hell I don't know. Do you? I don't get paid to figure that out, but there are people who do, and they don't seem to be fixing a dam thing.

Thats not a secret. You have to set one of your guilds as "WvW guild", and if already 500 people have done this as members of guilds in that alliance, you're too late.

 

So Anet could easily reduce it to 250 without "destroying guilds" lol

 

No matter how Anet will implement this technically, the old problem will persist:

500 casuals in an alliance is still not enough to build a team feeling or community, cause they only play lets say two times a week for 1 hour and would only rarely see them. But 500 highly organized PPTlers or 500 professional PPKlers is already too much.

[Cyninja.2954]

3 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

No matter how Anet will implement this technically, the old problem will persist:

500 casuals in an alliance is still not enough to build a team feeling or community, cause they only play lets say two times a week for 1 hour and would only rarely see them. But 500 highly organized PPTlers or 500 professional PPKlers is already too much.

 

Alliances are not worlds and we have no reason to believe that a very active WvW guild would be treated the same way matchmaking value wise as "500 casuals".

 

That said, there is no problem with alliances or guilds of 500 players in a system of constantly reformed worlds. This will depend a lot on total amount of players and world sizes. I believe the current target goal is around 2,500 players (we do not know what this means in regard to player hours, because it is likely that play hours will factor in here again. So a very active 500 man WvW alliance might very well count as 1,000 "players") which leaves by far enough room for 1 or even 2 alliances on a world.

 

If player numbers decrease overall, before reducing world size, the developers can cut world totals. Instead of 5 tiers we then get 4, then 3 with 15,12 and 9 individual worlds respectively. The outset is the same as if a few servers were completely dead in T4 and T5 now (which we have witnessed in the past, especially pre covid). The difference being that the new system can actually reform worlds as to allow players to continue playing.

Edited December 11, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

On 12/11/2022 at 1:23 AM, Dawdler.8521 said:

If not, then 500 is the minimum size for an alliance even if you dont like it.

The point is not whether you like it or not. The point is that it's stupid.

The goal is to have many small pieces to mix. A piece of 500 players is too big in a full team of 1500/2000 players or whatever they are. It is much smarter to divide them into 5 pieces of 100 players. You will get a much better result in terms of balance. Those 500-player PVX guilds won't complain at all because they continue to remain a guild of 500 players. If their interior has 200 active WWW players they will have to organize and divide 100 players will build Alliance X and another 100 players will form Alliance Y. The case will constitute the matches for both and maybe they will be matched on the same server or maybe not. like all other players in this mode. There is no need to get, there is only to organize.

Anet itself immediately pointed out that the limit of 500 is something they will observe carefully, and they reserve the right to modify it, because it is already clear and evident now that it is too large a number.

[Dawdler.8521]

32 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

The point is not whether you like it or not. The point is that it's stupid.

The goal is to have many small pieces to mix. A piece of 500 players is too big in a full team of 1500/2000 players or whatever they are. It is much smarter to divide them into 5 pieces of 100 players. You will get a much better result in terms of balance. Those 500-player PVX guilds won't complain at all because they continue to remain a guild of 500 players. If their interior has 200 active WWW players they will have to organize and divide 100 players will build Alliance X and another 100 players will form Alliance Y. The case will constitute the matches for both and maybe they will be matched on the same server or maybe not. like all other players in this mode. There is no need to get, there is only to organize.

Anet itself immediately pointed out that the limit of 500 is something they will observe carefully, and they reserve the right to modify it, because it is already clear and evident now that it is too large a number.

Same thing there - even if you think it's stupid, it's still minimum as long as a guild has 500 man cap. You're arguing that the guild cap is too high (since we dont have alliances in any beta) if it's "clear and evident" already. Which again lead to splitting guilds by force. No ifs buts or maybes. There is no solution that has any other result. 

The only thing you could do is dump it on the player, ie make current guilds PvE only and force players to create new 100 man capped WvW specific guilds (you can forget alliances because there would be no point at that low number, like every guild would have a few players online each at a time unless they are 110% hardcore with scheduled raiding in which case it's a guild anyway) 

I dont think that would go down well. 

[Mabi black.1824]

Perhaps we can explain ourselves better with an example. because I mean alliances of 100 players. Let's pretend I'm in a 500-player guild and you're also in a 500-player guild. Our guilds form alliances to play WWW. Both guilds know the player logos and they know that WWW players are only 50 out of 500. Others don't mind make PVE , Dungeron and when they go to WWW ( once a month ) just want to make tickets and don't even care what team they play for.

Alliance of 100 active players made. without modifying their guilds of 500 men.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Mabi black.1824

[Dawdler.8521]

5 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Perhaps we can explain ourselves better with an example. because I mean alliances of 100 players. Let's pretend I'm in a 500-player guild and you're also in a 500-player guild. Our guilds form alliances to play WWW. Both guilds know the player logos and they know that WWW players are only 50 out of 500. Others don't mind make PVE , Dungeron and when they go to WWW ( once a month ) just want to make tickets and don't even care what team they play for.

Alliance of 100 active players made. without modifying their guilds of 500 men.

What's the example of?

Yes, you created a 100 man alliance. You can do that perfectly fine.

But someone else can form a 500 man guild that's not in an alliance where everyone select it as their WvW guild. 

What are you going to rely on to avoid them doing that, the honor system lol?

[enkidu.5937]

20 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

Alliances are not worlds and we have no reason to believe that a very active WvW guild would be treated the same way matchmaking value wise as "500 casuals".

 

That said, there is no problem with alliances or guilds of 500 players in a system of constantly reformed worlds.

makes no sense, didn t read the rest, sry try again 😉

[godfat.2604]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

What are you going to rely on to avoid them doing that, the honor system lol?

It can be made that there’s a check when someone tries to pick a particular WvW guild, the system will check if the alliance for this particular guild has spaces for this player or not, if not then this player cannot pick this guild as their WvW guild. The same check should be performed when the alliance changes the guilds it has. It cannot add another guild which already has members picked more than it can have. Or alternatively, when a guild changes which alliances it belongs, it can drop everyone and those players will have to re-pick their WvW guild. First come first served in all cases will be simplest. Guild leaders will need to be able to de-select for members as well.

Note that I am only saying that this can be done technically. I will not support this idea due to all the complexity and it’s not user friendly at all, and it’ll be confusing as hell. I also don’t think 500 members is an issue that we need to deal with either. Alliance should have its own timezone coverage, which if we divide that by 4 timezones, then each timezone can only have 125 players. If we look at current activities, I believe each world/team has like more than 100k players so 500 shouldn’t be an issue. Not everyone play like there’s no tomorrow and had God(dess) of WvW. Of course, it can still be possible that someone tries to form a mega alliance that tries to rally 500 players online at the same time… Good luck with that. It usually ends up with dramas and politics and it probably can’t last long at all. It’ll be super boring because no one can fight them, too.

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, enkidu.5937 said:

makes no sense, didn t read the rest, sry try again 😉

 

No worries. One of the most common things about players criticizing and complaining about the restructuring and alliance system is their lack of actually understanding it. If someone hasn't bothered to understand it by now, there is no reason to explain it again. The system is in development and unless the developers say otherwise, that's the way forward.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, godfat.2604 said:

It can be made that there’s a check when someone tries to pick a particular WvW guild, the system will check if the alliance for this particular guild has spaces for this player or not, if not then this player cannot pick this guild as their WvW guild. The same check should be performed when the alliance changes the guilds it has. It cannot add another guild which already has members picked more than it can have. Or alternatively, when a guild changes which alliances it belongs, it can drop everyone and those players will have to re-pick their WvW guild. First come first served in all cases will be simplest. Guild leaders will need to be able to de-select for members as well.

Note that I am only saying that this can be done technically. I will not support this idea due to all the complexity and it’s not user friendly at all, and it’ll be confusing as hell. I also don’t think 500 members is an issue that we need to deal with either. Alliance should have its own timezone coverage, which if we divide that by 4 timezones, then each timezone can only have 125 players. If we look at current activities, I believe each world/team has like more than 100k players so 500 shouldn’t be an issue. Not everyone play like there’s no tomorrow and had God(dess) of WvW. Of course, it can still be possible that someone tries to form a mega alliance that tries to rally 500 players online at the same time… Good luck with that. It usually ends up with dramas and politics and it probably can’t last long at all. It’ll be super boring because no one can fight them, too.

Anything can be done technically but that what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the "issue" of the 500 man cap. 

In a full 500 man guild everyone can select it as a WvW guild. It's as simple as that. Least common denominator. If it's possible, people will do it just for the advantage. Alliance limited to lower will just cause players to ignore them and make community WvW guilds instead.

What you describe for alliance functionality is pretty much what Anet has already told us how they work, alliance leaders set a slot count, guild leaders assign members and guild+alliance members are differently matched to just guild members.