Great balance this beta

[enkidu.5937]

7 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

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.

that was a very poor second try from your part 😏

[Chaba.5410]

3 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

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

Made perfect sense to me.  Maybe the problem is on your end.

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

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?

I honestly don't really know how the new system will work. If you have to select the WWW Guild, if you have to select the WWW Alliance, how do you allocate 50 Alliance seats to this Guild and 100 seats to another Guild etc etc My reasoning was limited to saying that you can continue to be part of a large PVX Guild limited to 500 players and at the same time be part of a WWW Alliance limited to 250 players. serenely and without any kind of drama.

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

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?

If you have a WWW-only guild that has 500 players and if Anet establishes the rules of alliances limited to 250 players, it is evident that this guild will have to organize itself to create 2 alliances to allow its players to play together again. Not all together because the rules do not allow it, but still all together in two large groups.

It's something that all players have to deal with, it's about everyone. Even that small guild of 50 men who identifies with its server would like to run with all 1500 players on the server. But it can't do it because there are rules and limits. They will have to organize accordingly. The goal is to have many small pieces. In terms of balance my personal thought is that pieces of 500 players are too big. and the new system will be increasingly effective, in direct proportion to the decrease of that numerical limit (currently defined in 500)

[Dawdler.8521]

14 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I honestly don't really know how the new system will work. If you have to select the WWW Guild, if you have to select the WWW Alliance, how do you allocate 50 Alliance seats to this Guild and 100 seats to another Guild etc etc My reasoning was limited to saying that you can continue to be part of a large PVX Guild limited to 500 players and at the same time be part of a WWW Alliance limited to 250 players. serenely and without any kind of drama.

Again, sigh... we know how it works because Anet already described that functionality. When an alliance invites a guild, its with a slot count like 50 or 100. The guild leader then assigns members to the alliance.

This has NOTHING to do with the reason for the cap, which is that 500 can select the guild as their WvW guild == any alliance limit below 500 is pointless because that mean people just create guilds instead. 

So sure you can set a 250 man alliance limit. 

There will still be 500 man "alliances" however.

Because guilds are actually the core of the system, not alliances. Alliances is just extra management on top to avoid people leaving their current guilds for a 500 man "optimised" guild.

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

any alliance limit below 500 is pointless because that mean people just create guilds instead. 

I could be wrong but I think it doesn't work that way. You won't solve anything if you create a guild of 500 players if the rules of Anet define an alliance limit of 250. Because only 250 players of that guild will be guaranteed to be assigned all together in the same world. the others don't. So they have to organize 2 alliances. 250 players select Alliance X and 250 players select Alliance Y. and it will be the only way to play together on 2 large groups. 

No one prevents you from having a guild of 500 players, but the rules may prevent you from all 500 being assigned on the same server.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

No one prevents you from having a guild of 500 players, but the rules may prevent you from all 500 being assigned on the same server.

No they dont because there are no such rules and if they exist it would forcibly break apart guilds. That's what this entire argument is about. I think this will be my last point on the matter because this is getting repetitive, but to state it really simple:

If you cap alliances to 500, the "largest force" guild or alliance under world restructure per team is a 500 man group.
If you cap alliances to 250, guilds can still be 500 on a team. 
If you cap alliances to 100, guilds can still be 500 on a team. 
If you cap alliances to LITERALLY ANYTHING BELOW 500, guilds can still be 500 on a team.

Anything below the first cap is pointless.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Dawdler.8521

[Mabi black.1824]

Received Houston here Apollo 13 step and close.😎

[enkidu.5937]

16 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Made perfect sense to me.

We know, we know. 😁 So just take it as my odd understanding of balance, that a full alliance raid blob that rolls unchallenged across the maps is not balanced by another alliance blob that raids 3 hours later. See? No? k

[Cyninja.2954]

18 minutes ago, enkidu.5937 said:

We know, we know. 😁 So just take it as my odd understanding of balance, that a full alliance raid blob that rolls unchallenged across the maps is not balanced by another alliance blob that raids 3 hours later. See? No? k

 

That blob is made up of players. Those players eventually have to go to sleep. Now, unless you are able to provide 24/7 coverage with those 500 players, the system can be designed that it balances around activity (which it supposedly already does today, taking play hours into account).

 

Now armed with this knowledge we now can assume that if those 500 very active players blob the maps during their prime time and go full force the entire time, they will accrue a ton of play hours. The world this alliance/guild gets assigned to as such would have a large amount of its size allocated towards that alliance.

 

A world with a weaker or less active alliance/guild would thus get more random or more casual players assigned. Which leads to a larger pool of players to draw from. This might still lead to dominance of the strong alliance during their prime hours, but they would lose ground during their off hours. Which in turn means they either still lose the match-up (or win, this depends entirely on how much impact coverage has with large alliances present. Again it doesn't matter because the 1up, 1down system takes over balancing here)) thus moving them within the ranking system to meet opposing worlds which are more similar to them.

 

The world size being adjustable allows for these changes and reworks (similar to how some players decide to go inactive shortly before server re-links happen now) with the main difference being that worlds can actually be removed or added, unlike servers now, to keep every world at least somewhat balanced with others.

 

It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp. I get that with only looking at part of the system and with only 1 week worth of data and experience it might be fun to willfully "forget" what is supposed to go into the rework or alliances, still it's all there and well explained.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Kal Durak.2830]

There are a lot of variables on WvW alliances or servers.  

- Lots of roamers taking up space so smaller 30 people squads can't compete against 70 people squads

- Squads who just roam around and PPT only. 

- Squads that Will not fight (no content), will not claim, will not add tactics to your towers... etc.. I feel sorry for whoever gets that mega multi guild.  They are usually in last place in standings. 

- If you are on a server or alliance and matched up with these guys, You lose.  No fun for you. 

- Now Anet has to balance all that beside what everyone has already brought up.  Tough job. 

- Last Beta, I got lucky and it was a close match with all 3-servers.  GG Anet.

[Cyninja.2954]

53 minutes ago, DtenCfour.3567 said:

There are a lot of variables on WvW alliances or servers.  

- Lots of roamers taking up space so smaller 30 people squads can't compete against 70 people squads

- Squads who just roam around and PPT only. 

- Squads that Will not fight (no content), will not claim, will not add tactics to your towers... etc.. I feel sorry for whoever gets that mega multi guild.  They are usually in last place in standings. 

- If you are on a server or alliance and matched up with these guys, You lose.  No fun for you. 

- Now Anet has to balance all that beside what everyone has already brought up.  Tough job. 

- Last Beta, I got lucky and it was a close match with all 3-servers.  GG Anet.

 

The assumption that perfect balanced sides must be achieved in order to improve over the current system is flawed.

 

There is a well known proverb by Winston Churchill:"perfection is the enemy of progress". It describes some of the criticisms people have brought against the restructuring very well and the arguments brought forth.

 

Alliances/restructuring don't have to be perfect out the box. They don't have to solve all the issues which are present with population imbalance perfectly. All they have to achieve is be sufficiently better than the current system with regard to the problems which need addressing and be flexible enough to be expanded upon.

[Kal Durak.2830]

On 12/14/2022 at 1:38 AM, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

The assumption that perfect balanced sides must be achieved in order to improve over the current system is flawed.

 

There is a well known proverb by Winston Churchill:"perfection is the enemy of progress". It describes some of the criticisms people have brought against the restructuring very well and the arguments brought forth.

 

Alliances/restructuring don't have to be perfect out the box. They don't have to solve all the issues which are present with population imbalance perfectly. All they have to achieve is be sufficiently better than the current system with regard to the problems which need addressing and be flexible enough to be expanded upon.

And can you give us some specifics please... 

[Famine.7915]

Keep in mind. Alliances are nowhere near being ready. Likely might not even be here next year. So far they are still ironing out bugs with a 1 week implementation. In order to get a data set for population balancing, they need several multi-week beta events. So in other words, they haven't even begun testing alliances for the intended reason of its development yet.