Wvw alliances

[Random dude.5089]

i've been hearing about this systeme a lot , can someone please explain me why are people think this will fix wvw current issues ?

[Arya Whitefire.8423]

The odds that it solves any of the current significant issues are very low.  In my opinion it will most likely either:

1. Kill the mode entirely over 3-6 months.

2. Evolve into EOTM 2.0, if Arenanet provides rewards that are close enough to PVE.

 

I believe the primary reason Arenanet is continuing to work on it, is because they know they need a system that will be able to keep wvw limping along as populations continue to dwindle, since the current system is basically guaranteed to devolve into one dominating server as populations continue to decline.  

Edited January 17, 2023 by Arya Whitefire.8423

[subversiontwo.7501]

2 hours ago, Denver.4621 said:

i've been hearing about this systeme a lot , can someone please explain me why are people think this will fix wvw current issues ?

What issues do you want it to fix?

The system does not aim to fix all current WvW issues, it is not a magic bullet.

It aims to fix a couple of issues that have been deemed important (the most important) in the past. Explaining which or how would make for a rather long post. That post has been made before and you can look at any earlier discussion. You can read what goals Anet set up and you can read how people have tried to explain more about it.

However, the best superficial summary I can give you (based on why people tend to ask here) is that it doesn't necessarily aim to benefit you as a single player directly. If you have a popular public commander on your server, it may directly aim to benefit them and only indirectly benefit other players who value that kind of content. If people take those players for granted or do not value that content, they will not understand all the underlying strings that the system is looking to pull.

While balance is one of the goals, I would describe it as only a secondary goal and even as that it looks to shave off major differences rather than fine tuning minor differences the way most people tend to understand balance. Making sure that servers do not stay full (and that players struggle to build communities on full servers) seem to be higher-priority factors in the system than balance (ie., content/social first, balance/content second).

Edited January 17, 2023 by subversiontwo.7501

[Chips.7968]

34 minutes ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

I believe the primary reason Arenanet is continuing to work on it, is because they know they need a system that will be able to keep wvw limping along as populations continue to dwindle

When was the first "beta" and when was the last; how long have we been in "beta" for alliances, and has there been any changes to the end user in that time.

 

In other words, they *say* they're working on it...

Edited January 17, 2023 by Chips.7968

[Arya Whitefire.8423]

The actual first beta was a buggy mess that ended in EU after a few hours, and didn't start in NA.  The first beta that worked, was actually a lot of fun.  The second beta was way less fun, and the rest, another 3-5, have been about the same.  But I mean, you could still farm pips.

 

The only changes I noticed were the queue behaving weird/better/maybe sort of kind of, in later betas.  And some types of "ending up in the wrong matchup", when joining/switching maps bugs, seemed to happen less often.

[subversiontwo.7501]

10 minutes ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

The actual first beta was a buggy mess that ended in EU after a few hours, and didn't start in NA.  The first beta that worked, was actually a lot of fun.  The second beta was way less fun, and the rest, another 3-5, have been about the same.  But I mean, you could still farm pips.

It should be underlined that a large contributing factor to this is that people began building communities that they intended to continue building on in the first betas. Players returned, we pooled friends together and we built things with some kind of purpose. In later betas we began treating them, like Anet, as just another weeklong event. The first few beta communities were larger and more diverse whereas later beta communities were just a couple of guilds playing together. As a result, the first few betas were better balanced and the last few betas more likely to end up with a hit-or-miss spread similar to current live matchups (with similar behaviours of mostly just playing with your in-group, when it played, closed, waiting for a reason to care more or spend more effort again).

Edited January 17, 2023 by subversiontwo.7501

[oatsnjuices.1698]

I am all for alliances. I feel its the same 10 people saying they do not want it over and over. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

The odds that it solves any of the current significant issues are very low.  In my opinion it will most likely either:

1. Kill the mode entirely over 3-6 months.

I think what we have are players that have been filtered down as more changes were made or not made that the leftovers are pretty resilient. Why they stay is questionable, could be due to game, friends, lack of other WvW style games out there currently. So to that point I don't think it will kill the mode.

 

1 hour ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

2. Evolve into EOTM 2.0, if Arenanet provides rewards that are close enough to PVE.

And not to fault any of the mega guilds this is something that worries me for the guilds that expanded themselves across multiple guilds. Not sure how many they have that are WvW players so it might not be an issue. But if a large enough guild can fill multiple

Alliances and are paired against each other we could end up with some of what happened when some people tried to organize EoTM into their own little farms. Granted it was fun to hunt them there and them trying to collude sometimes made it easier to setup ambushes for them.

 

1 hour ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

I believe the primary reason Arenanet is continuing to work on it, is because they know they need a system that will be able to keep wvw limping along as populations continue to dwindle, since the current system is basically guaranteed to devolve into one dominating server as populations continue to decline.  

That and it might bring some players back and might interest new players if rewards are brought in line with other game modes.

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, Chips.7968 said:

When was the first "beta" and when was the last; how long have we been in "beta" for alliances, and has there been any changes to the end user in that time.

 

In other words, they *say* they're working on it...

We actually haven't beta tested the Alliance part of the WR project yet. So far they have been just testing the sorting of groups logic. The first beta for the Alliance part itself is due for Q1 this year based on the last posts. This might be on interest to you: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Alliances .

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

1. Kill the mode entirely over 3-6 months.

In the meantime, people claim WvW is dead every week due to population imbalance. 

And that's ignoring the fact this forum already loudly proclaimed WvW dead in 2014 or somewhere around there, when Camelot Unchained released and killed it.

[Gehenna.3625]

3 hours ago, Denver.4621 said:

i've been hearing about this systeme a lot , can someone please explain me why are people think this will fix wvw current issues ?

Well, it will enable you to play with your guildies. At the moment guilds can be spread out over various servers.

For the rest I don't believe it will solve any of the current issues, because the betas have had very different experiences as well when it comes to population balance. Now I don't just mean the number of people that play but also the imbalance between organised groups vs random groups. Servers with night time squads that are very successful because the other servers are not active at that time, etc. 

Now, some people had great experiences during the betas, some were dominated by an opposing alliance. (As in one side had more points than both the other sides together). 

So it will go from server based to alliance based. But then some alliances will be like the worst servers to play against as it is now, so I really don't see how things will be different. And I can't wait for the alliance infighting and guilds breaking off from an alliance....or an alliance becoming less active in WvW, etc. All things that I see happening and I doubt Anet has the flexibility of balancing alliances on the fly.

And all the people who play WvW and aren't part of an alliance will just be lumped in with alliances randomly. I think that that will affect the connection for such players with WvW because whereas they now have a server that is their home, they will now be thrown in with whatever alliances have shortages.

 

[neven.3785]

of all the alliance betas i've been in, only one of them was a "bad" matchup.  The others were enjoyable and NA prime was relatively balanced to an extent.  The "bad" one managed to get most of the 40-50 man blob guilds in the same matchup, so it was either fight queue vs queue on all maps, or don't play.  While some people enjoy that largescale, i prefer my skills to go off when i press them.

I do think they will overall be better than the current system.  You will still have some matchups that are blow outs, but there is no way for them to balance the population disparity in timezones properly without merging NA and EU.

 

At the moment they have alliance cap set to 500, which imo is way too much if people are actively trimming fat from their guilds.  250 seems a fair number, but they will need to rework the guild system itself to achieve this since they have a 500 person limit.  IMO a guild leader setting their guild as WvW should limit your roster to 250 max.   I want the smaller pieces. 

 

Guild alliances encompassing multiple groups just comes with drama, especially when it comes to blob guilds and fight guilds, there will quite a few blow ups (and there has been already) that tear apart alliances, and i think these will be key to bringing some semblance of balance within a couple cycles of team generation.

I play with 2 guilds, one of them is in a multi-guild alliance based the NA prime only (ensures groups to play off of and other tags for members to follow).  The other has flown solo for all of them. as a guild who fields 20-30   Both accounts have had decent experiences with alliances.  The only downside is queues, but that comes with active gameplay.

[LSD.4673]

^ The betas arent alliances, they're for matchmaking. Chances are, like with dx11, that they'll just shove them out the door with the alliances label slapped on them.

[Mabi black.1824]

14 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Making sure that servers do not stay full (and that players struggle to build communities on full servers) seem to be higher-priority factors in the system than balance

It is worth spending a few words on what I read here, because I am not sure I share this thought. What I mean is that an upgrade of this mode should not worry about full servers or active communities that have formed. But it should worry that all servers can get that condition. So the problem is not that there is a server that works well because it is full and because it is active. The problem is that another server is not.

An upgrade to this mode, or a constant and active control of this mode, should worry about this, and put in place all the initiatives to get you there. the formula of single servers or paired servers changes little, or servers with alliances (groups of guilds) or servers without alliances changes little, if all servers were full and with communities active in the same way (or in a similar way) 

So I come to the second part of this reasoning. What do we like in this mode? What stimulates the player and his initiative? From what I've seen over many years, I think bias, the fact that you're part of a server against other servers is the foundation of this mode. Sometimes a server also identifies the favorite enemy server, there is no malice in this, it could just be that there are friends who have changed servers and therefore you have even more fun, because you want to give them a lesson (or they will give you a lesson) with the result that that week you will be more involved, you will put more content and more time if you can in the mode.

or am I wrong?

This leads me to think, therefore, that servers are and will still be needed. We can imagine in the near future that ANET will put you in any server with your group of friends, with the aim of obtaining many similar servers. perfect. At that point I think you'll have to give those servers some time to build factions, common initiatives, and content, to express themselves at their best and to try to win the season, understand who your ''public enemy number 1'' is.  My guess is at least 12 months, and then you start over.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Cyninja.2954]

9 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

or am I wrong?

That depends on what you consider as wrong. I'd personally say in todays WvW, communities are the main driving factor (outside of players who are going completely solo at it).

Now to some extent servers provide the backbone for a community forming, in many other cases communities are sets of players who joined together via different means.

The question thus becomes: how relevant are fixed servers by now for creating and/or supporting these communities? Not all that much it seems when such large shifts of players happen on a regular basis.

9 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

This leads me to think, therefore, that servers are and will still be needed. We can imagine in the near future that ANET will put you in any server with your group of friends, with the aim of obtaining many SIMI servers. perfect. At that point I think you'll have to give those servers some time to build factions, common initiatives, and content, to express themselves at their best and to try to win the season. My guess is at least 12 months, and then you start over.

So to you it's merely a matter of time frame or forcing a restructure. Sure, time frame can be discussed and maybe the alliances time frame of recreating worlds every X weeks can or will be tested.

12 months though is a far to long time frame to impact negative developments in todays day and age. If population issues arise and stay for this long without a reshuffling, you are bound to lose a LOT of players who are not likely to return once those 12 months are over.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

3 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Now to some extent servers provide the backbone for a community forming, in many other cases communities are sets of players who joined together via different means.

Yours is a valid observation. I think it's more profitable to find a way to get seasonal servers with this update. Because, as you rightly say, we have players who build communities in reference to these servers and other players who build communities in other ways. In this way single players, or players who log in in a close group of historical friends (4 or 5) will not be left behind.

In addition, if we consider the seasonal servers built by chance, we can still confront each other, build a tournament and try to participate in the big race. Of course only 1 wins, this is normal, but at least everyone else can participate.

What is the problem of 12 months of the championship? If I don't feel well, will I be blocked for a whole year? no. We make sure that players or groups of players can still transfer, in a different way, in a controlled way by Anet so as not to break the seasons, 5% always allowed or by reservation, with a new graphic transfer request page, maybe you will have to wait 2 or 3 weeks to transfer a certain number of players you will need to have a little patience But you can still do it.

[Mabi black.1824]

34 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

So to you it's merely a matter of time frame or forcing a restructure. Sure, time frame can be discussed and maybe the alliances time frame of recreating worlds every X weeks can or will be tested.

Absolutely, I believe that the time factor is fundamental in this transition. First of all how long it takes to get alliances (because this wait without information does not help the mode) according to how much you hold alliances, as I have received them, I will be continuously in different teams every 8 weeks, I will not have medium-term goals, I will not have a ranking to understand where I am and if I am doing something good.

And knowing the timing of Anet, if by hypothesis , they will consider seasonal servers to allow players to enter into a large-scale competitive logic, I will probably have to wait another year or two. I'm on the forum essentially for this reason, to avoid getting stuck in that situation. Although I have found that entering the forum is fun for other reasons as well, sharing a passion with others is always enjoyable.

[Mabi black.1824]

17 hours ago, Denver.4621 said:

i've been hearing about this systeme a lot , can someone please explain me why are people think this will fix wvw current issues ?

Because it will give ANET the opportunity to build servers with many small pieces available. And if you build servers with small pieces, you can get as many similar servers . Also, when you put all those little pieces together, you can also consider other aspects to put them together. playing time - tag time - skill - time zone - etc etc.

When and how will they do it? I have no idea.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

What is the problem of 12 months of the championship?

As we've discussed many times before the practical experience over years and years of WvW show that people often get tired of the link they have and want a new after "only" 1-2 months. And thats hardly surprising - same reason people look forward to every friday reset, just different scales.

The primary reason WvW remains "fresh" despite its... issues... are these mechanics thats been the core of WvW for a decade. 12 months aint gonna fly. Simple as that.

[Mabi black.1824]

5 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

As we've discussed many times before the practical experience over years and years of WvW show that people often get tired of the link they have and want a new after "only" 1-2 months. And thats hardly surprising - same reason people look forward to every friday reset, just different scales.

The primary reason WvW remains "fresh" despite its... issues... are these mechanics thats been the core of WvW for a decade. 12 months aint gonna fly. Simple as that.

But what prevents us from getting weekly resets and new matches every 2 months even with seasonal servers? Why should one exclude or improve the other? If it were up to me we can also add a daily reset and I would make matches between the servers every month and not every 2 months. Why can't we have everything together, instead of only getting something if I give up something else?

[Dawdler.8521]

1 minute ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

But what prevents us from getting weekly resets and new matches every 2 months even with seasonal servers?

Weekly reset is matchup reset.

What exactly are you saying under your system would happen every 2 months vs the 12 months "season"?

Same with daily. What exactly are you saying would happen daily?

You cant have matchup reset every day, every week, every month and every 2 months at once.

[Mabi black.1824]

I'm basically saying that Anet activates in a new WR alliance system, and you or your group of friends will be assigned to a server randomly. That will be your server for the entire 12-month season. With that you participate in the great competition between all new servers, based on a new ranking and a new points system. While all this is happening we will still have a weekly reset (1 up - 1 down) and while all this happens we will still have servers that are paired every 2 months.

[Cyninja.2954]

35 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I'm basically saying that Anet activates in a new WR alliance system, and you or your group of friends will be assigned to a server randomly. That will be your server for the entire 12-month season. With that you participate in the great competition between all new servers, based on a new ranking and a new points system. While all this is happening we will still have a weekly reset (1 up - 1 down) and while all this happens we will still have servers that are paired every 2 months.

That sounds as though you took the worst of both systems and combined it into an even worse system for the sake of having a semi static server.

You pretty much lost half the player base at : assigned to a server randomly. That will be your server for the entire 12-month season.

That alone is a terrible idea. I can guarantee you that many will not sit around for 12 month until they might get reshuffled, even worse without being able to adjust to this sorting. Then once/if you allow for server transfers, you are in a hybrid version of the current system and alliances suffering similar issues the current transfers cause while not even having the minor benefit of server identity.

Also really not sure what linkings or pairings have to do here. Seems like you are already anticipating that your system will cause player imbalance and are trying to band-aid this issues with the same poor band-aid and flawed system we have now.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

9 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

You pretty much lost half the player base at : assigned to a server randomly.

But why do you write this. The new mechanic involves you choosing your guild, your guild choosing which other guilds it wants to play with, and Anet assigning your Alliance a random server. I'm not the one who wipes out half the population with this. This is exactly what alliances and WR envisages.

Once all individual players, guilds, alliances are randomly distributed, what's the problem with giving them a 12-month season? If they don't feel comfortable in the team they got, we find a shared way to move.

I did not say to continue to transfer as you do now. I wrote and mentioned a transfer '' different '' controlled by anet, through a new interface where you book your transfer with a number of options and the new transfer system answers you if you can transfer right away, if you have to wait, if you have to select another server etc etc.

[Mabi black.1824]

33 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

That sounds as though you took the worst of both systems and combined it into an even worse system for the sake of having a semi static server.

In theory my initiative is exactly in the opposite direction, which is to save the best things of both systems. For the rest you have centered the idea, I'm proposing a compromise to make this project of change a little softer, let's move from a system of teams / infinite server of 10 years, to a system of teams / seasonal server of 12 months, and with alliances inside (a new way to group friends and for Anet a new way of accounting for active players).

It should also move Anet's ongoing work a little, because we're talking about changing 8 weeks to 12 months. The real work to be added for ANET would be the whole management part of the new transfer system.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Mabi black.1824