This week brought me back...

[Johje Holan.4607]

Logged into WvW and it was HOD v JQ v SBI.  Brought me back to the good ole days of 2012!  Sweeeeettt

This is not a matchup thread.  But a commentary on the value of team.  Of servers.  Those who say server pride is dead are... dead wrong.  I can understand the sentiment of those that don't want Alliances to happen.  I feel some of the same.  I just recently came back to the game after a 6 year break and while its been fun, I can say that when I logged in and saw this matchup I was excited.

I am actually for alliances.  It may be a way for the players to get back that feeling of "server" pride.  If we, the players, can form teams where we desire to be competitive, and play for our team, not just some bags or rewards, then alliances will have been a success.  But it is up to us.  Anet is going to do what they do, and we can make out of it what we want.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Johje Holan.4607
formatting

[Eudaimonia.8695]

Whatever ANet is going to release, players will find a way to game the system somehow. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Eudaimonia.8695

[SFShinigami.1572]

My NA account is still on JQ even though SF left ages ago and I still get a little GRRR about BG and SoR, though not as much.

 

But I also want alliances because I think the current system has degenerated into an untenable state.

[Alsandar.7420]

I used to be like the OP. All about server pride. But Alliances will end Mag. And that’s the only goal now. 

[Tryfan.1457]

Oh you sweet summer child...

 

[SFShinigami.1572]

The downside to everyone transferring to a place they can be carried is degeneration of skills and tactics.  Mag will be no different than all the other ex-dominant servers. A lot of the people looking for a challenge will go elsewhere and the rest will have degenerated from being carried for too long.  Its just basic human nature.  The real question is what links they will have in the mean time?

[TheGrimm.5624]

8 hours ago, SFShinigami.1572 said:

My NA account is still on JQ even though SF left ages ago and I still get a little GRRR about BG and SoR, though not as much.

 

But I also want alliances because I think the current system has degenerated into an untenable state.

lol, as an SoR havoc in the T1 days, I send you a salute and wave. Was good fights. /wave

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, SFShinigami.1572 said:

The downside to everyone transferring to a place they can be carried is degeneration of skills and tactics.  Mag will be no different than all the other ex-dominant servers. A lot of the people looking for a challenge will go elsewhere and the rest will have degenerated from being carried for too long.  Its just basic human nature.  The real question is what links they will have in the mean time?

Not sure what you mean, just 10 minutes of zerging seem to degenerate people to the point they can no longer take one step without hugging their personal guardian, regardless of world.

[Mabi black.1824]

12 hours ago, Johje Holan.4607 said:

Logged into WvW and it was HOD v JQ v SBI.  Brought me back to the good ole days of 2012!  Sweeeeettt

This is not a matchup thread.  But a commentary on the value of team.  Of servers.  Those who say server pride is dead are... dead wrong.  I can understand the sentiment of those that don't want Alliances to happen.  I feel some of the same.  I just recently came back to the game after a 6 year break and while its been fun, I can say that when I logged in and saw this matchup I was excited.

I'm so happy to read this. Nice to see how you can be excited about everything this beautiful game mode can offer you.

And I also think that there are many players who put content and playing time because they identify themselves in their server. So I say we can get this alliance update, without giving up the large-scale competition between different servers. We just have to let Anet know, and decide together how we want to get it. 

Stop thinking about alliances or servers but start thinking about alliances and servers. We just have to define the how. or we're going to get hurt quite a bit.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Gehenna.3625]

13 hours ago, Johje Holan.4607 said:

Logged into WvW and it was HOD v JQ v SBI.  Brought me back to the good ole days of 2012!  Sweeeeettt

This is not a matchup thread.  But a commentary on the value of team.  Of servers.  Those who say server pride is dead are... dead wrong.  I can understand the sentiment of those that don't want Alliances to happen.  I feel some of the same.  I just recently came back to the game after a 6 year break and while its been fun, I can say that when I logged in and saw this matchup I was excited.

I am actually for alliances.  It may be a way for the players to get back that feeling of "server" pride.  If we, the players, can form teams where we desire to be competitive, and play for our team, not just some bags or rewards, then alliances will have been a success.  But it is up to us.  Anet is going to do what they do, and we can make out of it what we want.

I don't see how server pride can be increased by taking away servers and making it guild-alliance based. I'm sure that people can take pride in their alliance but that's a double-edged sword because I suspect that it'll be a lot easier to change alliances than servers.

As soon as one or two alliances prove superior (and it will happen) than the others everybody will want to be in that alliance. And since it will be easier to hop over to a guild than a server I suspect that instead of pride we will get more mercenary behavior.

Time will tell but as you say it is up to us and that's exactly why I don't have much faith in alliances.

[Dawdler.8521]

31 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

As soon as one or two alliances prove superior (and it will happen) than the others everybody will want to be in that alliance. And since it will be easier to hop over to a guild than a server I suspect that instead of pride we will get more mercenary behavior.

Yeah that is why everyone is in the one or two guilds that exist on the two top worlds. Its still just Red Guard in EU, right? I mean why even bother to be a member of any guild if you're not at the top.

Not sure it work like that.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[Mabi black.1824]

46 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Not sure it work like that.

It doesn't work that way at all. Because my server may be the last one and it can also leak constantly, but it remains my server. The fact that I chose it and that I put all my effort into it, makes it unique for me, you can offer me anything and it will never suit me. because I already have my server.

Even in our Italian football we have teams that are usually in difficulty, for them to win or get on the points table is more difficult. But I confess that very often it is the teams that have the most beautiful fans than many others. Those few times they win offer their fans unique sensations. that you can never try if you do not first make your choice.

In the long history of football, we have seen those minor teams suddenly climb all the rankings and come in, giving their fans something that is impossible to describe. You can only try it to believe it.

[Gehenna.3625]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Yeah that is why everyone is in the one or two guilds that exist on the two top worlds. Its still just Red Guard in EU, right? I mean why even bother to be a member of any guild if you're not at the top.

Not sure it work like that.

Apples and pears. Right now it's server based and one or two guilds don't make an entire server. One of the main reasons for Alliances is that a lot of guilds are divided between servers. So Alliances will replace servers and then to equate a guild to a server is disingenuous. Alliances will be very serious for some and not so serious for others. So there still will be Alliances that are much stronger than others, just as there are servers now that are much stronger than others.

However, I see no indication that there will be the same restrictions for Alliances as there are for servers. From what I understand, it seems unlikely that after the initial Alliances are set that if you want to join an Alliance other than your own there will be a transfer cost in gems.

Servers have a status that is determined by hours played and is controlled by Anet. If you are a strong Alliance that has reached it's max amount of players you can kick weaker players or players who don't play as often in favor of a better player. You can even invite impressive enemy players to join your Alliance. And you can do that now, but not if your servers is full and not without a cost. 

And why is that cost there (for transfers). So it only seems logical that if that restriction isn't there anymore that players will hop from one alliance to another if they think "the grass is greener on the other side". So I will be looking forward to seeing how they will deal with that side of it. 

But you're right, I cannot be sure it will work like that especially before Anet has given full disclosure on how they're going to handle Alliances. So I guess we'll have to wait to see.

But if the only downside is that you have to wait a week to get pips again, then I don't think that's enough of a downside to switch to another Alliance. Especially long-time WvW players don't care about that anyways I would think.

[Cyninja.2954]

2 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Apples and pears. Right now it's server based and one or two guilds don't make an entire server. One of the main reasons for Alliances is that a lot of guilds are divided between servers. So Alliances will replace servers and then to equate a guild to a server is disingenuous. Alliances will be very serious for some and not so serious for others. So there still will be Alliances that are much stronger than others, just as there are servers now that are much stronger than others.

Yes, the key difference being: stronger due to player skill and not necessarily numbers. The ability to stack or over-stack will be very different under the alliance system compared to the current static server system.

See Maguuma in NA right now. Completely over-stacked and NOTHING can be done about it.

You are correct, some guilds/alliances might decide to focus on specific types of players. That can be a benefit and/or detriment. Benefit because it results in more similar minded players playing together. Detriment because it builds up pressure.

2 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

However, I see no indication that there will be the same restrictions for Alliances as there are for servers. From what I understand, it seems unlikely that after the initial Alliances are set that if you want to join an Alliance other than your own there will be a transfer cost in gems.

Servers have a status that is determined by hours played and is controlled by Anet. If you are a strong Alliance that has reached it's max amount of players you can kick weaker players or players who don't play as often in favor of a better player. You can even invite impressive enemy players to join your Alliance. And you can do that now, but not if your servers is full and not without a cost.

If you are a strong alliance, you are still bound to the hours played of your members. So if your alliance produces XYZ hours, the remaining players added to your world (the actual pendant to current servers, even if some players like to constantly assume that alliance = server, which is completely wrong) will be more or less and not fixed. A hard pumping alliance can very well receive less other alliances, guildes and random players assigned to their world, thus not giving them an hours played advantage.

Unlike server right now, which can overfill or empty  and will stay that way for a prolonged time (and worse yet, given the server status system can be gamed and does not adapt instantly, are being over-stacked and manipulated. Not to mention alt accounts).

Again since this still seems to confuse some people:

alliance =/= server

alliance(s)+guild(s)+randoms = world = server

The main issue here is once player numbers drop so far that a 500 player alliance/guild can dominate and equal or outperform an entire world, the system would run into issues. Which given that world count can increase and/or decrease would be miles off and basically at a time when the current server system would have dissolved ages ago.

2 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

 And why is that cost there (for transfers). So it only seems logical that if that restriction isn't there anymore that players will hop from one alliance to another if they think "the grass is greener on the other side". So I will be looking forward to seeing how they will deal with that side of it. 

Server transfer costs are no restriction. Stop bringing up this nonsense.

2 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

But you're right, I cannot be sure it will work like that especially before Anet has given full disclosure on how they're going to handle Alliances. So I guess we'll have to wait to see.

But if the only downside is that you have to wait a week to get pips again, then I don't think that's enough of a downside to switch to another Alliance. Especially long-time WvW players don't care about that anyways I would think.

You can't be sure because you are comparing apples to soccer balls, while praising apples as magic fruit and pretending soccer balls are square shaped.

If you actually looked at all the moving parts correctly and assigned correct terminology and function to everything while keeping in mind players count, you'd not write what you just wrote because it would not make any sense.

For example: we know that the current plan is to not allow players to switch alliances mid matchup. Meaning you might be able to leave your alliance, but you remain assigned to that world until the next reforming of worlds. At which point your play hours, even if you were to switch alliances/guilds/remain solo would be correctly attributed to your new world.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Chaba.5410]

5 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Not sure what you mean, just 10 minutes of zerging seem to degenerate people to the point they can no longer take one step without hugging their personal guardian, regardless of world.

I personally become resident sleeper if I engage in ktraining.  I can't imagine what it does to others.

[Bear.9568]

18 hours ago, Johje Holan.4607 said:

Logged into WvW and it was HOD v JQ v SBI.  Brought me back to the good ole days of 2012!  Sweeeeettt

This is not a matchup thread.  But a commentary on the value of team.  Of servers.  Those who say server pride is dead are... dead wrong.  I can understand the sentiment of those that don't want Alliances to happen.  I feel some of the same.  I just recently came back to the game after a 6 year break and while its been fun, I can say that when I logged in and saw this matchup I was excited.

I am actually for alliances.  It may be a way for the players to get back that feeling of "server" pride.  If we, the players, can form teams where we desire to be competitive, and play for our team, not just some bags or rewards, then alliances will have been a success.  But it is up to us.  Anet is going to do what they do, and we can make out of it what we want.

 

This is kinda funny. I'm in this matchup as the link with HoD/CD. You must have missed our last matchup against Mag where we got spawned camped and face rolled for 2 weeks.

 

It's nice to come back and enjoy WvW after 6yrs but don't let this "excitement" fool you. Better yet, don't try to let your excitement fool us.

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Apples and pears. Right now it's server based and one or two guilds don't make an entire server. One of the main reasons for Alliances is that a lot of guilds are divided between servers. So Alliances will replace servers and then to equate a guild to a server is disingenuous. Alliances will be very serious for some and not so serious for others. So there still will be Alliances that are much stronger than others, just as there are servers now that are much stronger than others.

However, I see no indication that there will be the same restrictions for Alliances as there are for servers. From what I understand, it seems unlikely that after the initial Alliances are set that if you want to join an Alliance other than your own there will be a transfer cost in gems.

Is this once again confusion about how world restructure works? 🤷‍♂️

An alliance is not a server/world because it is a 500 man group of guilds which freely join and leave that alliance. Restrictions have nothing to do with it. In terms of potential strength, an alliance is exactly as a strong as a guild. That's why the 500 man cap is needed (if lower Anet have to split apart guilds, if higher it defeat the purpose of world restructure). As noted above, worlds are groups of alliances+guilds+players.

Of course there will be alliances much stronger than others. Of course there will be 500 man alliances between strong guilds and there will be 100 man alliances between casual friendly guilds. Because they function exactly like guilds without forcing players to leave their current guilds. If you deny that, you deny the existance of current guilds on worlds today.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[TheGrimm.5624]

9 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Not sure what you mean, just 10 minutes of zerging seem to degenerate people to the point they can no longer take one step without hugging their personal guardian, regardless of world.

That's not so bad, but when they start to rub your Charr's tail the wrong direction...it gets awkward, back to the Warrior after that.

[TheGrimm.5624]

8 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

I don't see how server pride can be increased by taking away servers and making it guild-alliance based. I'm sure that people can take pride in their alliance but that's a double-edged sword because I suspect that it'll be a lot easier to change alliances than servers.

As soon as one or two alliances prove superior (and it will happen) than the others everybody will want to be in that alliance. And since it will be easier to hop over to a guild than a server I suspect that instead of pride we will get more mercenary behavior.

Time will tell but as you say it is up to us and that's exactly why I don't have much faith in alliances.

Since we have already seen some people forming up to be mercenary companies out for hire for gold, I would say you are not wrong there. Going to be bumpy for an unknown amount of time.

[Johje Holan.4607]

23 hours ago, SFShinigami.1572 said:

My NA account is still on JQ even though SF left ages ago and I still get a little GRRR about BG and SoR, though not as much.

 

But I also want alliances because I think the current system has degenerated into an untenable state.

 

Oh cool, I'm on SBI and I remember you all from when you were here, I didn't know you'd left JQ (or if anyone from SF still played) good to see.  All the old schoolers should log back into this match and bring back the glory days 😀

 

 

11 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I'm so happy to read this. Nice to see how you can be excited about everything this beautiful game mode can offer you.

And I also think that there are many players who put content and playing time because they identify themselves in their server. So I say we can get this alliance update, without giving up the large-scale competition between different servers. We just have to let Anet know, and decide together how we want to get it. 

Stop thinking about alliances or servers but start thinking about alliances and servers. We just have to define the how. or we're going to get hurt quite a bit.

 

Thank you, I've read many of your posts and enjoy reading your positive view of things.  I agree that if we can think about alliances and servers that would be the best.  However, Anet is going to do whatever they have planned.  (Unless, they can't make it technically work.  And given how long its taking them that's not as unlikely as I had previously thought.)  I do hope to engage with the game and forums more to explore all the possibilities.  I posted quite frequently on the old forums with comments, criticisms, and suggestions.  One unfortunate thing I have noticed is that people are still talking about the same issues that I remember discussing way back when.

 

 

11 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

As soon as one or two alliances prove superior (and it will happen) than the others everybody will want to be in that alliance. And since it will be easier to hop over to a guild than a server I suspect that instead of pride we will get more mercenary behavior.

Time will tell but as you say it is up to us and that's exactly why I don't have much faith in alliances.

I agree that there will be alliances that are superior.   But it will be harder for the bandwagoners to tag a long because an alliance is limited to 500 people.  Everyone and their mother can't just join by transferring to it.  So there can't be anything like HOD or BG or VZ in their heyday.   Let's also hope that those alliances are at least smart enough to stack in multiples of 3 😀.

 

 

5 hours ago, Bear.9568 said:

 

This is kinda funny. I'm in this matchup as the link with HoD/CD. You must have missed our last matchup against Mag where we got spawned camped and face rolled for 2 weeks.

 

It's nice to come back and enjoy WvW after 6yrs but don't let this "excitement" fool you. Better yet, don't try to let your excitement fool us.

I'm actually on SBI so I wasn't in the Mag match.  However, being spawn camped is a whole different issue from what I'm talking about.  People have been getting spawn camped for 10 years, its not a new or a Mag phenomenon.  I and others have made many suggestions about how to alleviate the lopsided nature of matches and its unfortunate that Anet hasn't tried much with respect to this issue.

 

 

2 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Since we have already seen some people forming up to be mercenary companies out for hire for gold, I would say you are not wrong there. Going to be bumpy for an unknown amount of time.

What?  Mercenary companies?  Well as long as they hire themselves out to help out the underdog servers - that would actually be awesome.  (In fact, that has been suggested for a long time.  Allow people to transfer to underdog servers to help out.).  Players forming different types of alliances might be good.  I have thought that I would like to be part of a defense alliance.  With all the talk of this recent patch not encouraging defense, it would be fun to be with a group who is dedicated to that within an alliance even if its not rewarded monetarily. 

[SFShinigami.1572]

Theres only a handful of original pre-GW2 SF still in game that I know of.  I think the current incarnation is on SoR these days.

[Mabi black.1824]

18 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Again since this still seems to confuse some people:

alliance =/= server

alliance(s)+guild(s)+randoms = world = server

This schematic description of yours is perfect and I think it is now clear to everyone. When we talk about these things for simplicity I write alliances, but I mean all the whole new system, so the new servers as you say alliances + guilds + players and I also mean the mechanics that plans to rebuild these new servers every 8 weeks, and I also mean the planned mechanics of limiting transfers during the expected period of 8 weeks,  Including the fact that you have to worry about selecting your alliance or a new alliance the week before the 8 weeks expiration etc etc. For all this stuff we often write ''alliances'' but we mean all this stuff.

So my suggestion to stop thinking about alliances or servers but start thinking about alliances and servers, in other words means getting all the development work that I described above, so finally we're going to get all very similar servers in terms of flow, we just have to start considering how we want to handle all these new servers.

I would like to have a transparent and honest discussion with you on this. If I propose a season of 6 months or 12 months what is your problem? Because for me making the server meaningless is a problem. I no longer have the tool that allows me to compete on a large scale with other players. In the medium term I no longer have a ranking to climb or a reference points board.

With this I do not presume that my personal problem has more value than your personal problem. It's just that I'd like to understand how I'm putting you in trouble if I ask you to consider a longer period for the new servers we get.

I would also like to know the development thinking on this. Maybe they have some more information about the numbers and the players. How many of us are transported and put their content and time in this mode because it identifies itself in their server. And they find much of the fun by competing on a large scale, their server vs all other servers.

[Mabi black.1824]

If we find a way and if we choose to build the future of WWW based on a mid-term seasonal tournament in which all the new servers participate, I am convinced that we stimulate and involve many, many players. After 12 months on New Year's Day you start again with your alliance that will be a part of all the new servers of the season.

So as to always keep this competition cutter and never discounted, because you can never know what type of server you will be randomly reassigned to with the new season. ( you will only have the certainty of playing again in your guild or in your alliance )

If we add one-of-a-kind rewards (new weapons or new Max level armor) that you can only get by participating in the new seasonal WVW, I believe this could lead to many new players as well. And these new players will in turn be involved and transported to really play WWW , not just log in to restore fields and time if they have active participation.

Or do we prefer that winning or losing in WWW still has no meaning forever? Or do we think that 8 gold or a few extra tickets a week are what WWW needs to engage new players? Do we seriously want to reason that WWW is a fundamental slice of GW2 and that its future is growing or do we want to limit our thinking of what death we want to die?

[Gehenna.3625]

18 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Is this once again confusion about how world restructure works? 🤷‍♂️

An alliance is not a server/world because it is a 500 man group of guilds which freely join and leave that alliance. Restrictions have nothing to do with it. In terms of potential strength, an alliance is exactly as a strong as a guild. That's why the 500 man cap is needed (if lower Anet have to split apart guilds, if higher it defeat the purpose of world restructure). As noted above, worlds are groups of alliances+guilds+players.

Of course there will be alliances much stronger than others. Of course there will be 500 man alliances between strong guilds and there will be 100 man alliances between casual friendly guilds. Because they function exactly like guilds without forcing players to leave their current guilds. If you deny that, you deny the existance of current guilds on worlds today.

I don't deny that, but I see I don't really know how Alliances will work. So thanks for explaining. So if I understand you right Alliances can be one guild or multiple guilds with a max of 500 members. I assume that not every member is counted unless they sign up for WvW. As such servers will be replaced with, groups of Alliances + guilds + random players. Do these groups then change randomly each week?

Edited February 7, 2023 by Gehenna.3625

[Dawdler.8521]

58 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

So if I understand you right Alliances can be one guild or multiple guilds with a max of 500 members. I assume that not every member is counted unless they sign up for WvW. As such servers will be replaced with, groups of Alliances + guilds + random players. Do these groups then change randomly each week?

Parts of a guild, technically. Anet has already layed out the functionality.

An alliance can be 50 members from guild A (with 100 guild members) and 150 members from guild B (with 250 guilds members). In terms of team creation, the 200 players in the alliance are together, the 50 in guild A are together (assuming all still choose that as WvW guild) and the 100 in guild B is together (same assumption).

Or the leftover members can choose another guild as their WvW guild and thus be part of another alliance. But no one have to leave their guild.

If you have a 500 man guild where ALL are wvwers and choose that guild... you wouldnt even make an alliance.

Team creation (ie "world"/"server") occur every 2 months, just like linking in normal WvW.

Tier matchups occur every week, just like normal WvW

TL;DR its normal WvW with some shuffling of team ("world"/"server") members based on their WvW guilds selection.