nothing changes

[gashen.3874]

anybody been in ebg this week.

no different to other weeks, whiteside ridge as always totally dominating and over powering everybody else, while i,m here i,d have to mention how many people on whiteside ridge seem to take little or no damage.

i,ve lost count of the number of people i seem to be knocking seven bells out of all for nothing.

[subversiontwo.7501]

I've not been active or invested enough to stay up to date on different servers.

Given WSR's history, I would hazard a guess that it has been repopulated by nomadic veteran players again?

Why do veteran players stick together? They are tired of caring when the developer does not care, they are tired of putting effort in, when the developer puts no effort in, they are tired of being constructive when the developer is destructive (at least take things for granted or too out-of-touch to understand the reactions and results of their actions). They are riding things out. At this point I'm surprised we have not all decided to just stack BB (No NA, BB is not like Mag or BG, it is just something mechanically exempt from the rules that govern the system; so we literally can) for the luls 😉.

Alliances, when?

[Junkpile.7439]

Serious dominance. Bots treb from sm 24/7 and 80 dudes come cap empty t0 tower. 🤦‍♂️

[Gehenna.3625]

2 hours ago, gashen.3874 said:

anybody been in ebg this week.

no different to other weeks, whiteside ridge as always totally dominating and over powering everybody else, while i,m here i,d have to mention how many people on whiteside ridge seem to take little or no damage.

i,ve lost count of the number of people i seem to be knocking seven bells out of all for nothing.

Don't worry, FoW is doing the same to us. 

[gashen.3874]

today is even worse than yesterday ,we are completely overwhelmed by this mob.

ANET pull your finger out and get rid of this chaos

[Mabi black.1824]

On 2/9/2023 at 5:10 PM, subversiontwo.7501 said:

They are riding things out

What exactly are they riding? It's still Friday and you can read games at almost 110,000 K+D in T3 and you can read games at barely 50,000 K+D in T2. This last flow must be increased of itself by more than 100% to get closer to one flow (therefore players) of the other. And yesterday I saw a video striming of the current game Aurora + Vizuna and I clearly saw 3 maps in the queue.

It's been 2 weeks since I didn't see a single map in the queue.

Maybe they're riding each other on top of each other, to figure out who stacks players better than the others.

Just my guess.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Zikory.6871]

Anet has never killed a server so asking them "to do something" is pointless. They most they've done is keep a server Full, which is mostly pointless with links.

Just like the NA potatoes crying about Mag, y'all need to sack up and fight them. Or deny them content for 6+ months while they server dyes of boredom. Or wait for Alliances because that's definitely make players better and more organized, totally not going to get stomped by more organized (stacked) alliances...

[subversiontwo.7501]

On 2/10/2023 at 5:57 PM, Mabi black.1824 said:

What exactly are they riding?

They are riding the existing content out. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the term, Mabi?

It means that they are just playing with what is there, not trying to do more or make it better. Ergo, veteran players are using the existing system(s) to play together and not bother with much more. That results in things like the topic of this thread. It is one possible explanation to the OP.

Ed. for some more context: It has been 7 years since the relinking change. It only took us a couple of months in EU to figure out that it would not allow us to balance ourselves and from there how we could use it to at least safeguard our own groups at a cost.

Lesser players can be all abloobloo about better players sticking together all they like, but ArenaNet has had 7 years to fix this since relinks alone (10 years since they aknowledged the problems players pointed out day 1). Where are Alliances?

Edited February 12, 2023 by subversiontwo.7501

[MysteryDude.1572]

Lmfao , wsr and fow are facing PPT servers ATM whose open-field tags and pugs can't press their skills if their life's depended on it . Ofc op getting farmed.

[Arianth Moonlight.6453]

>2023
>still playing wvw
kek

Edited February 13, 2023 by Arianth Moonlight.6453

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Lesser players can be all abloobloo about better players sticking together all they like, but ArenaNet has had 7 years to fix this since relinks alone (10 years since they aknowledged the problems players pointed out day 1). Where are Alliances?

I want to make a couple of considerations with you.

First, you write that veteran players can all be together for as long as they want. But do they have to be all together every time? All on the same server? The players are us, maybe if we avoid the week after the reconnections to stack a server on top of each other not to mention the server combined with it we could have a little more fun. 

But we probably often read here that winning (with the current game mechanics) does not have much meaning, for all veterans it must still have a very important meaning, because every time we see emptying on one side to fill the other part. whenever. ( see the current link mentioned fow+blacktide, both servers changed their status the week after the connections )

 

Secondly, perhaps we are asking Anet something wrong. Or rather, our reports have led Anet to think of alliances and WR to solve all the defects of balancing mechanics. And that's okay, mind you. But it is a complicated and very demanding job. Perhaps it is better to postpone it and take all the time necessary to get it, and in the meantime improve things for everyone . Perhaps we should tell Anet, Make him understand that a series of initiatives to improve this aspect of our favorite game mode, would be very, very welcome by his player base. Instead, we all just beat the same hammer over and over again: alliances when. As if there were no more tomorrow outside of alliances, and woe betide putting any development work that deals with balancing and improving the gaming experience for everyone.

But what is the problem of putting transfers under control?

But what's the problem with seeing a more active attitude of Anet to incentivize/force players to redistribute?

But we don't, for us it's only: alliances when. Perhaps the problem starts with ourselves, with what we want and how we communicate it here.

[Mabi black.1824]

Let's start asking clearly for what we want, so that we can get it now, right away, indeed join me and let's do it together. Editing transfers and making them one thing only the last 2 weeks from relinks should be simple for Anet. Can you help our modality? Yes? So let's ask it together.

Decrease by 10% the number that defines a full server, should not be complicated for ANET. Could it help our mode? Yes? So let's ask it together.

Temporarily reduce the capacity of each map from 70 to 50 players for a limited period of 4 weeks with free transfers to the servers medium and high , should not be complicated for Anet. Could it help our mode? Yes? So let's ask it together.

We can merge some medium servers, to get a very high one. It shouldn't be such a complicated job for Anet. Could it help the gaming experience in the EU? Yes? So let's ask it together.

They are not my initiatives or suggestions, they are yours, I read them here on the forum, let's learn to communicate them better to Anet, in a choral way, and maybe we can achieve something. We certainly wouldn't hurt this mode.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[MysteryDude.1572]

52 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I want to make a couple of considerations with you.

First, you write that veteran players can all be together for as long as they want. But do they have to be all together every time? All on the same server? The players are us, maybe if we avoid the week after the reconnections to stack a server on top of each other not to mention the server combined with it we could have a little more fun. 

But we probably often read here that winning (with the current game mechanics) does not have much meaning, for all veterans it must still have a very important meaning, because every time we see emptying on one side to fill the other part. whenever. ( see the current link mentioned fow+blacktide, both servers changed their status the week after the connections )

 

Secondly, perhaps we are asking Anet something wrong. Or rather, our reports have led Anet to think of alliances and WR to solve all the defects of balancing mechanics. And that's okay, mind you. But it is a complicated and very demanding job. Perhaps it is better to postpone it and take all the time necessary to get it, and in the meantime improve things for everyone . Perhaps we should tell Anet, Make him understand that a series of initiatives to improve this aspect of our favorite game mode, would be very, very welcome by his player base. Instead, we all just beat the same hammer over and over again: alliances when. As if there were no more tomorrow outside of alliances, and woe betide putting any development work that deals with balancing and improving the gaming experience for everyone.

But what is the problem of putting transfers under control?

But what's the problem with seeing a more active attitude of Anet to incentivize/force players to redistribute?

But we don't, for us it's only: alliances when. Perhaps the problem starts with ourselves, with what we want and how we communicate it here.

 fow link changed cause is people moving from it cause the ques were too much . 20 + mins for borders on prime , ebg 45 + min. Being 1 hour earlier for guild raids and so on.

 

Also "vets" don't migrate for wins and bags , they move alongside with guildies/alliance members/friends , in general people who actually play the same game with them. Why anyone who loves to just log in and fight play exclusively with potato pvers...and vise versa.

 

Also also if anyone wants alliances to work ,if they ever come out , the key is to not make alliances. Communities should not stack , guilds should not stack , people should not stack on alliance guilds etc. Every guild goes in with their players solo, every solo goes in solo not on community guild . Else it creates 2 stacked sides in every mu and 1 unfavorable random side. At least in EU.

[Chips.7968]

14 minutes ago, MysteryDude.1572 said:

Also also if anyone wants alliances to work ,if they ever come out , the key is to not make alliances. Communities should not stack , guilds should not stack , people should not stack on alliance guilds etc. Every guild goes in with their players solo, every solo goes in solo not on community guild . Else it creates 2 stacked sides in every mu and 1 unfavorable random side. At least in EU.

So to make alliances work when it comes out, the name and justification for "alliance" itself, should be ignored; is that what you're saying? I mean just trying to be sure I've understood what you've said. Just those in guilds stick in their own guild (out of all they're members of, chose one). 

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, MysteryDude.1572 said:

 fow link changed cause is people moving from it cause the ques were too much . 20 + mins for borders on prime , ebg 45 + min. Being 1 hour earlier for guild raids and so on.

I can imagine very well what you are describing. Now consider that there are matches in the EU that do not have a single map in the queue. This gives you an idea of how much better redistributed WWW players could be and what better results this game mode could bring in terms of fun for everyone. In my opinion it is something that if we all want it and ask for it, we could achieve it within a reasonable timeframe. and leave the development on that huge thing that we normally summarize with ''alliances''.

Because if it is not yet clear to everyone, alliances is an immense job, which will take a lot of time and resources to development. Not to mention its final version that effectively works and sounds perfect. They will have to launch it step by step, only later add the work to contextualize it in a logic of world vs world, while solving all the bugs that over time will be identified and corrected. It is truly a WWW revolution and as such will take a lot of time to obtain it.

Also because they started working on this really only for how long? 1 year? We are grateful for the intellectual honesty they have given us for this. But having said that it does not move anything, for such a large project it takes so much much much time. As it should be.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[MysteryDude.1572]

2 hours ago, Chips.7968 said:

So to make alliances work when it comes out, the name and justification for "alliance" itself, should be ignored; is that what you're saying? I mean just trying to be sure I've understood what you've said. Just those in guilds stick in their own guild (out of all they're members of, chose one). 

yes that is exactly what im talking about . or else you we end up with stacked mus vs all the random casuals. guilds/alliance guilds/ servers comunities needs to be more spread through out servers if alliances gonna hit

Edited February 13, 2023 by MysteryDude.1572

[Chips.7968]

34 minutes ago, MysteryDude.1572 said:

yes that is exactly what im talking about . or else you we end up with stacked mus vs all the random casuals. guilds/alliance guilds/ servers comunities needs to be more spread through out servers if alliances gonna hit

Gotcha. So what's being said is, in it's current intended state, Alliances isn't fit for purpose. 

Rather than, "Alliances is fine as long as everyone behaves exactly like this"

[Dawdler.8521]

44 minutes ago, Chips.7968 said:

Gotcha. So what's being said is, in it's current intended state, Alliances isn't fit for purpose. 

Rather than, "Alliances is fine as long as everyone behaves exactly like this"

I now fully expect MysteryDude to quote this as evidence for alliances failing so its all just a circle of confirmation bias for a feature that 90% of people on the forum seem to have no idea how its supposed to work because they have a tendancy to post wrong/made up information.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[Mabi black.1824]

More than anything else, users here can publish considerations, reasoning, suggestions, opinions on the basis of which sometimes a nice constructive or innovative comparison is born, why not.

Information no, there is only one who could post information here, and we all know who he is.

just to say.

[Chips.7968]

46 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I now fully expect MysteryDude to quote this as evidence for alliances failing so its all just a circle of confirmation bias for a feature that 90% of people on the forum seem to have no idea how its supposed to work because they have a tendancy to post wrong/made up information.

Okay, so what's it supposed to work as? I was under impression you chose which WvW Guild you want to be part of, and then Guilds form alliances, and the algo will do the best to assign to server - distributing various alliances around inc on same servers (as otherwise lots of servers not many players) and fill gaps with those who haven't (should say, not read it in *years* simply because it's planned to happen and my understanding/opinion has zero bearing upon it. So... just waiting). 

 

The bit about fit for purpose is if someone saying alliances only works if everyone behaves X.. then... if it can *only* work based around what they're saying, there's a problem 😄

Edited February 13, 2023 by Chips.7968

[Mabi black.1824]

4 hours ago, MysteryDude.1572 said:

Also also if anyone wants alliances to work ,if they ever come out , the key is to not make alliances. Communities should not stack , guilds should not stack , people should not stack on alliance guilds etc. Every guild goes in with their players solo, every solo goes in solo not on community guild . Else it creates 2 stacked sides in every mu and 1 unfavorable random side. At least in EU.

I must say that your consideration is interesting. I myself have repeatedly pointed out that if we want small pieces to put together, let's make sure that they are really small pieces not blocks of 500 players. The impression is that WR is in contradiction with alliances and alliances is in contradiction with WR. but. I can imagine Anet's concern, and therefore the choice to put alliances with WR. to avoid a transformation too much of '' impact '' for the player.

Moving from a large community to a small guild, better to put in the middle another tool, alliances, which is in fact a group of guilds (I already know your objection guild and alliance has the same limit, but in percentage alliance helps much more as small guilds are much more widespread than complete guilds) 

On the basis of all this, my suggestion to Anet, for his own concern to make this transformation less "impactful", is to think about how much, compared to how. ( back to what is my suggestion of all time ) when I say '' how much '' I mean time. Because even going from a forever server concept to an 8-week server has a certain effect on the player. They would also need some sort of compromise.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[LordHT.8297]

 

I played the last link with maguma and learned a lot about their tactics and playstyle and I honestly think the recent changes to sieges and structures have been a huge buff to maguma playstyle and I have no idea why they did that. Probably for the same reason they gave them the high server as link. They are also developing a new matchmaking system that will make stacking even easier and cheap. So I don't know how much anet is willing to balance the servers and wvw itself, maybe they want to make the game mode boring and frustrating on purpose.

[MysteryDude.1572]

5 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I now fully expect MysteryDude to quote this as evidence for alliances failing so its all just a circle of confirmation bias for a feature that 90% of people on the forum seem to have no idea how its supposed to work because they have a tendancy to post wrong/made up information.

WTF are u on about ? what im saying is not some fairytale i made up , its the observations colected by various alliance members in EU . thats whay we had beta tests to see how will this work. talking though discord with other alliance members , login in an alts checking the situation on diferent mus and experiencing it first hand, this is how  is gona be .

[MysteryDude.1572]

4 hours ago, Chips.7968 said:

Okay, so what's it supposed to work as? I was under impression you chose which WvW Guild you want to be part of, and then Guilds form alliances, and the algo will do the best to assign to server - distributing various alliances around inc on same servers (as otherwise lots of servers not many players) and fill gaps with those who haven't (should say, not read it in *years* simply because it's planned to happen and my understanding/opinion has zero bearing upon it. So... just waiting). 

 

The bit about fit for purpose is if someone saying alliances only works if everyone behaves X.. then... if it can *only* work based around what they're saying, there's a problem 😄

the alliances are supoosed to resuflle better the pugs that are on servers , nothing more signifficant. Yes we will have option to "ally" but that same as server transfers. if u want the overstacked transfer fiesta to stop , guilds must solo and not stack , same goes for dicord communities, ingame comunities etc. the "allys" gonna be whatever u get paired with on weekly mu . so it is

r a n d o m i z e d  , else theres no point to this.

[chromatic.2649]

On 2/13/2023 at 11:24 AM, Mabi black.1824 said:

Let's start asking clearly for what we want, so that we can get it now, right away, indeed join me and let's do it together. Editing transfers and making them one thing only the last 2 weeks from relinks should be simple for Anet. Can you help our modality? Yes? So let's ask it together.

Decrease by 10% the number that defines a full server, should not be complicated for ANET. Could it help our mode? Yes? So let's ask it together.

 

This is the most important, easiest and quickest fix Anet should implement to Word vs. World. Please Anet, open world transfers only during the last two weeks of the link.

During the previous link with Deso+FoW the problem with world transfers was obvious. For the first week, we had a decent balance and fights where interesting. Then, bandwagoning kicked in and by the end of the second week Deso+FoW were out totally of balance. In the end, we even managed to win all skirmishes for two weeks straight. With queues on two and even three maps on prime time. Fights were not challenging, people just steamrolled and w-pushed all around.

Now I actually enjoy being unlinked again, as things are a lot more fun, no queues and plenty of "content", at least until we inevitably reach T5 because even if we have decent numbers on prime time, we lack coverage to be able to even PPT out of descending. Already see some comments of people being frustrated with not being able to defend two borders , 1 server against 4. I don't mind and even enjoy it, but I only play WvW. I can see others starting to just doing their weekely and daily and leave us to be even more outnumbered.

And it's that frustration that leads people to either move servers, leave WvW or even quit the game. So again, Anet please open world transfers only during the last two weeks of the link.

Edited February 14, 2023 by chromatic.2649
fix typos