Please release Wvw Alliances

[Leechess.7859]

The game mode needs attention. Things are going stale. Making them live now its better than a beta at this point. Don't over hype it for so long just roll it out. People are getting tired of waiting. 

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by Leechess.7859

[Dawdler.8521]

I have a suspicion this thread will do exactly nothing to speed it up.

[Xenesis.6389]

Just need to snap their fingers and have it all done instantly I guess...

🥴

[roederich.2716]

Last november they said next beta at the start of the year, now we have march…

i have given up on this, they obviously stopped to work on it again and want to sell noodle chairs instead.
 

[Strixxe.2019]

On 3/2/2023 at 2:38 PM, Dawdler.8521 said:

I have a suspicion this thread will do exactly nothing to speed it up.

*PROCEEDS TO WAIT FASTER*

[Mabi black.1824]

When I see these posts, it comes naturally to me to wonder if this game mode is built around and within a server/team concept. The player is naturally transported by his server in the most free form possible. Single player, small guild or mega guild. Yes or no?

So all these servers are competing with each other, each one has his own public enemy number 1, he will spare nothing to win and capture all the enemy lands to prove that his kingdom rules over all the boundless lands of the mists. Yes or no? (Which is why you would need at least 10 different maps with different environments, or the boundless lands of mists seem too small.)

So players should put their content in the mode , each in its own way different to try to do something good in the name of their server . Yes or no?

Your server, like all the others, are inexorable and inviolable, there is no drama that can stop a server, you do not exercise victory or defeat that can stop the advance or action of your server. Yes or no?

Well then we want alliances right away, and then what do we do with this game mode? Feel free to explain it to me because honestly I still do not understand.

Does this server-based game logic manifest serious problems to ensure a decent level of competition between all the various teams, in order to make fun accessible to all the peoples of WWW? Yes, of course. Has any passive or active initiative to improve and/or solve a series of knots that put the mechanics we have always had in difficulty ever been considered? I would say no, or at least I didn't notice it when you did. 

If, one day, you decide to try to solve / improve this aspect of WVW let me know, because I will definitely be interested in making you hear my ideas, suggestions, opinions and considerations. Peace and love to all servers and long live WVW.

 

P.S. of course it is addressed to all of you but in particular to all the friends of Anet project.✌️

Because my passion for WWW is like our servers, relentless and unstoppable, until I have obtained my constructive, open and sincere, polite and transparent confrontation with the development guys. here on this forum. And what the kitten are they up to with alliances.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Bristingr.5034]

On 3/2/2023 at 12:53 PM, Xenesis.6389 said:

Just need to snap their fingers and have it all done instantly I guess...

🥴

*Thanos Snap*

Did I do it right?

[Xenesis.6389]

5 hours ago, Bristingr.5034 said:

*Thanos Snap*

Did I do it right?

Did you have the power glove on?

[willow.8209]

Anet should either release alliances or not. Dithering about it for years and years is counterproductive.

Just decide if it's happening or not already. Actually get it done if it's happening. Quit teasing if not.

[Bern.9613]

Alliances has been on going since 2018 and pretty much immediately put on the back burner. I suspect it got caught up in Dune-gate. There was also a lot of people fired/released/let go in Feb 2019 and maybe the guy/gal who was the architect of the alliances, got swept out to sea on that wave.

[two sheets to wind.2496]

WvW is broken no chance of winning cause one bunch has more players than the other .Should put a cap on how many on one side can be on the map so as to be fair fight. Anet needs to stop 150 players from one side & only allow less on the other side. It is not balanced. 

[Chichimec.9364]

On 3/15/2023 at 1:58 AM, willow.8209 said:

Anet should either release alliances or not. Dithering about it for years and years is counterproductive.

Just decide if it's happening or not already. Actually get it done if it's happening. Quit teasing if not.

On the one hand, like many other WvW players, I'm frustrated with Anet's badly bungled handling of the Alliance development process. Like so many others, I am impatient for the Alliance system to finally get here. On the other hand, I don't want to see Anet release some buggy, unplayable mess caused by rushing the Alliance development now. My flickering hopes are that Anet is seriously working on the Alliance system. That they will communicate that to us in clear, unequivocal terms. And that in the near future, they will concretely show us something to demonstrate that serious work. Iirc, the devs said that the next stage of betas would be testing the mechanics of the Alliance system. My memory is not the best so if I'm wrong about that, please correct me. If they did say that though, or something close to that, I hope we will get the next beta in the near future.

One positive thing I do have to say is that the recent changes to the WvW reward system really have seemed to breathe new life into WvW. Since the changes started, I have been seeing a lot more folks and a lot more fighting, both attacking and defending, on the various WvW maps. A new beta which shows us that real progress being made on the Alliance system would really help solidify the positive impact of those recent changes. So let's hope we see such a beta soon.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Chichimec.9364

[Johje Holan.4607]

10 hours ago, two sheets to wind.2496 said:

WvW is broken no chance of winning cause one bunch has more players than the other .Should put a cap on how many on one side can be on the map so as to be fair fight. Anet needs to stop 150 players from one side & only allow less on the other side. It is not balanced. 

It already is set up like you want. The cap is the same for each team. (We don’t know exact numbers but eg. Red cap is 60, blue cap is 60, green cap is 60. At no point is green allowed to have 75 and red only 45). 

[Mabi black.1824]

11 minutes ago, Johje Holan.4607 said:

It already is set up like you want. The cap is the same for each team. (We don’t know exact numbers but eg. Red cap is 60, blue cap is 60, green cap is 60. At no point is green allowed to have 75 and red only 45). 

The problem is not the hat of 60 players on a single map. The problem is when a server is able to fill only one map, while your opponent queues them all 4. The problem is seeing games that end at the weekend with a flow of 50,000 K+D in T5 while you see 130,000 K+D in T1. The problem is that Anet makes matches based on the numbers it sees at the end of the 2-month period, and 3 days later players upset those same numbers.

The problem is to get Serie A players and Serie B players in the end, and the rules are not the same for everyone. Unless you also join "the merry company of the transfer", looking for content, without understanding what content we are talking about.

[Dayra.7405]

14 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

The problem is that Anet makes matches based on the numbers it sees at the end of the 2-month period, and 3 days later players upset those same numbers.

Yeah transfers should only be allowed at the end of a linking period, not at its start.

Or even better: All WvW-Rewards are disabled for the rest of the linking period in which you have transfered, then people that have the urgend need to transfer can transfer, but all people want to transfer at the end of a linking period. 🙂

Edited March 17, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[Ashantara.8731]

On 3/2/2023 at 1:47 AM, Leechess.7859 said:

The game mode needs attention.

I don't think Alliances are the kind of attention that will be a game changer for the mode.

What it really needs is a breath of fresh air in the form of a new map with new mechanics (e.g., a Cantha-themed one with Siege Turtles) and bonus events with interesting directives instead of the same old boring "No Downed State" and "Bonus XP" weeks.

[Johje Holan.4607]

On 3/17/2023 at 9:01 AM, Mabi black.1824 said:

The problem is not the hat of 60 players on a single map. The problem is when a server is able to fill only one map, while your opponent queues them all 4. The problem is seeing games that end at the weekend with a flow of 50,000 K+D in T5 while you see 130,000 K+D in T1. The problem is that Anet makes matches based on the numbers it sees at the end of the 2-month period, and 3 days later players upset those same numbers.

The problem is to get Serie A players and Serie B players in the end, and the rules are not the same for everyone. Unless you also join "the merry company of the transfer", looking for content, without understanding what content we are talking about.

Oh I agree with everything you say here.  I was just pointing out to the poster that the caps are equal for each side.  They didn't seem to know that.  So they were under the mistaken impression that it was even more unfair than it actually is.

[Elementalist Owner.7802]

On 3/2/2023 at 3:53 PM, Xenesis.6389 said:

Just need to snap their fingers and have it all done instantly I guess...

🥴

 

I mean... the last few betas have worked. Can't they just turn the beta on as they continue to work on it? Sure it's unfinished and there are a few bugs here and there but it's still better than what we have right now.

[enkidu.5937]

Dear Anet,

I have 499 friends, I like them a lot. You know, we share the same preferences for music, poetry and such. And ofc we always share our boons.

 

Our biggest passion:

K-training, ganking, dominating Tier 1 👍

 

So, we usually transfer directly after re-link to a minor server and totally overstack it for 2 months.

 

We would like to do this after every re-link. To maximize our fun and WvW experience for everyone. But unfortunately, we cant, cause we have to pay 400 gems each time. 😒And we have to organize it and time our transfers, so the server dont get closed before the transfer is done. Some of our friends miss it due to real life issues. That sucks a lot.

 

 We already have our second account alliance ready to switch between teams 😀So please, Anet, release Alliances soon!

I like my 499 friends, I cant play without them.

 

Thx! 😚🤗

Edited April 1, 2023 by enkidu.5937

[Mabi black.1824]

On 4/1/2023 at 6:46 PM, enkidu.5937 said:

Dear Anet,

I have 499 friends, I like them a lot. You know, we share the same preferences for music, poetry and such. And ofc we always share our boons.

 

Our biggest passion:

K-training, ganking, dominating Tier 1 👍

 

So, we usually transfer directly after re-link to a minor server and totally overstack it for 2 months.

 

We would like to do this after every re-link. To maximize our fun and WvW experience for everyone. But unfortunately, we cant, cause we have to pay 400 gems each time. 😒And we have to organize it and time our transfers, so the server dont get closed before the transfer is done. Some of our friends miss it due to real life issues. That sucks a lot.

 

 We already have our second account alliance ready to switch between teams 😀So please, Anet, release Alliances soon!

I like my 499 friends, I cant play without them.

 

Thx! 😚🤗

As ironic as it is, it could hide something concrete.🙃

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 3/31/2023 at 9:41 PM, Elementalist Owner.7802 said:

 

I mean... the last few betas have worked. Can't they just turn the beta on as they continue to work on it? Sure it's unfinished and there are a few bugs here and there but it's still better than what we have right now.

I think the experience varied. The last couple were worse than the first ones as people started self organizing without the Alliance tools of the WR system. This lead to more lope sided matchups. Hence why they will need to test more once the Alliance UI portion is released to see how the algorithms group the various size groups.

Edited April 6, 2023 by TheGrimm.5624
invalid past tense spelling

[Johje Holan.4607]

On 4/1/2023 at 12:46 PM, enkidu.5937 said:

Dear Anet,

I have 499 friends, I like them a lot. You know, we share the same preferences for music, poetry and such. And ofc we always share our boons.

 

Our biggest passion:

K-training, ganking, dominating Tier 1 👍

 

So, we usually transfer directly after re-link to a minor server and totally overstack it for 2 months.

 

We would like to do this after every re-link. To maximize our fun and WvW experience for everyone. But unfortunately, we cant, cause we have to pay 400 gems each time. 😒And we have to organize it and time our transfers, so the server dont get closed before the transfer is done. Some of our friends miss it due to real life issues. That sucks a lot.

 

 We already have our second account alliance ready to switch between teams 😀So please, Anet, release Alliances soon!

I like my 499 friends, I cant play without them.

 

Thx! 😚🤗

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here, but I'll assume you're saying that Alliances will give people more of an opportunity to transfer en masse and mess up the population balance.    This is 100% false and must come from a misunderstanding of the way the alliance system will work.

Personally, I don't think for one second that the alliance system will completely fix population balance issues.  But it will help prevent people from transferring and overstacking a server the way they do now.  This is because people cannot transfer to another server.  Individuals can change their WvW guild.  Guilds can change their alliance.  Neither of which will take effect until the next relink.  In fact, no one - not an individual, not a guild, not an alliance - can even pick their server.  The largest group you can stack will be an alliance, and that's limited to 500 people.  So you and your 499 friends could all join together in an alliance.  But you won't be able to pick your server, or your tier.

[enkidu.5937]

1 hour ago, Johje Holan.4607 said:

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here, but I'll assume you're saying that Alliances will give people more of an opportunity to transfer en masse and mess up the population balance.    This is 100% false and must come from a misunderstanding of the way the alliance system will work.

Personally, I don't think for one second that the alliance system will completely fix population balance issues.  But it will help prevent people from transferring and overstacking a server the way they do now.  This is because people cannot transfer to another server.  Individuals can change their WvW guild.  Guilds can change their alliance.  Neither of which will take effect until the next relink.  In fact, no one - not an individual, not a guild, not an alliance - can even pick their server.  The largest group you can stack will be an alliance, and that's limited to 500 people.  So you and your 499 friends could all join together in an alliance.  But you won't be able to pick your server, or your tier.

not sure why you misunderstood

ppl will use second accounts (that a lot of ppl already have anyway) instead of transfers

and 2 alliances, 1 with their first account, and the same ppl with their second accounts in the 2nd Alliance

so ofc they can still pick their team that they want to play with, manipulate matchmaking and overstack their team

Alliances will make it just so much more easy and cheap to organize that

 

and lots of ppl will stack time zone / map / playstyle with their alliance, even unintentionally

e. g. green alliance raids 6 pm every day, PPK, voice, Meta

red alliance raids at 11 pm

blue alliance has intentionally stacked off-hours, to just massively win PPT

 

same bad things as before, just Alliances will make it much more easy for them, and servers are lost forever with no benefit

[Johje Holan.4607]

1 hour ago, enkidu.5937 said:

not sure why you misunderstood

ppl will use second accounts (that a lot of ppl already have anyway) instead of transfers

and 2 alliances, 1 with their first account, and the same ppl with their second accounts in the 2nd Alliance

so ofc they can still pick their team that they want to play with, manipulate matchmaking and overstack their team

Alliances will make it just so much more easy and cheap to organize that

 

and lots of ppl will stack time zone / map / playstyle with their alliance, even unintentionally

e. g. green alliance raids 6 pm every day, PPK, voice, Meta

red alliance raids at 11 pm

blue alliance has intentionally stacked off-hours, to just massively win PPT

 

same bad things as before, just Alliances will make it much more easy for them, and servers are lost forever with no benefit

Oh, ok.  I don't disagree with anything you say here, except that I don't think it will be to nearly the degree that you do.  Not that many people have multiple accounts.  Maybe the big guild people but surely not all the bandwagoners that follow them.  And they still won't be able to cherry pick their server.  They'll have to play on whichever server their accounts get assigned, which may even be the same server; that would serve them right.

I personally prefer the server system.  I don't think you can ever achieve pop balance in a 24/7 game.  Anet should make changes to some mechanics to mitigate the population imbalance.  That would work much better than Alliances.  However, they're going with alliances and  I think Alliances will improve pop balance somewhat but not a ton.  The 24-hour nature of the mode is the hardest thing to overcome.  

[Dayra.7405]

15 minutes ago, Johje Holan.4607 said:

They'll have to play on whichever server their accounts get assigned, which may even be the same server; that would serve them right.

Right, ANet could (ok, they could have restricted transfers to the 2 weeks before relink to hinder the current bandwaggoning, but they didn't) link alliances with many high volatill participating accounts together 🙂

Edited April 7, 2023 by Dayra.7405