Wasted resources on Alliances that we'll never see. (Updated)

[jul.7602]

Update: Seems like I was more or less correct. Reading between the lines, it seems like alliances have been shelved, which means we will probably never get them.

How many years have anet been working on Alliances? All of it will be for nothing, because its pretty clear that we aren't seeing alliances in 2023. In fact, alliances are probably shelved as companies begin to cut costs throughout their departments. Imagine the state of the game if anet devs spent those years delivering periodic updates to WvW? It's time to just cut our losses, alliances have failed, and its unfortunate that the GvG community was pressuring Anet into  thinking that this was actually going to be feasible.

Edited September 15, 2023 by jul.7602

[Dawdler.8521]

Yeah that massive pressure from the GvG community of people on the forum complaining about unbalanced matchups every week and broken links every other month.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[TheGrimm.5624]

16 minutes ago, jul.7602 said:

How many years have anet been working on Alliances? All of it will be for nothing, because its pretty clear that we aren't seeing alliances in 2023. In fact, alliances are probably shelved as companies begin to cut costs throughout their departments. Imagine the state of the game if anet devs spent those years delivering periodic updates to WvW? It's time to just cut our losses, alliances have failed, and its unfortunate that the GvG community was pressuring Anet into  thinking that this was actually going to be feasible.

Yawn, you posted under too many alts and lost respect since you didn't present as yourself. Stop trying to troll. Maybe next time try and stop gaming the system to hide and make point.

Edited March 14, 2023 by TheGrimm.5624

[TheGrimm.5624]

6 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Yawn, you posted under too many alts and lost respect since you didn't present as yourself. Stop trying to troll. Maybe next time try and stop gaming the system to hide and make a point. If you want to discuss then stop using alt accounts and raise a point.

 

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, jul.7602 said:

How many years have anet been working on Alliances? All of it will be for nothing, because its pretty clear that we aren't seeing alliances in 2023. In fact, alliances are probably shelved as companies begin to cut costs throughout their departments. Imagine the state of the game if anet devs spent those years delivering periodic updates to WvW? It's time to just cut our losses, alliances have failed, and its unfortunate that the GvG community was pressuring Anet into  thinking that this was actually going to be feasible.

 

Hello, Guild Wars community,

Before our holiday break, we wrapped up 2022 by reflecting on what a fantastic year it was for Guild Wars 2. In the time between that studio update and New Year’s Day, Guild Wars 2 and the ArenaNet team earned several end-of-year awards from top gaming press, including PC Gamer‘s Best Ongoing Game, MMORPG‘s Player’s Choice MMORPG of the Year, and MassivelyOP‘s Best MMO Studio (two years in a row!), Best MMO Expansion, and Best MMO Business Model. Those were some exciting presents to unwrap! Again, a heartfelt thank you to our fantastic community for helping make last year the success that it was. Let’s do it again.

 

Just quoting a recent communication of February 2023, to tell you what GW2 is after 10 years in 2022. So you just have to be proud to be part of this community and you have to be proud of the work that Anet has always done. on the merits of what you wrote. Yes, we will not have alliances in 2023 and no, it is not an abandoned project.

It is a complicated project, and as such it will need a lot of time and a lot of work before it becomes something concrete. They also told you that we won't get any more betas until the alliances feature is ready to be implemented and verified. So they carry on the work, even if they have not yet solved the problem of misassignment of some players. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

Anet hasn't invested anything appreciable into WvW in general or Alliances in particular.  Maybe a few weeks of one developers time here and there, but they've been stringing us along the whole time.  If it mattered, they would have done something about it. Instead, when they do make changes, its to help their blob commander friends happier.  

[RisingDawn.5796]

It's not 'wasted' resources, it's lack of resources to fix and add new features to WvW,  besides the first couple of years after the game launched back in 2012, especially when we had people like Habib Loew directing the WvW side.

Also the Expansions bringing in new Elite specs, which just added more of a headche for the Profession Balance team, to balance fo alll the different game modes.

The current Population balancing and all that, was in need Restructuring for a long time, Server Linkings were only a band aid, since they started testing that through the 'Beta' stage.

Edited March 14, 2023 by CrimsonOneThree.5682

[Bristingr.5034]

11 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Yeah that massive pressure from the GvG community of people on the forum complaining about unbalanced matchups every week and broken links every other month.

They gave the GvGs what they wanted. Not Anet's fault they refuse to go into the EOTM arena.

[jul.7602]

13 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Yawn, you posted under too many alts and lost respect since you didn't present as yourself. Stop trying to troll. Maybe next time try and stop gaming the system to hide and make point.

And what "alts" would those be?

[jul.7602]

12 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

 

Hello, Guild Wars community,

Before our holiday break, we wrapped up 2022 by reflecting on what a fantastic year it was for Guild Wars 2. In the time between that studio update and New Year’s Day, Guild Wars 2 and the ArenaNet team earned several end-of-year awards from top gaming press, including PC Gamer‘s Best Ongoing Game, MMORPG‘s Player’s Choice MMORPG of the Year, and MassivelyOP‘s Best MMO Studio (two years in a row!), Best MMO Expansion, and Best MMO Business Model. Those were some exciting presents to unwrap! Again, a heartfelt thank you to our fantastic community for helping make last year the success that it was. Let’s do it again.

 

Just quoting a recent communication of February 2023, to tell you what GW2 is after 10 years in 2022. So you just have to be proud to be part of this community and you have to be proud of the work that Anet has always done. on the merits of what you wrote. Yes, we will not have alliances in 2023 and no, it is not an abandoned project.

It is a complicated project, and as such it will need a lot of time and a lot of work before it becomes something concrete. They also told you that we won't get any more betas until the alliances feature is ready to be implemented and verified. So they carry on the work, even if they have not yet solved the problem of misassignment of some players. 

Sure that's what they say, but its very obvious that Anet isn't serious about finishing alliances. They are stringing this community along. 

[Chaba.5410]

16 minutes ago, jul.7602 said:

Sure that's what they say, but its very obvious that Anet isn't serious about finishing alliances. They are stringing this community along. 

Less cynicism please.  It's a waste too.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[jul.7602]

1 minute ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Less cynicism please.  It's a waste too.

Is it cynicism? That's literally what Anet did before they 'revived' alliances? If they did it once, they can do it again.

[Sugar Min.5834]

The first talk on World restructuring and alliances was in 2018. Then the whole thing went totally mute till early 2021 where a couple of beta tests started but only to be abruptly stopped due to matchup issues. Those tests continued in late 2021 (or izit early 2022?) until today and we are already into test number six (and god knows how many more) with some rewards and see-sawing participation recognitions thrown in.

So... Alliance when?

TC is probably right. There won't be one and all this time we are just being strung along using different kind of strings 😑

 

PS Might as well spend the resources on something else, like new maps, new structures, new looks or new mechanics instead of feet dragging on something that ain't gonna happen. And like someone said, just remove all walls and gates since repairing them are not appreciated, hence not needed. Also change the name to WvW Assault Only.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Min Min.9368

[Chips.7968]

Sod world restructuring, how about just adjusting the buggy maps so that people can't exploit into the towers anymore? It's been reported for years, it's been demonstrated for years,. it's been ignored for years.

If they can't be arsed to fix exploits, why think they can engineer alliances... and I mean alliances that work. 

Just look at the latest update "implemented Chrom... wait, no, back it out".

[Enirehtac.1245]

I completely agree with the previous post, there are many bugs/exploits that need to be addressed. I really wanted the aliances but rn I dont care at all. I dont think Anet will do anything and I feel good in my current server so I think Anet should stop selling the 'aliance' idea that we know they’re not working on and focus the little resourses they have in WvW in fix certain issues that have been reported many times

[Dawdler.8521]

Btw the DBL garri cornerstone is still broken I believe so going by the timeline and progress that must waste like 1000x the resources compared to alliances.

Puts things into perspective doesnt it?

[MedievalThings.5417]

That's the secret, we already have alliances.  When (if) alliances ever happen, it will look exactly like wvw looks right now.  Sure, they are taking our server names and replacing them with new names, but everything else about it will be identical.

[Chaba.5410]

21 hours ago, jul.7602 said:

Is it cynicism? That's literally what Anet did before they 'revived' alliances? If they did it once, they can do it again.

Do you really believe that "stringing the community along" is intentional at all?  They sit around and develop some nefarious business plan to pull one over on their customers like that?  They hire guys like Floyd Grubb to help relieve some of the lack of resources on the game mode because they aren't serious?  It's ok to be critical without the cynicism.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Thea Cherry.6327]

17 hours ago, Ubi.4136 said:

That's the secret, we already have alliances.  When (if) alliances ever happen, it will look exactly like wvw looks right now.  Sure, they are taking our server names and replacing them with new names, but everything else about it will be identical.

Looking at the EU T1... yiep it will.

Been saying it for years and years: the problem is not the mode itself, its unrestricted transfering which should be restricted to 1 transfer half a year or even a year. 

[Dawdler.8521]

24 minutes ago, Thea Cherry.6327 said:

Looking at the EU T1... yiep it will.

Been saying it for years and years: the problem is not the mode itself, its unrestricted transfering which should be restricted to 1 transfer half a year or even a year. 

One of the points of world restructure is that it solves the transfer issue by making it obsolete for world stacking purposes. You "transfer" with your guild (or randomly without) every 2 months anyway. 

Even with the function in place it would also be easy to restrict it to the 2 month average target rather than actual world size.

[Mabi black.1824]

47 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

One of the points of world restructure is that it solves the transfer

Let's do it now tomorrow, there is no need to wait for alliances for this. It limits transfers to 1 or 2 times a year, also does not allow transfers to 5% more than the combinations that the current system has built. The fact that everyone can pour into the secondary server until it is full is absolutely absurd. It makes any construction useless after a few days.

[Solvar.7953]

I almost wonder if the issue is more someone at Anet sees that $X/year are made right now with world transfers, and that money would just disappear with alliances, so what they are really trying to figure out is how to keep that income stream (pay $Y and you can immediately change your alliance vs waiting for the next resync?)

For the same reason, I doubt Anet would have much incentive to make it so people can not change worlds as often as they do - it makes them money.

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 3/14/2023 at 5:55 PM, jul.7602 said:

And what "alts" would those be?

Sorry too many Mag people have alt accounts and considering the number of other accounts have replied to accounts replying to questions to you while also declaring you are barely a Mag player, will have to call a drama lama. So, whatever. I spent quite a bit defending Mag on good faith before the BS of alt accounts, so sorry. Right now you are looking like a troll. So bye!?

[Thea Cherry.6327]

23 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

One of the points of world restructure is that it solves the transfer issue by making it obsolete for world stacking purposes. You "transfer" with your guild (or randomly without) every 2 months anyway. 

Even with the function in place it would also be easy to restrict it to the 2 month average target rather than actual world size.

 

I guess you miss my point, what i meant was that the Alliance system won't solve the overstacking problem. We will get 1 or 2 very strong alliance powerhouses who will steamroll over everything (like WSR+Vaabi is doing right now), maybe 2 alliances like Drakkar with PVD focuses elderly people who are theire for the fun and at the end we will have x random alliances with everyone mixed despite language barriers etc.

 

If Anet would have restricted the transfering, maybe close 1 Tier and give out a free transfer for everyone to remix the servers, it would have taken way less ressources, did not implement new systems (which don't work) and we wouldn't be beating around bushes for how many years now? xD

[Mabi black.1824]

6 hours ago, Solvar.7953 said:

I almost wonder if the issue is more someone at Anet sees that $X/year are made right now with world transfers, and that money would just disappear with alliances, so what they are really trying to figure out is how to keep that income stream (pay $Y and you can immediately change your alliance vs waiting for the next resync?)

For the same reason, I doubt Anet would have much incentive to make it so people can not change worlds as often as they do - it makes them money.

In these terms the point should be that if so many players for a long time is pointing to the transfer out of control as a problem, which makes it more complicated to have fun for a good portion of players, then, solving it (putting transfers under control) should lead to more accessible fun for more players. + fun in this mode = + players participating and joining this mode. 

More players = more dollars