Alliance will never work out

[Bristingr.5034]

16 hours ago, Crazy.6029 said:

This system is better than the linking system we have now. I would take this all day every day than the match manipulation, band wagoning, and transfer garbage, that we have now.

Uh, this new "system" doesn't mean match manipulation won't magically go away. 2 realms/servers/whatever we're calling them can still team up and cause a draw.

[blp.3489]

Just now, Bristingr.5034 said:

Uh, this new "system" doesn't mean match manipulation won't magically go away. 2 realms/servers/whatever we're calling them can still team up and cause a draw.

I would think that with each team consisting of multiple alliances and many individuals that change every matchup it is much less likely for match manipulation to be desired as well as harder to coordinate.

[Bristingr.5034]

2 minutes ago, blp.3489 said:

I would think that with each team consisting of multiple alliances and many individuals that change every matchup it is much less likely for match manipulation to be desired as well as harder to coordinate.

Did people already forget the TC and SOR tie saga? If two servers are pretty evenly matched, it's pretty easy to tie.

[blp.3489]

27 minutes ago, Bristingr.5034 said:

Did people already forget the TC and SOR tie saga? If two servers are pretty evenly matched, it's pretty easy to tie.

But in the case of servers many of the players have been playing with the other members of their server for a long time so it is easier to organize to go for a tie.  If 80% of the people on your team in a match are players you have never played with before, organizing things is likely to be more difficult.  Secondly, and probably more importantly, those worlds had the goal of stopping another server from dropping into Tier 2, and possibly also didn't want to go to tier 1, it is much less likely to have that motivation when all the worlds have a random mix of guilds and players as it is unlikely that whole worlds will have a objectionable coherent culture.

[Bristingr.5034]

1 hour ago, blp.3489 said:

Secondly, and probably more importantly, those worlds had the goal of stopping another server from dropping into Tier 2, and possibly also didn't want to go to tier 1, it is much less likely to have that motivation when all the worlds have a random mix of guilds and players as it is unlikely that whole worlds will have a objectionable coherent culture.

Good thing Maguuma's created their own core alliance then that will keep the common goal of servers teaming up intact in the future. (At least, that's what I've heard - "Magswag" was supposed to be that "Alliance" of Mag players)

Edited June 13, 2023 by Bristingr.5034
Added words/fixed grammar.

[blp.3489]

It will indeed be interesting to see how things play out with the world the Mag alliance ends up part of.  Will the other 80% of players in that world interfere with Mag's ability to execute its strategies or will Mag have so many players onlinw that they can do as they please or ...

[disForm.2837]

6 hours ago, Bristingr.5034 said:

Did people already forget the TC and SOR tie saga? If two servers are pretty evenly matched, it's pretty easy to tie.

Compared with all the massive changes they are doing to the backend, implementing new rules to break a tie is trivial. They could add a few criteria and if it's still a tie (unlikely but theoretically possible), just coin flip. 

[aspirine.6852]

Of course it wont. These current wvw devs have no idea what they are doing. Combine that with the balance team who also have no idea what they are doing and you have a recipe for disaster.

[oatsnjuices.1698]

God bless alliances.

[senftube.6081]

20 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

A very big guild is a one-guild Alliance. If Anet allowed server-sized alliances, the entire world restructuring project would be pointless.

 

Yes, this topic was addressed by players when the alliance system was first introduced - but so far Anet has not said exactly whether and how they want to solve it.

 

As it is now it will be also pointless. There will be no community driven organization and the guilds will be in their own discords. This game is 10y old and wvw didn't received any meaningful updates in that timeframe. What do you think why there are still peeps playing that modi daily? Bceause they like to play with peoples they like. And with that cap these communities get destroyed. I think many peoples will left the game. Me too because it is no fun to play with a mass of NPC's which do not talk anymore and guilds which do their own kitten in invis.

[Burial.1958]

17 minutes ago, senftube.6081 said:

As it is now it will be also pointless. There will be no community driven organization and the guilds will be in their own discords. This game is 10y old and wvw didn't received any meaningful updates in that timeframe. What do you think why there are still peeps playing that modi daily? Bceause they like to play with peoples they like. And with that cap these communities get destroyed. I think many peoples will left the game. Me too because it is no fun to play with a mass of NPC's which do not talk anymore and guilds which do their own kitten in invis.

 Fair points. It's also clear to me that with a 500 cap, server communities will die out, which is a shame. Balance is important, but whether it enhances the game when only faceless masses compete against each other, I don't know. Especially since the hopes of some here is again somewhat credulous. Very many players play with multiple accounts and thus you can create so pretty easy and convenient again an imbalance.  I think it's a big sacrifice to sacrifice the communities for this.

In addition, Anet also has a very strong USA centrism. In the EU you also have different languages/cultures and there is a reason why a German chose a German server as an example. Sure most people can speak English but it's not the same as before where you could talk to other players in your native language. Language connects and yes I also see it so that just the veterans play mainly because of the others with whom you like to play together. Very delicate subject

We have some old Gw 1 players who often don't speak English very well. Such players will surely ask themselves in the future if WvW will be so much fun for them. I think not.

An MMO has social components and that's exactly why people play it. If you soften that more and more, that can also be bad for the game. ArenaNet really has to weigh up what makes sense.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Burial.1958

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Burial.1958 said:

 Fair points. It's also clear to me that with a 500 cap, server communities will die out, which is a shame. Balance is important, but whether it enhances the game when only faceless masses compete against each other, I don't know. Especially since the hopes of some here is again somewhat credulous. Very many players play with multiple accounts and thus you can create so pretty easy and convenient again an imbalance.  I think it's a big sacrifice to sacrifice the communities for this.

In addition, Anet also has a very strong USA centrism. In the EU you also have different languages/cultures and there is a reason why a German chose a German server as an example. Sure most people can speak English but it's not the same as before where you could talk to other players in your native language. Language connects and yes I also see it so that just the veterans play mainly because of the others with whom you like to play together. Very delicate subject

We have some old Gw 1 players who often don't speak English very well. Such players will surely ask themselves in the future if WvW will be so much fun for them. I think not.

An MMO has social components and that's exactly why people play it. If you soften that more and more, that can also be bad for the game. ArenaNet really has to weigh up what makes sense.

I completely agree with your considerations. My constructive suggestion in this section of the forum was also to take advantage of this ''long transition period'' that is leading us towards WR and alliances. so that ''waiting'' is not useless or just something that the player suffers. but to make sure that it becomes fertile ground, something constructive for all the checks that development wants to do.

Clearly I'm talking about under-control/limited transfers, I'm talking about limiting players on every single map to grow queues so as to actively stimulate the redistribution of players and groups of players between servers, I'm talking about solving the problem of 3 servers without a link in eu etc etc.

The small updates (numbers and parameters that exist and only to be changed) that development could do, to accompany us towards a balance between better and better servers are really many. Before questioning the community/social aspect of this game, before making the concept of servers useless in a server-based vs. server mode, perhaps it is worth checking many, small and innocent updates.

The surprise might be that they work as intended. Little expense so much yield.😉

[Zok.4956]

1 hour ago, senftube.6081 said:

As it is now it will be also pointless.

I would not say that it is pointless. Anets goal with world restructuring and alliances is to reduce the population imbalances. I do remember a lot of complaints from players about "night capping" being unfair (in their opinion) that started this whole thing/mess.  Is Anet doing the right thing and can Anet truly ever reach this goal? I doubt it.  And: It seems Anet accepts some "collateral damage" in the process. 

 

1 hour ago, senftube.6081 said:

There will be no community driven organization and the guilds will be in their own discords.

It is obvious that server communities/identities will be replaced with alliance (and guild) communities/identities. I have critzied this myself more than once. But nothing prevents players from a server community to create a server community alliance with an alliance discord server for their own benefit.

 

1 hour ago, Burial.1958 said:

In the EU you also have different languages/cultures and there is a reason why a German chose a German server as an example. 

First: There never were geman GW2 servers, just german language servers. 😉 And second: The single-language-server ship has sailed a long time ago, when Anet started with the server links.

 

1 hour ago, Burial.1958 said:

Sure most people can speak English but it's not the same as before where you could talk to other players in your native language.

They can continue to write and talk in their own language.  Players should already be used to seeing many different languages in chat that they don't understand themselves.

And important announcements that all players should understand and respond to could read as follows: "[ping target] <number> green/red/blue inner/outer wall/gate <number>%"

Learning some basic words like green/red/blue/inside/outside/wall/gate is possible for everyone. They don't need to write poems in a foreign language.

On my server I regularly see bilingual leads in English/German with participants who only speak German or only English (or a little bit of both). This works pretty well.

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by Zok.4956

[TheGrimm.5624]

4 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

I would not say that it is pointless. Anets goal with world restructuring and alliances is to reduce the population imbalances. I do remember a lot of complaints from players about "night capping" being unfair (in their opinion) that started this whole thing/mess.  Is Anet doing the right thing and can Anet truly ever reach this goal? I doubt it.  And: It seems Anet accepts some "collateral damage" in the process. 

Good points all. The only thing I think I would adjust was I think night capping has always been a call out, but not their main focus. They got to thinking about the WR after they found they couldn't get better balance by just using relinks as they had hoped and they did come out and say nope, a server is too big we need smaller groups to figure out numbers. The reason I say this, outside of their own older postings on it, is that the WR project in the past has stated time zone is not a factor in the sorts. Now they might have added it along the way and not stated it, but that was a question from the beginning and the reply was we might consider that in the future. I think they are hoping with the Alliance portion of the WR project that players will handle that issue themselves. Groups that play out of their server's prime time zones with be prized assets.  I think we might even go back to the time where players were asked to pitch in gold to help buy a group over to a server. Mind you not a fan of that and don't want us going back there but could see it coming back around. Just months ago saw on the forums a guild forming up to be hired out to Alliances for gold already.

Server pride people, me included, best shots are getting in an Alliance with other players from our server that we like to game with and even if we are all on our own separate voices today and just map chat, group up and form community Alliances. That's also why I say test as needed until is is done, launching without a tested system just breaks up servers for no need if it launches and creates a worse system. That will just leave players with, why didn't we just use all that dev time to roll out other changes instead of this one. Example, see Xen's polls on development and community guilds:

 

[Riba.3271]

Alliances won't work because it takes away choice. Being able to choose server that befits you the best will always be worse than being thrown into random generic place. Even if you wanted to build your suitable place, you won't be able to anymore, there will be too many people and groups coming and going ruining timezones or queues.

Like some people already pointed out server linkings were garbage also because the population wasn't limited (outside some problematic Full+Full population status cases that we saw) and transferring to top linkings was same neglible cost (500 gems) as weaker ones.

Monoservers are the answer. Not 27 of them. Just 12 or 15. World Destructuring is just not it.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Dawdler.8521]

13 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Monoservers are the answer. Not 27 of them. Just 12 or 15. World Destructuring is just not it.

How do you make a link go away without destroying it?

[Riba.3271]

Just now, Dawdler.8521 said:

How do you make a link go away without destroying it?

Countries get conquered and vanquished. Houses burn down. You will still have choice of a home. Linking were always carebear solution.

[Dawdler.8521]

2 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Countries get conquered and vanquished. Houses burn down. You will still have choice of a home. Linking were always carebear solution.

Guess server pride isnt a thing after all then 🤷‍♂️

[Riba.3271]

27 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

30 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Countries get conquered and vanquished. Houses burn down. You will still have choice of a home. Linking were always carebear solution.

Guess server pride isnt a thing after all then 🤷‍♂️

Depends who they delete. If I was citizen of 20 person server, obviously I would find it reasonable that they delete my server over some bigger ones if there just isn't population for 9 tiers. If I was on biggest server in WvW, it would be unreasonable to delete us over smaller ones.

Now of course deleting smaller servers isn't only solution:

- You can merge 2 servers permanently. You could keep both names fully, or merge them in a way like Far Shiverpeaks and Aurora Glade merged would become Aurora Shiverpeaks

- You could merge smaller servers together, call it like Tribal Worlds or something

- You could delete all servers and just start over with less servers and new names. Maybe most fair decision.

 

Server is more than its name. Its spirit will carry on.

 

Randomized matchmaking can't replace communities. People need something they can throw their effort and dreams at. They need a home to improve.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Riba.3271

[TheGrimm.5624]

9 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Guess server pride isnt a thing after all then 🤷‍♂️

Dawdler, Riba has some points here. In Warhammer we had people transferring server to server to support a side or a case of an outnumbered side to lend aid. In GW2 it seems it's more to stack. I am not sure why the differences and question the why or assume its just some players making bad decisions in WAR to aid a side that needs numbers. WAR choose to close servers and roll peeps up. Our old home became our new one. The fight rolled on. GW2 choose not to make people move and went with links. Not sure if that lead to more mentality of just transfer if your side isn't holding versus the idea of help your peeps even if you were here or dropped into here and now this is your home. Drive them out! WAAGH! So, have to question, would the idea of closing servers been better to keep unity?

-Grimjester, Choppa, [OE], Badlands at the end of time, Darkcrag, Praag, Roamer/Havoc

Edit: Hail Ultravalfor, nice to see and hunt with you again during the betas. 🙂 May your hunts bring many bags and many /waves my old friend. This old Choppa salutes your Marauder and sends a /dance your way! Be you my friend! Happiness to you as always.

[Mabi black.1824]

On 6/15/2023 at 9:25 AM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Dawdler, Riba has some points here

The biggest problem here is the lack of comparison or feedback with respect to a number of legitimate observations. Riba has subtended the problem of choosing between different communities over random chaos. I have repeatedly reported that many players put the contnuto in reference to their server. I also pointed out that the server container is made specifically for legitimate confrontation, while a guild or alliance cannot be countered to another guild or alliance.

It's not like we've seen such invasive WWW updates every year. It's happening now, after 10 years that players are demanding a more credible balance more fun and more competitive. A sort of constructive or even just cognitive discussion with those who are dealing with this development, would be really useful.

Even if only with the aim of better informing players, and preventing them from distancing themselves from our favorite game.

[TheGrimm.5624]

3 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

The biggest problem here is the lack of comparison or feedback with respect to a number of legitimate observations. Riba has subtended the problem of choosing between different communities over random chaos. I have repeatedly reported that many players put the contnuto in reference to their server. I also pointed out that the server container is made specifically for legitimate confrontation, while a guild or alliance cannot be countered to another guild or alliance.

It's not like we've seen such invasive WWW updates every year. It's happening now, after 10 years that players are demanding a more credible balance more fun and more competitive. A sort of constructive or even just cognitive discussion with those who are dealing with this development, would be really useful.

Even if only with the aim of better informing players, and preventing them from distancing themselves from our favorite game.

Any given server pride player may have that feeling for different reasons. Some may have it since they have been there for many years on the same server, some may have it from being active in voice within a community. Some may have it from map or teams banter in chat, some may have it since they have seen that same name for years and will hop into a fight since they have done so.  I don't think I would try and narrow it down to a single attribute that could define server pride.

Now will that sense of being pass from server to Alliance, probably overtime. But I don't think it will pass over to the larger worlds that makes up the new server. Seven Pines may be your home for 8 weeks but then its Giant's Rise, but who cares after that. The name won't play a factor since it will like we all just server hop each 8 weeks. Having fought Blackgate for many years back in the day while on SoR I enjoy when I get a chance to do so while on SBI now for they have a status in my mind as an honored foe and will look forward to playing again against them and they have their own tactics. Mag, same. Servers overtime develop their own personalities and playstyles. With the WR all of that is lost. 

So will the WR help balance, hopefully. Will it mix things up and create chaos, probably. It's ironic, people jumping from server only helped to create more imbalance as people come and go from the game, so ANet's answer to handle that chaos is to create more chaos by making it seem like we all transfer from server to server each 8 weeks comes across a bit funny to the server pride side. Granted those same people may never had been in voice with them nor may have ever chatted with a fellow server mate but would still send a /wave and lend them a hand up if in need. Each to their own, some people will see things from the me view, the guild view and some of us from the server view point. WR will replace that server view to Alliance view but I doubt anyone after that will think about it as the server view since you don't know where you will be, they might as well retire names each 8 weeks and just use W1 - W'x' as names since they will have no meaning after that. Anyway, enough rambling. Mabi as always good hunting on your reset, may we all find full bags and many laughs and make sure you send them back to respawn after the fight.

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by TheGrimm.5624
missing word

[Dawdler.8521]

On 6/15/2023 at 9:25 AM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

So, have to question, would the idea of closing servers been better to keep unity?

At the end of the day, maintaining worlds will just lead to more of the same things people complain about every other week - worlds completely stuck in tiers, worlds left for dead by bandwagoners leaving or worlds so stacked they just win every match to the point no one even care to try fighting them.

It wouldnt surprise me the slightest if a majority of those wanting to maintain their personal status quo over gameplay for the masses just happen to be on strong worlds.

Alas if only there was some kind of way to join a group of players and have some kind of unity within a group.