Alliances = canned

[Luthan.5236]

Them moving server re-linking to a monthly schedule probably means we will get the new world restructuring thing soon. (I'd expect it first half of 2024.) The alliances of course might take at least another few years and beta testing as well. Until end of 2026 there should be no release. Earliest 2027 I guess. (Until that randomly generating of the new "shards" in the new system. But just with mixing guilds and solo players.)

[Lincolnbeard.1735]

12 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

To be fair that pipeline wasnt built by an unpaid intern working during bathroom breaks.

ANerf is a big company not an indie one so they aren't allowed to use that excuse unless they say "we don't give a flying kitten about wvw" or "we don't give a flying kitten about gw2". 

And certainly not when they say "wvw is a cornerstone of gw2".

[Cyninja.2954]

Once again, what is world restructuring in a nutshell versus the current server system:

Current Server System

- Current server system has 27/24 (EU/NA) parts to work with

- servers have a maximum size, which can be altered, before they are closed for transfers (though the way servers are closed is also a matter of time frame. They don't immediately close so overstacking a server is possible and is being done). The idea here is that if a server is overstacked, they will get a smaller link server (or none) 8 weeks later.

- server count are fixed and at 24/27, which results in no link server on EU for 2 servers

- in theory more than 2 servers can be linked (we had that 1 time at the beginning of corona on EU due to WvW population dropping so low), leading to loss of tiers (4 tiers instead of 5 on EU that matchup)

- server communities are possible since once on a server, there is no way to "remove" or move a player from that server (besides removing the server, which we have not seen happen)

 

World Restructuring System

- the amount of servers can fluctuate. the only necessity is to create a number of servers which can be divided up into tiers of 3. I kind of feel that many people forget about this aspect. If the WvW community were to decline by 50% next week, this system would create enough servers to let all the remaining players not notice a difference in their matchup

- servers are made up of (alliances aka mega guild with cap player number of 500 - alliance system), guilds with a cap of 500 players, individual players not assigned to a guild

- server size can fluctuate or be adjusted since servers are recreated on a continual basis

- server communities are harder (near impossible) to maintain. This will have to be transferred to guild (or alliance if we ever get that) communities

- players will/have to take a more active role in shaping their WvW experience via selecting to join guilds or face a total randomization of team members

 

The second system is the far more flexible one, at the cost of server identity. The main issues here will be in game tools for managing alliances/guilds/temporary servers, which are severely lacking currently. The second main issue will be between heavily organized players and completely disorganized players in how the experience can be. This will depend a lot on how good the algorithm creates servers as to not stack multiple organized large guild together.

Transfers and the ability to transfer will also be a crucial aspect in how the WR system is approached. Make it impossible to transfer or to stringent, and players might take a break. Make it to lenient and we end up back where we are now with many players transferring around.

Edited December 25, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Transfers and the ability to transfer will also be a crucial aspect in how the WR system is approached. Make it impossible to transfer or to stringent, and players might take a break. Make it to lenient and we end up back where we are now with many players transferring around.

In theory it would be easier for them to be "strict" with it since they could use a percentage based on average sorting size, rather than diffuse "high", "very high" etc. Worlds could either be open for transfers or "full". A "full" world could be like 5% more than average sorting size.

[TheGrimm.5624]

6 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Transfers and the ability to transfer will also be a crucial aspect in how the WR system is approached. Make it impossible to transfer or to stringent, and players might take a break. Make it to lenient and we end up back where we are now with many players transferring around.

Good summation on the WR project. As far as transfers the other factor that I assume they can't be sure of is how many players have alt accounts. Based on connection information they might have some inkling on it that might impact some numbers. A player with multiple accounts can only be on one at a time but the computation has to figure them in thereby leaving gaps in populations that may not be filled if that players is active on multiple accounts on a regular basis. I don't think that is why they are blocking transfers early on but may be a minor factor.

2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

In theory it would be easier for them to be "strict" with it since they could use a percentage based on average sorting size, rather than diffuse "high", "very high" etc. Worlds could either be open for transfers or "full". A "full" world could be like 5% more than average sorting size.

Considering transfers now effectively become free by simply changing your WvW guild and waiting till the next sort, why should there be transfers at all? Considering a portion of this  issue was created by stacking, why allow for it to continue? If multiple guilds want to stack, they can by joining a united guild and then when they sort that larger guild will be factored in and balanced against guilds of similar attributes. If you go with transfers then the sort can be unbalanced by two groups merging after a sort was calculated. 

The idea of lowering the bar on server size has merit but it would require the server status be measured per transfer so that a large group didn't "rush an open gate" when they found a server open and mass transferred at the same time to try and game the server status system if they were to allow transfers after a sort.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

The 'alliances is a big mega guild' stance is the biggest cop out ever.

The hand waving and responses here rivals most of those dudes you see on TV that do kicks and the crowd all falls over 😂.

Look, alliances at a core has an organization structure that isn't present in guilds, and that's...grouping more than one guild together.  This is not the same as just joining a bunch of guilds, because multiple guilds have multiple leaders--a big guild effectively has one.  There are no tools in current guild making to set a subsection as PvE, WvW, or sPvP--it's all one big blob.

Not to mention physically spawning new guilds instead of just effectively using a linked list to group them is asinine.  It is really no wonder the sPvP portion of the game failed because if they can't get basic groupings right there's no way to create an e-sports scene.

As for world restructuring, it's just a bad idea.  It's the same thing we have now with a worse coat of paint--because we don't control the groupings.  We just control who we want to be grouped with by joining guilds, but as far as creating teams from alliances, that's not happening.  

It's literally six years of dev for the same thing they've been doing, but this time maybe a portion is automated instead of hand linking.  Problem is, the automation has to be just as good as the manual or we've waited six years for a downgrade.  

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Considering transfers now effectively become free by simply changing your WvW guild and waiting till the next sort, why should there be transfers at all? Considering a portion of this  issue was created by stacking, why allow for it to continue? If multiple guilds want to stack, they can by joining a united guild and then when they sort that larger guild will be factored in and balanced against guilds of similar attributes. If you go with transfers then the sort can be unbalanced by two groups merging after a sort was calculated. 

The idea of lowering the bar on server size has merit but it would require the server status be measured per transfer so that a large group didn't "rush an open gate" when they found a server open and mass transferred at the same time to try and game the server status system if they were to allow transfers after a sort.

What I said had nothing to do with "lowering the bar on server size". My random example of sort size + 5% for example, would just be ~100 extra transfer for a ~2500 average before a team would be "closed" for transfer. But sure it also depends on whether Anet want to stick with faster shuffles. Transfers have no real purpose on 4 week shuffles.

31 minutes ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Look, alliances at a core has an organization structure that isn't present in guilds, and that's...grouping more than one guild together.  This is not the same as just joining a bunch of guilds, because multiple guilds have multiple leaders--a big guild effectively has one.  There are no tools in current guild making to set a subsection as PvE, WvW, or sPvP--it's all one big blob.

Oh ok so you're saying alliances is effectivly a big mega guild like how community guilds work, with multiple leader roles if they choose.

Fun fact though - there is actually a tool for creating sPvP teams in current guilds. 

Edited December 25, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[Gotejjeken.1267]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Oh ok so you're saying alliances is effectivly a big mega guild like how community guilds work, with multiple leader roles if they choose.

Not at all.

Swear grouping fallacies on these forums is almost as rampant as gambler's fallacy is in real life.

For a sports example, look at the Pro Bowl--it's literally alliances.  You have players from different teams allied and they play against each other--it is not one big new team, the 'team' is a temporary grouping of the best players from different teams.  

[Dawdler.8521]

7 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Not at all.

Swear grouping fallacies on these forums is almost as rampant as gambler's fallacy is in real life.

For a sports example, look at the Pro Bowl--it's literally alliances.  You have players from different teams allied and they play against each other--it is not one big new team, the 'team' is a temporary grouping of the best players from different teams.  

Are you mishmashing WR (temporary teams) with alliances? Because it sure look like that. An alliance isn’t something temporary formed for an event (such as a matchup). That’s a WR team. The alliance is permanent as long as its members don’t leave (much like a guild).

The pro bowl comparison doesn’t really work since alliances doesn’t function like that.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

2 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Are you mishmashing WR (temporary teams) with alliances? Because it sure look like that. An alliance isn’t something temporary formed for an event (such as a matchup). That’s a WR team. The alliance is permanent as long as its members don’t leave (much like a guild).

The pro bowl comparison doesn’t really work since alliances doesn’t function like that.

They do though.  Pro Bowl teams are/would be essentially static (or close enough to it) if the same players get selected each year.  NBA All Star game is the same way.

Or think of it like Space Jam.  The game itself is the 'world restructuring' part as the teams might as well be nameless (and do have generic names like Monstars); and then, the team is an alliance of players (there individual, here guilds).  This is important, as the players come from both human realm and toon land, so it is a grouping of two discreet sets not a 'mega' set.    

Anyway, with Space Jam, MJ eventually leaves and Lebron joins, but the toons still are allied.  Just like in GW2, you don't have to break up an alliance, but very likely elements will be swapped in and out as guilds die/form.  

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Just like in GW2, you don't have to break up an alliance, but very likely elements will be swapped in and out as guilds die/form.  

… so alliances are like a mega guild containing multiple guilds then. Still not sure what other point you are trying to make.

[TheGrimm.5624]

21 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Transfers have no real purpose on 4 week shuffles.

Out of curiosity, once players are used to the system and we go to 8 weeks or something other than 4, where do you see transfers playing a role? This is assuming they have a plan for new players being spread about. Even at 8 weeks player lose would be accounted for to keep sides even if all goes as planned.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Out of curiosity, once players are used to the system and we go to 8 weeks or something other than 4, where do you see transfers playing a role? This is assuming they have a plan for new players being spread about. Even at 8 weeks player lose would be accounted for to keep sides even if all goes as planned.

Well 8 weeks is a long time if you really, really want to get away from your team. Wont be perfectly even anyway (people leave, people vary their game time week by week, maybe some commander is just on vacation who knows).

But if they dont have transfers I wouldnt care either way.

[adammantium.8031]

Sounds a sensible decision.

World restructurings are the piece which should bring improved matchups with more event coverage across timezones. I'm personally cautiously optimistic and excited for this.

Alliances were a cool idea, but in practice, pretty close to what we already can do and did do during beta's with existing tools. On Gandara, we have a community guild ("Dara") and all the main guilds (bar some fight guilds) joined that one for the purposes of being together in restructuring, but then repped their original guilds afterwards.

I would prefer some 'light' work to make this easier, such as a 6th guild slot, would be far cheaper to develop than building a hierarchy for guilds (an alliance). Particularly having seen all the bugs from the world restructuring betas.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, adammantium.8031 said:

I would prefer some 'light' work to make this easier, such as a 6th guild slot, would be far cheaper to develop than building a hierarchy for guilds (an alliance). 

Especially since the functions are almost there. 

If they expand the existing sPvP team tool for guilds that no one ever use to a new "WvW team" tool where the main guild leader assign a member as leader of their own team within the guild (ie guild members that are other guild leaders) with a certain amount of member slots they can administrate, you basicly have what would have been the full extent of the alliance system as we've been shown.

[Mabi black.1824]

Guild slots or implemented alliances make very little difference. The real change is WR. And I don't have any answers on the merits, while I'm still left with all my questions, years later. I participate in this game mode in a medium/long-term perspective with reference to the teams/servers. I like competition I like confrontation I like my guild, which is still useless for competition and confrontation. because you can't compare guilds, so the day we blow up the teams/servers I don't really know how this mode is supposed to work.✌️

The part I may be missing is the purpose, while I'm sure the competitive environment will be greatly improved, I may be missing a goal to participate.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[TheGrimm.5624]

I know we have a number of Warhammer players here. The Alliance system that Mythic employed was not bad. The design issue I was seeing stated here is more closely related to an oversized guild design. For those that didn't play Warhammer, the Alliance system there gave guilds equal voting rights on taking in new guilds or removing guilds from an Alliance. It was tedious since you needed voting members online at the same time but also created an environment where an Alliance worked together more and some chances of dealing with disparate members running into personal conflict and creating drama.