Complete the alliance transition

[haz.6358]

Could we please complete the move from servers to alliances and increase guild capacity to be more in line with server capacity? That way alliances dont get linked with the undesirables they have chosen not to ally with and our community doesnt have to keep rejecting the applications of fellow toxic elitist boonballers because there's no room at the inn. Ty

[Elaice.7394]

abdomination guilds like BiG are killing the game.

[GROMIT.7829]

Kind of agree, i hated alliances to begin with but not allowing their betters to pick who they fight with is a meh, we need to be able to choose what superior guilds we match with by forming proper alliances with real guilds, not boonblobs clowning with no direction.

Edited August 17 by GROMIT.7829

[Fizzee.1762]

Just revert this failed experiment of WR already and merge the dead servers.
All you have now is fragmented communities on one side who dodge all fights to ppt empty structures, and mega "guilds" like BiG who just blob the small fragmented communities and chase them around borders to pad their KD.

Also treb changes were dumb as hell and promote karma training empty stuff instead of healthy fights in and around structures.

[GROMIT.7829]

Match ups are rough for lesser guilds.

Edited August 17 by GROMIT.7829

[GROMIT.7829]

2 minutes ago, Fizzee.1762 said:

Just revert this failed experiment of WR already and merge the dead servers.
All you have now is fragmented communities on one side who dodge all fights to ppt empty structures, and mega "guilds" like BiG who just blob the small fragmented communities and chase them around borders to pad their KD.

Also treb changes were dumb as hell and promote karma training empty stuff instead of healthy fights in and around structures.

No idea who started this treb spam meta but it's kinda hella annoying when they can just bust in with little effort.

[haz.6358]

I'm just surprised this isn't an issue for more groups, with more than 6 months to prepare for alliances figured there would actually be some...

[Decust.4586]

Let guilds have an unlimited member cap, what could go wrong? At least we won't have to old issue of worlds/teams being locked for months.

 

Oh and while at it, also delete worlds in general.

It's not like we're using world separation for something right now. No use in PvE, PvP and WvW, so just delete it. Just let people only pick a region or something.

 

[Chaba.5410]

10 hours ago, haz.6358 said:

and increase guild capacity to be more in line with server capacity

Is your entire post supposed to be sarcasm?

[joneirikb.7506]

12 hours ago, haz.6358 said:

Could we please complete the move from servers to alliances and increase guild capacity to be more in line with server capacity? That way alliances dont get linked with the undesirables they have chosen not to ally with and our community doesnt have to keep rejecting the applications of fellow toxic elitist boonballers because there's no room at the inn. Ty

What would you want to accomplish with removing the population limit to guilds? Because the only things I can see happening:

* Over-stacking a couple of guilds
* Until they point they're self queue'd out and complain about it
* Everyone else just hating to play against them, and complain about it.
* Almost guaranteed more bugs and problems with the code than we already got
* Require more work on both the server/game backend managing bigger guilds,
* And more work on making the user front end able to manage bigger guils.
* Guilds turning into something so big that players can't actually manage it.

And, I don't see what this would even "fix" ? I can't imagine a single good thing it would do for the mode and players as a whole.

[SweetPotato.7456]

alliance member cap should be lowered not increase. That's all I have to say about this

and this
the pros of having big alliance is I have commanders all the time to follow, it is good for individual. not good for overall wvw.

Edited August 17 by SweetPotato.7456

[TheGrimm.5624]

22 hours ago, haz.6358 said:

Could we please complete the move from servers to alliances and increase guild capacity to be more in line with server capacity? That way alliances dont get linked with the undesirables they have chosen not to ally with and our community doesnt have to keep rejecting the applications of fellow toxic elitist boonballers because there's no room at the inn. Ty

Alliances are meant to be a subset of a server. Not be the server. No the design is that they would be part of the server.

[haz.6358]

Not sarcasm at all... if you can't implement a simple system and ui where guilds can become allied with one another (and instead force us to all be in one guild so we can play together), then you should increase the guild capacity so a big alliance can essentially become a server. That way alliances wont get linked with those who may have conflicting goals/ideals (or those who have put on their favourite clown outfit and cele gear to join the ebg q).

[TheGrimm.5624]

22 hours ago, GROMIT.7829 said:

Match ups are rough for lesser guilds.

Are they? Just floating and finding plenty of peeps. Mileage varies? As a Roamer/Havoc/Pugmander, there are options as I have seen in 2 sorts so far. Not sure I agree here. Had peeps ask me, where are the rest of you? They still grouped up to fight on. And good times were had by all. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

5 minutes ago, haz.6358 said:

Not sarcasm at all... if you can't implement a simple system and ui where guilds can become allied with one another (and instead force us to all be in one guild so we can play together), then you should increase the guild capacity so a big alliance can essentially become a server. That way alliances wont get linked with those who may have conflicting goals/ideals (or those who have put on their favourite clown outfit and cele gear to join the ebg q).

UI changes yes. Allowing an Alliance to be bigger than a guild, no. For various reasons.

[haz.6358]

Oo... an alliance by its defined mechanics has to be bigger than a guild as it is made up by multiple guilds... I guess you meant to compare alliance size with server not guild size

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 minutes ago, haz.6358 said:

Oo... an alliance by its defined mechanics has to be bigger than a guild as it is made up by multiple guilds... I guess you meant to compare alliance size with server not guild size

???

Um, no.

Take a look at the design defined.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Alliances

[haz.6358]

Oh you are back on the 500 cap wiki, I meant simply allowing multiple groups to merge / ally should not be smaller then the sum of its parts as it's a non sensical approach ie 1+1=1 instead of 2....you could make guilds smaller if you implemented a proper alliance system and then cap the number of guilds allowed to ally to maintain an overall player limit sure, but as they've gone down the one guild route, make the guilds bigger

[Jobber.6348]

10 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

What would you want to accomplish with removing the population limit to guilds? Because the only things I can see happening:

* Over-stacking a couple of guilds
* Until they point they're self queue'd out and complain about it
* Everyone else just hating to play against them, and complain about it.
* Almost guaranteed more bugs and problems with the code than we already got
* Require more work on both the server/game backend managing bigger guilds,
* And more work on making the user front end able to manage bigger guils.
* Guilds turning into something so big that players can't actually manage it.

And, I don't see what this would even "fix" ? I can't imagine a single good thing it would do for the mode and players as a whole.

Dude makes a good point tbh.

You also can't really ensure a guild can maintain their participation rate across a whole match up, which might end up dooming the guild to suffer during down times.

[haz.6358]

But it's not a guild at that point, it's an alliance, like my alliance is made up of plenty of guilds and players that cover different time zones and types / scales of content

[joneirikb.7506]

2 hours ago, haz.6358 said:

Oh you are back on the 500 cap wiki, I meant simply allowing multiple groups to merge / ally should not be smaller then the sum of its parts as it's a non sensical approach ie 1+1=1 instead of 2....you could make guilds smaller if you implemented a proper alliance system and then cap the number of guilds allowed to ally to maintain an overall player limit sure, but as they've gone down the one guild route, make the guilds bigger

Just to be clear, ANet when talking bout the Alliance system, of being able to team up multiple guilds into one alliance (A guild of guilds). They specified very specifically that they would have an upper limit to the number of people allowed, this limit was planned to be set at 500 initially, same as guilds. They said that once the system was in place they could tweak and change the number if needed, but most likely would remain around 500 simply because they couldn't for practical reasons go under 500, and that they didn't think it would be wise to go over 500.

The splitting population into chunks of 500 (max) is one of the main purposes of World Restructuring. As it was identified early in WvW that players stacking servers was one of the main problems with the mode and peoples enjoyment of it (outside of the few that stacked). So Any idea of making guilds or alliances fit say 1000+ people is a complete no go, that's just not going to happen, as that's the main thing WR is designed to combat.

[Chaba.5410]

5 hours ago, haz.6358 said:

Not sarcasm at all...

Sure it's sarcasm.  Can't say I've seen anyone else around here that's interested in serious discussion ask for increases to the guild capacity so a big alliance doesn't "have to keep rejecting the applications of fellow toxic elitist boonballers".  Good job with the bait.
 

Edited August 18 by Chaba.5410

[TheGrimm.5624]

6 hours ago, haz.6358 said:

Oh you are back on the 500 cap wiki, I meant simply allowing multiple groups to merge / ally should not be smaller then the sum of its parts as it's a non sensical approach ie 1+1=1 instead of 2....you could make guilds smaller if you implemented a proper alliance system and then cap the number of guilds allowed to ally to maintain an overall player limit sure, but as they've gone down the one guild route, make the guilds bigger

Keeping it in par with the size of a max guild allows for the sorting logic to use the same block structure and puts an Alliance guild in some similar place as a full guild so that a server isn't dominated by a single entity. Remember part of the design concept was to not allow a Guild to own a server but be part of the voice of it. Does it also require Guilds within an Alliance to maintain and define their populations, yes, does that also apply to a max guild, yes. Allowing multiple Alliances to link would lead to a lot of stacking which would lead to less fight across the board. 500 is already a lot of stacking now and leads to blocks as posters have stated that might be covered or they might find there side outnumbered since the stacked group didn't think about coverage. Allowing links above 500 has even better odds of longer queues in certain periods follow up by wastelands in others.

I would agree I still don't see Alliance the same as Guild, but the 500 caps make sense.  As far as reducing guild caps, I am in a tiny guild but I don't really see that as very feasible either for pre-existing guilds. Might it make better sorts? Possible but no reasonable. 2 cents.

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

BiG is too obese for an alliance guild ngl

it'd be probably better to limit single guilds to like 100-200  members to spread content better (as in, let ppl only select it if roster <200 else cannot pick if that's technically working)

[RisingDawn.5796]

On 8/17/2024 at 11:19 AM, Elaice.7394 said:

abdomination guilds like BiG are killing the game.

People can see if Elaice doesn't release. They know you can see Elaice in squad. If they know you're spying, are you a spy?  

Honestly though, whichever system Anet uses and tests hasn't turned out greatly balanced, it's just that there was more active player populations in WvW as a game mode, apart from most of the T6-8 servers in the EU.

I'm seeing some people suggest that it was better letting players and guilds, balance themselves through transfers, but from the beginning with the free transfers and then first year of the games launch when they made it cost gems, we didn't quite see that, even with all the WvW Tournaments, during the first 3 years, where guilds were paid to transfer and they gave cheaper transfers.

Before they brought the linking system, instead of merging  servers, which allowed mass transfers to link servers, for as little as 500 gems.