Do you think your Guild will Bandwagon to create Super Alliances?

[EremiteAngel.9765]

[steki.1478]

No, because what's the point of stomping bronze scouts with diamond generals?

I mean, people do that even now, and there's almost no reasons of winning a matchup (with new system there will be even less), yet they complain how matchups are getting too easy or too boring.

[Grim West.3194]

Missing a 3rd option. Small casual WvW guild that hates options 1 and 2.

[Baldrick.8967]

Many guilds will do exactly that. Alliance leaders will kick any guilds they feel like losing for whatever reason.

You will end up with steam rollers and then several fractured alliances making up the rest who don't have the right coverage to win match ups- then many people will bandwagon to the successful steam rollers.

Once one or two 'superguilds' of nearly 500 players have formed, any time you're drawn against them will be 8 weeks playing something else. 8 weeks is way too long for a match up.

Match ups should be one week. Any longer and people will start to quit.

[Ronin.9376]

I run a small guild and we already have guild alliance for pve where a small active guild who relies on others guilds at times due note by the sound of the new system any op guilds will be faceing op guilds or matched up with lesser players we can only hope for this change as it is hard to get new ppl into wvw on a side note what if wvw was more like pvp and not gear baced buy only skill baced would that bring more ppl to play?

[Justine.6351]

Isn't the whole design of the Alliance System to bandwagon? There is a population cap which will force multiple bandwagons. The real true danger is that there are not enough bandwagon alliances to balance out the weekly matches for good fights.

[Slugonaut.9841]

@Grim West.3194 said:Missing a 3rd option. Small casual WvW guild that hates options 1 and 2.

This........

[Kaiser.9873]

People have already shown what they are going to do over the last 5 years. They are going to try and bandwagon to whatever alliance can make sure they win. Alliances will throw stupid amounts of gold at offhours guilds in order to further ensure they dominate matchups.

One positive is that these "super alliances" will definitely need to research who to invite, and it will be hilarious to watch the guild purges that will take place.

[zhonnika.1784]

Like.... what's the point in putting all the 'good guilds' on the same alliance? There'd be nobody to fight. Ideally, you'd want to have a bunch of different alliances out there so the fights were always good. Some people really, really don't freaking care about 'winning' the matchup and I wish more people understood that.

[Riba.3271]

Yes, we are gonna take all GvG/fighting guilds in so they can't fight each other on primetime. Then we are gonna recruit all fight commanders and decent players from all servers.

Then we cap SM easily from massive enemy group and wonder where is the enemy, why did they quit? Fun.

No in all seriousness, there is going to be bunch of fighting alliances so our aim will most likely to match theirs. GvG guilds will spread in them so they have something to fight. I doubt any fightingish alliance will get more than 200 players. It is enough to have 80 online on reset, 30 on prime and 10 off prime. By fighting alliance I mean that it is not like they are ex-GvG players but rather they know where to get builds from and join voice communications when necessary. You know, healthy gameplay that aims to win and pull their own weight. No rangers and thieves on reset or against known strong enemy alliances

[Dawdler.8521]

From what I read, there will be either a player cap or guild cap, which ever comes first. That mean its gonna be tricky to have "super alliances".

Lets say the cap is 500 (eqvivalent of 1 full guild). That means a max sized alliance is... well, just like 1 guild today. No difference in how strong it can get when fighting for a server. You can do this today with normal transfer.

If the cap is 5 guilds too, that means you can have a maximum of 100 people per guild in a max sized alliance (per guild count). Isnt that... kind of normal for a server? Finding 5 guilds on any given server is easy and most will probably have a large rooster with only 20-30 active.

Then when you start to mix these two caps, it become even more complicated. What if your main alliance guild is fairly big, say 250 people (still like 50 peeps active tops). That only leaves 250 for the population cap, or 4 guilds. Meaning those 4 guilds can only bring a rooster of 62 people each. That's nothing.

Alliance management to create a "super alliance" of actual active players at alliance cap is gonna be complete pain and impossible to maintain.

[Aeolus.3615]

My server is my guild, my fellow WvW compatriots are my guild, what u call"guilds" are just chatrooms.

NSP will maintain together has a guild, guilds wont be individuals.

@Threather.9354, im renitent about that, i feel that many guild and players will actually stop playing cause they cant ktrain.I suspect an incrase of players on EOTM maps.At most what it might happen is 2 alliance have decent coverage and none of other alliances have coverage, while some servers will try to fight small servers to kleep their ktrain gameplay alive to avoid get into EOTM(the map of shame).Maps design needs to change as well, sicne they are way to much ktrain-able.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@zhonnika.1784 said:Like.... what's the point in putting all the 'good guilds' on the same alliance? There'd be nobody to fight. Ideally, you'd want to have a bunch of different alliances out there so the fights were always good. Some people really, really don't freaking care about 'winning' the matchup and I wish more people understood that.

Agreed about the 'good guilds' in the same alliance.

Just wonder why those people that don't care about winning are the most vocal about changing the current system?

And with the new system, like minded people and guilds will ally together, which in theory will spread some of these guilds out some..

So... fight oriented people will group together, and PPT oriented people will group together.

Win win right?

And we are still doing one up one down.

So... the next 'mag alliance' is doing great roflstomping fights in their matchup.

And the next 'black gate alliance' is waiting for them in the tier above..,

Surely no one will tank.

Same problem, different people and names...

[Euryon.9248]

People are grossly overestimating the effect any "bandwagon" can have because no single alliance will cover enough of a matchup's population to dominate every other alliance. Even if there is some kind of selection for "the best", those people are going to end up in multiple "mega-alliances" usually fighting each other, and allied with different groups every matchup. I predict there will be nothing like the current snoresville we have with BG never knowing what it's like to lose a matchup -- no matter how hard people try to bandwagon.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@"Euryon.9248" said:People are grossly overestimating the effect any "bandwagon" can have because no single alliance will cover enough of a matchup's population to dominate every other alliance. Even if there is some kind of selection for "the best", those people are going to end up in multiple "mega-alliances" usually fighting each other, and allied with different groups every matchup. I predict there will be nothing like the current snoresville we have with BG never knowing what it's like to lose a matchup -- no matter how hard people try to bandwagon.

If they keep alliances to 500.

1000?. that may be more of an issue

[Cyczer.7834]

If people are actually going to quit game cuz they cant ktrain/nightcap I can honestly say this uptade is necessary :v

[Loosmaster.8263]

@Grim West.3194 said:Missing a 3rd option. Small casual WvW guild that hates options 1 and 2.

I vote for the 3rd option too...

[snh.7091]

Server stacking, alliance / guild stacking. Can happen. From experience until now, most love to be carried, very few accept a challenge and the possibility of losing....... sorry learning. You never lose, you just learn and until mentality changes we will witness bandwagoning. But then again there will be no scarcity of cowards.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

I think a lot of you aren't taking into account the ppt vs fights mindset. with servers they were all thrown together, which made band wagoning super easy. with alliances fight guilds will want, drum roll, fights. there will be some buys but in the long run it wont last, unless there are good fights to be had ofc. even if super alliances form, theres a good chance that there will be enough of them that they can fight each other. regardless of what the dev said about not creating a virtual t1 alliance matchup, it will happen cuz of ton of ppl will complain and log out.

[HazyDaisy.4107]

There are other ways to manipulate matches besides bandwagonning, we see them now.

Example, just yesterday in T4 before reset Server A was winning and Server B was in second (in T4 it only matters if you win btw, second and third stay where they are), still Server A would send scouts out to cap Server C's stuff in the north, wait a couple of minutes before moving to a different northern objective while server B back capped the first objective Server A had capped. There is no other reason to intentional wait before moving on UNLESS you want your friends on a different server to have those points. They did this for 2 hours before reset, when there was no possibility of Server C even catching second place and they were doing it various times throughout the week as well.

This is not bandwagonning, but it is match manipulation, it happens in every tier now and it will still happen even under the new system, only it will probably be to a greater extent with alliances of alliances, friends benefitting friends everywhere.

[Eramonster.2718]

We need to know more before that such as ; Are players allowed to reject certain guilds from joining the alliance? or everything is automated?As for your question ; Yes, normally people would. Question is will everyone "fit" into the cap. It won't be a "super alliance" if 50% of it can't perform well, plus to plan on coverage eg. prefer guilds that covers the dead time zones.

[kash.9213]

Most guilds want to fight or have something to do so I'm not sure about super alliances. I do think a lot of current server cores of guilds and individuals will try to restructure and define a bit more what they're about and we'll probably see a few groups part ways for something else.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@HazyDaisy.4107 said:There are other ways to manipulate matches besides bandwagonning, we see them now.

Example, just yesterday in T4 before reset Server A was winning and Server B was in second (in T4 it only matters if you win btw, second and third stay where they are), still Server A would send scouts out to cap Server C's stuff in the north, wait a couple of minutes before moving to a different northern objective while server B back capped the first objective Server A had capped. There is no other reason to intentional wait before moving on UNLESS you want your friends on a different server to have those points. They did this for 2 hours before reset, when there was no possibility of Server C even catching second place and they were doing it various times throughout the week as well.

This is not bandwagonning, but it is match manipulation, it happens in every tier now and it will still happen even under the new system, only it will probably be to a greater extent with alliances of alliances, friends benefitting friends everywhere.

although this may be the case, that's a problem with the ppt system. I don't think alliances are trying to do anything else besides make it a more even numbers game. its quite possible that we will see a lot less of this since servers, not matchups, actual whole entire servers, will get shaken up every couple of weeks.

[Glass Hand.7306]

@Baldrick.8967 said:

You will end up with steam rollers and then several fractured alliances making up the rest who don't have the right coverage to win match ups- then many people will bandwagon to the successful steam rollers.

Once one or two 'superguilds' of nearly 500 players have formed, any time you're drawn against them will be 8 weeks playing something else. 8 weeks is way too long for a match up.

The concept is that an alliance can only consist of 25% or so of a world's total population. The world hosting one of those super alliances will be filled out with low level players. It will be interesting to see what sort of dynamic that produces. Will a world filled with average players be able to compete with one with 25% excellent players and 75% low hour casuals?

[neven.3785]

What a pointless poll, we are planning on using the alliance to keep people who actually play with us together. I couldn't care less about coverage or the score at the end of the week.