An open letter about WvW Alliances

[Sarrs.4831]

@zerorogue.9410 said:Any sort of success or failure is the result of who your are matched with, not skill.

...And overstacking your server to win the matchup is skill?

[zerorogue.9410]

@Sarrs.4831 said:...And overstacking your server to win the matchup is skill?

@Dawdler.8521 said:If alliances strips out all identity and competition then there is zero loss going the restructured system, because by the same definitions guilds already have no identity and servers already have no competition.

I suggest you re-evaluate your logic there, you pushing into fallacies with what you said.

@MUDse.7623 said:with alliances it will matter what each individual does way more then it is now. sure you cant handpick every player on your world then - but can you now? this week my server will win, i didnt play half as efficient this week as i usually do, cause there were simply close to no opponents, i dont feel like i accomplished anything or like i won. i just see a lack of opponents and a boring week. then you have weeks were you feel like you get overrun by masses, while wondering that your server is full - full with people you didnt select, that die in fights , that are unable to use siege properly etc. then i dont feel like i lost, i then feel surrounded by idiots and people that dont log in when they know there wont be full bags of loot.if population/coverage is close to balanced, then it doesnt matter if i selected everyone and allow them to play with me, the sheer fact that what i do in WvW matters for the outcome is enough to claim the victory because then i know i was part of this and my actions among others led to it and not because there were simply no opponents.

IF alliances bring balance. I see Alliances as putting your house under a metal dome because you don't like the sun coming through your windows. It would have been just as easy to use curtains, and there would be significantly less problems and cost to it afterwards. You'll probably get some benefit from Alliances, but it will be outweighed by long term consequences. To put it simply, We need to go back and re-evaluate worlds. Not just keep duct-taping the world pairing idea.

[Sovereign.1093]

you do not address an issue by using a non related example.

[Dawdler.8521]

@zerorogue.9410 said:I suggest you re-evaluate your logic there, you pushing into fallacies with what you said.Its fairly simple logic. Alliances are guilds and worlds are servers. I dont really think people realize how similar the restructured system is compared to current WvW. If alliances can be a group making up 25% of a world... how many do you know on your current server? Do you know 1/4th of all players on your entire server?

I am certain that it would be an tough transtition for some but its really just about a little different identity and a little different community. Neither will go away.

And if it does, well its been fun. GW2 had its run years ago, everything we get now is a sweet bonus.

[bq pd.2148]

@zerorogue.9410 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:with alliances it will matter what each individual does way more then it is now. sure you cant handpick every player on your world then - but can you now? this week my server will win, i didnt play half as efficient this week as i usually do, cause there were simply close to no opponents, i dont feel like i accomplished anything or like i won. i just see a lack of opponents and a boring week. then you have weeks were you feel like you get overrun by masses, while wondering that your server is full - full with people you didnt select, that die in fights , that are unable to use siege properly etc. then i dont feel like i lost, i then feel surrounded by idiots and people that dont log in when they know there wont be full bags of loot.if population/coverage is close to balanced, then it doesnt matter if i selected everyone and allow them to play with me, the sheer fact that what i do in WvW matters for the outcome is enough to claim the victory because then i know i was part of this and my actions among others led to it and not because there were simply no opponents.

IF alliances bring balance. I see Alliances as putting your house under a metal dome because you don't like the sun coming through your windows. It would have been just as easy to use curtains, and there would be significantly less problems and cost to it afterwards. You'll probably get some benefit from Alliances, but it will be outweighed by long term consequences. To put it simply, We need to go back and re-evaluate worlds. Not just keep duct-taping the world pairing idea.

you did see this image from the FAQ thread right?

@"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

Image of all the worlds in NA and EU ordered by size

wthout bringing those worlds activity closer to each other you cant make a good balance change. you could for instance ensure every server has exactly the same amount of people all the time on the map - but then some people would not be allowed to play, only because their opponents choose not to or because they simply got none. mercenaries altho i would love to fight other people everytime i log in is also just a bandaid fix, knowing that everyone can kick me out of siege will ensure i wont build siege for some incapable to use it kicking me out of it.longterm an alliance is a way stronger community then current server communities. a group of people that choose to play together is mostly better then one that just randomly happend to stay on the same side of the battlefield. for instance 10 pugs will mostly loose a fight against 5 pugs + 5 man guild. do you actually have more then 500 people you could name that you dont want to miss on your world as you value them as much? do they value your presence by the same amount? if those server communities get destroyed and new ones form, do you need more then 500 people in your community. for me personally 100 is even too much because i probably wont know half of them, i might recognize them and can estimate their value to a spontanous groupfight but thats about it.

not agreeing with you that current server communities are great, i fail to see the long term negative consequence that can outweight the benefits of an alliance. i only see that you fear, that you will not find a great community in an alliance system and i dont quite understand why that is.

[zerorogue.9410]

@MUDse.7623 said:wthout bringing those worlds activity closer to each other you cant make a good balance change. you could for instance ensure every server has exactly the same amount of people all the time on the map - but then some people would not be allowed to play, only because their opponents choose not to or because they simply got none. mercenaries altho i would love to fight other people everytime i log in is also just a bandaid fix, knowing that everyone can kick me out of siege will ensure i wont build siege for some incapable to use it kicking me out of it.longterm an alliance is a way stronger community then current server communities. a group of people that choose to play together is mostly better then one that just randomly happend to stay on the same side of the battlefield. for instance 10 pugs will mostly loose a fight against 5 pugs + 5 man guild. do you actually have more then 500 people you could name that you dont want to miss on your world as you value them as much? do they value your presence by the same amount? if those server communities get destroyed and new ones form, do you need more then 500 people in your community. for me personally 100 is even too much because i probably wont know half of them, i might recognize them and can estimate their value to a spontanous groupfight but thats about it.

not agreeing with you that current server communities are great, i fail to see the long term negative consequence that can outweight the benefits of an alliance. i only see that you fear, that you will not find a great community in an alliance system and i dont quite understand why that is.

If your car has a flat, do you buy a new car? Or do you just change the tire?

I am not saying that the current game is balanced. In fact I'm strongly against keeping it as it is, but taking a wreaking ball to an issue that just needs few small changes is too much.

[Sovereign.1093]

@zerorogue.9410 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:wthout bringing those worlds activity closer to each other you cant make a good balance change. you could for instance ensure every server has exactly the same amount of people all the time on the map - but then some people would not be allowed to play, only because their opponents choose not to or because they simply got none. mercenaries altho i would love to fight other people everytime i log in is also just a bandaid fix, knowing that everyone can kick me out of siege will ensure i wont build siege for some incapable to use it kicking me out of it.longterm an alliance is a way stronger community then current server communities. a group of people that choose to play together is mostly better then one that just randomly happend to stay on the same side of the battlefield. for instance 10 pugs will mostly loose a fight against 5 pugs + 5 man guild. do you actually have more then 500 people you could name that you dont want to miss on your world as you value them as much? do they value your presence by the same amount? if those server communities get destroyed and new ones form, do you need more then 500 people in your community. for me personally 100 is even too much because i probably wont know half of them, i might recognize them and can estimate their value to a spontanous groupfight but thats about it.

not agreeing with you that current server communities are great, i fail to see the long term negative consequence that can outweight the benefits of an alliance. i only see that you fear, that you will not find a great community in an alliance system and i dont quite understand why that is.

If your car has a flat, do you buy a new car? Or do you just change the tire?

I am not saying that the current game is balanced. In fact I'm strongly against keeping it as it is, but taking a wreaking ball to an issue that just needs few small changes is too much.

what has cars and wrecking balls have to do with wvw?

[Dawdler.8521]

@"MUDse.7623" said:do you actually have more then 500 people you could name that you dont want to miss on your world as you value them as much? do they value your presence by the same amount? if those server communities get destroyed and new ones form, do you need more then 500 people in your community. for me personally 100 is even too much because i probably wont know half of them, i might recognize them and can estimate their value to a spontanous groupfight but thats about it.

Or as my recent conversation went:

"We may need to trim the fat of the guild, if we got 200 peeps with 90% not logged on for a year or more... we should be below 50 for alliances, dont want to put any pressure on the population limit."

"Dude we got like 20 people in the guild rooster"

"...Oh."

Yeah I dont think I am good with numbers.

[dolcolax.1268]

@Threather.9354 said:Alliances solve 2 blatant problems:

• Bandvagoning to whatever server is doing well. Fight alliances can finally try to win matchups because they're obviously better players than casual servers. Means stronger servers will finally be on top instead of dodging going there because potential 500 gem transfers that refuse to join voice comms. Now they will have to pay 1000-1800 gems per 8 weeks and find out where to transfer which will be seriously hard for a casual player.
• Each world will have equal population at start of matchup. It means servers like Bg wont have 20% more players and 5000 more players dormant waiting for bg to start losing matchup.

Now it might solve following problems:

• Declining player population because: 1) PvE/PvP guilds can transfer together for free to test WvW, typically each guild has 1 commander that will get excited about it and then form a core inside PvE guild that will have fun together 2) Also theres bunch of servers that dont want to play often because fights in T1 are pretty terrible.
• Organisation and quality of fights in general, like 90% of the pugs don't belong to guilds atm meaning they have almost 0 reason to run even remotely good builds. Thus they play dragonhunters and rangers and other bad classes for the scale of fights in question. Joining a guild will force you to relog and give you more faith in the players around you.
• Amount of commanders. Theres a reason to win now so theres a reason to ppt/ppk/defend. All enemies will have now organised alliance to arrange fights with.
• Finding casual WvW guild will be easier because they are on decline atm. There will be options to choose from alliances recruiting or PvE guilds recruiting for WvW action. Guilds that you have fun with keep players in the game, not a silent core community that you feel comfortable around...
• Surge of old players back to WvW. Theres also LOT OF HYPE going on around the upcoming change. Id approximate about 10 fight commanders coming back to EU for at least a few months to test the game again. Thats like doubling the current number.
• Fight servers being overly oppressive: They cant control the amount/quality of pugs by match manipulation anymore. They will reluctantly train the pugs and the game will get better quality in general. 2000 random pugs will give even old bad fighting servers a chance to win some fights during the week. For example, I havent seen a single fight where Piken won against Vabbi this week with equal numbers. Now server like vabbi cant be stacked by fighting players anymore because there will be 2000 random WvW players that didnt have a guild.

i guess it does stop bandwagoning. coz you bandwagon your alliance and reach the cap and no one or just a minor few can join your team. problem solved.

[Klipso.8653]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"MUDse.7623" said:do you actually have more then 500 people you could name that you dont want to miss on your world as you value them as much? do they value your presence by the same amount? if those server communities get destroyed and new ones form, do you need more then 500 people in your community. for me personally 100 is even too much because i probably wont know half of them, i might recognize them and can estimate their value to a spontanous groupfight but thats about it.

Or as my recent conversation went:

"We may need to trim the fat of the guild, if we got 200 peeps with 90% not logged on for a year or more... we should be below 50 for alliances, dont want to put any pressure on the population limit."

"Dude we got like 20 people in the guild rooster"

"...Oh."

Yeah I dont think I am good with numbers.

From what I read, I believe the guild members will not count towards your numbers unless they select your guild as their primary WvW guild, just being a member isn't enough to count towards the guilds numbers.

They did mention that being placed in the same world as your guild is a preference the game will make when it places you, but you would be considered a random placement player, outside of the alliance, so you still wouldn't count towards the alliance numbers either.

[bq pd.2148]

@zerorogue.9410 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:wthout bringing those worlds activity closer to each other you cant make a good balance change. you could for instance ensure every server has exactly the same amount of people all the time on the map - but then some people would not be allowed to play, only because their opponents choose not to or because they simply got none. mercenaries altho i would love to fight other people everytime i log in is also just a bandaid fix, knowing that everyone can kick me out of siege will ensure i wont build siege for some incapable to use it kicking me out of it.longterm an alliance is a way stronger community then current server communities. a group of people that choose to play together is mostly better then one that just randomly happend to stay on the same side of the battlefield. for instance 10 pugs will mostly loose a fight against 5 pugs + 5 man guild. do you actually have more then 500 people you could name that you dont want to miss on your world as you value them as much? do they value your presence by the same amount? if those server communities get destroyed and new ones form, do you need more then 500 people in your community. for me personally 100 is even too much because i probably wont know half of them, i might recognize them and can estimate their value to a spontanous groupfight but thats about it.

not agreeing with you that current server communities are great, i fail to see the long term negative consequence that can outweight the benefits of an alliance. i only see that you fear, that you will not find a great community in an alliance system and i dont quite understand why that is.

If your car has a flat, do you buy a new car? Or do you just change the tire?

I am not saying that the current game is balanced. In fact I'm strongly against keeping it as it is, but taking a wreaking ball to an issue that just needs few small changes is too much.

well if the car just had a flat sure, but i also got a broken engine, the seats are old and worn , the breaks are used up , the air conditioner doesnt work anymore and the cooling system also needs to be replaced. so yeah the car is a pile of trash and it is time for a new one.

[Euryon.9248]

@Klipso.8653 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"MUDse.7623" said:do you actually have more then 500 people you could name that you dont want to miss on your world as you value them as much? do they value your presence by the same amount? if those server communities get destroyed and new ones form, do you need more then 500 people in your community. for me personally 100 is even too much because i probably wont know half of them, i might recognize them and can estimate their value to a spontanous groupfight but thats about it.

Or as my recent conversation went:

"We may need to trim the fat of the guild, if we got 200 peeps with 90% not logged on for a year or more... we should be below 50 for alliances, dont want to put any pressure on the population limit."

"Dude we got like 20 people in the guild rooster"

"...Oh."

Yeah I dont think I am good with numbers.

From what I read, I believe the guild members will not count towards your numbers unless they select your guild as their primary WvW guild, just being a member isn't enough to count towards the guilds numbers.

They did mention that being placed in the same world as your guild is a preference the game will make when it places you, but you would be considered a random placement player, outside of the alliance, so you still wouldn't count towards the alliance numbers either.

Did Anet say that they will attempt to place random players in the same world as their guildmates who are in an alliance? If so, I think that's a bad decision because it opens to the door to a very easy way to game the system.

1 alliance, 5 guilds, each guild filled to max with hardcore wvw-players (this is hypothetical assuming you can get 5 entire guilds of 500 hardcore players). Only 100 of each guild actually select that guild as their wvw guild, those are the actual alliance 500. The other 400 people in those guilds select NO guild for wvw, so they are "random" players. Alliance gets placed on a world, now those 2000 random players will be preferentially placed on that same world due to guild affiliations, within world pop cap limits. Voila, 2500-man (or close enough) alliance.

Anet should NOT consider non-wvw guilds as a factor in random world placement. Either pick the guild you want to play with as your wvw guild, or be subject to completely random placement.

[bq pd.2148]

@Euryon.9248 said:

@Klipso.8653 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"MUDse.7623" said:do you actually have more then 500 people you could name that you dont want to miss on your world as you value them as much? do they value your presence by the same amount? if those server communities get destroyed and new ones form, do you need more then 500 people in your community. for me personally 100 is even too much because i probably wont know half of them, i might recognize them and can estimate their value to a spontanous groupfight but thats about it.

Or as my recent conversation went:

"We may need to trim the fat of the guild, if we got 200 peeps with 90% not logged on for a year or more... we should be below 50 for alliances, dont want to put any pressure on the population limit."

"Dude we got like 20 people in the guild rooster"

"...Oh."

Yeah I dont think I am good with numbers.

From what I read, I believe the guild members will not count towards your numbers unless they select your guild as their primary WvW guild, just being a member isn't enough to count towards the guilds numbers.

They did mention that being placed in the same world as your guild is a preference the game will make when it places you, but you would be considered a random placement player, outside of the alliance, so you still wouldn't count towards the alliance numbers either.

Did Anet say that they will attempt to place random players in the same world as their guildmates who are in an alliance? If so, I think that's a

bad

decision because it opens to the door to a very easy way to game the system.

1 alliance, 5 guilds, each guild filled to max with hardcore wvw-players (this is hypothetical assuming you can get 5 entire guilds of 500 hardcore players). Only 100 of each guild actually select that guild as their wvw guild, those are the actual alliance 500. The other 400 people in those guilds select NO guild for wvw, so they are "random" players. Alliance gets placed on a world, now those 2000 random players will be preferentially placed on that same world due to guild affiliations, within world pop cap limits. Voila, 2500-man (or close enough) alliance.

Anet should

NOT

consider non-wvw guilds as a factor in random world placement. Either pick the guild you want to play with as your wvw guild, or be subject to completely random placement.

i think you got a preference for your guilds and friendlist, not a gurantee.

[Chaba.5410]

@zerorogue.9410 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:wthout bringing those worlds activity closer to each other you cant make a good balance change. you could for instance ensure every server has exactly the same amount of people all the time on the map - but then some people would not be allowed to play, only because their opponents choose not to or because they simply got none. mercenaries altho i would love to fight other people everytime i log in is also just a bandaid fix, knowing that everyone can kick me out of siege will ensure i wont build siege for some incapable to use it kicking me out of it.longterm an alliance is a way stronger community then current server communities. a group of people that choose to play together is mostly better then one that just randomly happend to stay on the same side of the battlefield. for instance 10 pugs will mostly loose a fight against 5 pugs + 5 man guild. do you actually have more then 500 people you could name that you dont want to miss on your world as you value them as much? do they value your presence by the same amount? if those server communities get destroyed and new ones form, do you need more then 500 people in your community. for me personally 100 is even too much because i probably wont know half of them, i might recognize them and can estimate their value to a spontanous groupfight but thats about it.

not agreeing with you that current server communities are great, i fail to see the long term negative consequence that can outweight the benefits of an alliance. i only see that you fear, that you will not find a great community in an alliance system and i dont quite understand why that is.

If your car has a flat, do you buy a new car? Or do you just change the tire?

I am not saying that the current game is balanced. In fact I'm strongly against keeping it as it is, but taking a wreaking ball to an issue that just needs few small changes is too much.

LOL! You're missing the point that only one world has a flat. The other worlds need transmission changes, brake jobs, engine overhauls, some are beyond repair due to rust from all the salt. Basically the whole fleet of vehicles needs to be replaced and you're looking to stall the project because one vehicle is recoverable.

[Rampage.7145]

@zerorogue.9410 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:wthout bringing those worlds activity closer to each other you cant make a good balance change. you could for instance ensure every server has exactly the same amount of people all the time on the map - but then some people would not be allowed to play, only because their opponents choose not to or because they simply got none. mercenaries altho i would love to fight other people everytime i log in is also just a bandaid fix, knowing that everyone can kick me out of siege will ensure i wont build siege for some incapable to use it kicking me out of it.longterm an alliance is a way stronger community then current server communities. a group of people that choose to play together is mostly better then one that just randomly happend to stay on the same side of the battlefield. for instance 10 pugs will mostly loose a fight against 5 pugs + 5 man guild. do you actually have more then 500 people you could name that you dont want to miss on your world as you value them as much? do they value your presence by the same amount? if those server communities get destroyed and new ones form, do you need more then 500 people in your community. for me personally 100 is even too much because i probably wont know half of them, i might recognize them and can estimate their value to a spontanous groupfight but thats about it.

not agreeing with you that current server communities are great, i fail to see the long term negative consequence that can outweight the benefits of an alliance. i only see that you fear, that you will not find a great community in an alliance system and i dont quite understand why that is.

If your car has a flat, do you buy a new car? Or do you just change the tire?

I am not saying that the current game is balanced. In fact I'm strongly against keeping it as it is, but taking a wreaking ball to an issue that just needs few small changes is too much.

Ok your logic is flawed, WvW do not have a flat tire, it is in terminal state, if you do not see this you are blind. WvW is more equivalent to a van where 5 out 6 passengers died inside and their corpses rot in there over 5 years, nobody ever did any maintenance to it so eventually the transmission failed so the van would only do 3rd gear and because of this the engine is about to die too, it is terminal, the driver sustained all that shit for so long but never had any help or hope so he is about to stop the ride. The exterior the van looks ok, but when u get inside and see all the rotten interior that stinks and the blown up engine that won't run u would just not try fix it at that point u are better off getting a new one.Use this analogy as the interior of the vehicle being the WvW fundamentals; servers, the maps we play on, WvW mechanics, siege etc. And the engine being combat and class balance balance.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Rampage.7145 said:

@zerorogue.9410 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:wthout bringing those worlds activity closer to each other you cant make a good balance change. you could for instance ensure every server has exactly the same amount of people all the time on the map - but then some people would not be allowed to play, only because their opponents choose not to or because they simply got none. mercenaries altho i would love to fight other people everytime i log in is also just a bandaid fix, knowing that everyone can kick me out of siege will ensure i wont build siege for some incapable to use it kicking me out of it.longterm an alliance is a way stronger community then current server communities. a group of people that choose to play together is mostly better then one that just randomly happend to stay on the same side of the battlefield. for instance 10 pugs will mostly loose a fight against 5 pugs + 5 man guild. do you actually have more then 500 people you could name that you dont want to miss on your world as you value them as much? do they value your presence by the same amount? if those server communities get destroyed and new ones form, do you need more then 500 people in your community. for me personally 100 is even too much because i probably wont know half of them, i might recognize them and can estimate their value to a spontanous groupfight but thats about it.

not agreeing with you that current server communities are great, i fail to see the long term negative consequence that can outweight the benefits of an alliance. i only see that you fear, that you will not find a great community in an alliance system and i dont quite understand why that is.

If your car has a flat, do you buy a new car? Or do you just change the tire?

I am not saying that the current game is balanced. In fact I'm strongly against keeping it as it is, but taking a wreaking ball to an issue that just needs few small changes is too much.

Ok your logic is flawed, WvW do not have a flat tire, it is in terminal state, if you do not see this you are blind. WvW is more equivalent to a van where 5 out 6 passengers died inside and their corpses rot in there over 5 years, nobody ever did any maintenance to it so eventually the transmission failed so the van would only do 3rd gear and because of this the engine is about to die too, it is terminal, the driver sustained all that kitten for so long but never had any help or hope so he is about to stop the ride. The exterior the van looks ok, but when u get inside and see all the rotten interior that stinks and the blown up engine that won't run u would just not try fix it at that point u are better off getting a new one.Well as long as its cheap...

[LetoII.3782]

So many automotive analogiesHere's another: if you've truly got the fastest car at the track, a new coat of paint shouldn't change much.

[Sarrs.4831]

@zerorogue.9410 said:I suggest you re-evaluate your logic there, you pushing into fallacies with what you said.

The logic's fine. For the game to become no-skill it must not already be no-skill. If the game is currently decided by population (it is) then it's not decided by skill; just as much as matchmaking RNG means it's not decided by skill. There's no legitimate complaint to be made.

[Tomahawk.7361]

I was about to quit anyway because of the stagnant gem-farming server system anet loves to use. If you want influx, variety, and PROPER matchup you are punished via wallet. Now at least I'm mildly interested to continue playing with this coming online. If it kills wvw, then it was already dying for me anyway.

[zerorogue.9410]

I think a few people are hyperbolizing the current state of WvW. We are talking about a strict issue of local balance here.

There are many levels of balance to be taken in account in WvW.-Global balance(world pop)-Time balance(currently playing)-Local balance(In a specific area)

Local Balance is the problem of WvW. This is a basic fact as no amount of changes to the other two balances will do anything to fix WvW if they don't change the local balance issue. Alliances fixes issues on a global scale and a Time scale.

Global Balance(world pop) does not need to be balanced. It doesn't matter of one world has ten million while another has two hundred. If no one from the ten million world plays then They are not going to win. We should not be focusing on balancing theoretical players.

Time Biased balance is the tricky one. You can have this perfectly balanced (eg each server has the same number of players playing at the same time.) One could could write books(and have) on this balance level. It's messy, its hard, and it's never perfect. The best method of doing Time biased balance would be the dynamic queue previously stated. However this would mean your team's open slots on a world would be governed by your enemy rather than you. I think I speak for everyone when saying I don't want to get "The enemy has too many players so you can't play" messages.

This is left with Local balance. Or balance in individual battles and areas. This is once again hard, and once again books have been written. However this should be ground zero for any balance fixes.

Think about this: What is a worse situation for you?-Your versing a world with double your population?-The enemy team has twice the numbers you have right now?-Your tower is under attack by twice as many defenders?

Its a trick question; they are all the same thing. If Your versing a world with double your population, then your likely to have twice as many numbers on right now, that means the towers are likely to be attacked by twice as many defenders. It's a problem that moves down the line.

So why don't we do as Alliances suggests and fix world pop sizes? If you noticed I never said WILL in the above sentience. That's because there are countless x factors that degrade and corrupt balance as it moves from global>time>local. The only way to ensure balance is to do it at a local scale. This way It doesn't matter if the servers are unequal or the enemy has more players, The game is still balanced.

Alliances only focuses on the global and the time balance. Local balance will still be a mess with alliances.

What we really need is a something I like to call "Dev Magic" Careful tweaks in the game that focus players into fights and ensure that large groups are met by other large groups. This is already being done on the maps. ever noticed how there's giant mountains separating areas of EGB? This is local balance in action, those mountains are not placed haphazardly, rather are designed to focus all movement between the three sides of the map between three routes; through SMC, Next to SMC wall, or through a Merc camp. Sentry flags are then put at the entrances/exits to these routes to allow players to notice when a sentry goes missing(and in recent years see red dots on the map) of forces moving between these.

Things like that won't fix population sizes, but one thing will not fix the balance problem.

[Sovereign.1093]

(global balance (time balance (local balance)))

=) fix global and all things follow.

anet is doing it right.

[zerorogue.9410]

@Sovereign.1093 said:(global balance (time balance (local balance)))

=) fix global and all things follow.

anet is doing it right.

I suggest you read the post before responding.

[Sovereign.1093]

@zerorogue.9410 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:(global balance (time balance (local balance)))

=) fix global and all things follow.

anet is doing it right.

I suggest you read the post before responding.

i did. =) your premise is wrong.

[zerorogue.9410]

@Sovereign.1093 said:

i did. =) your premise is wrong.

Then why are you making comments that have nothing to do with what I said? Balance is not a simple problem you can just scan through and guess at it. If your not going to take this seriously then please don't post here.

[Sovereign.1093]

@zerorogue.9410 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

i did. =) your premise is wrong.

Then why are you making comments that have nothing to do with what I said? Balance is not a simple problem you can just scan through and guess at it. If your not going to take this seriously then please don't post here.

it has.

@zerorogue.9410 said:I think a few people are hyperbolizing the current state of WvW. We are talking about a strict issue of local balance here.

There are many levels of balance to be taken in account in WvW.-Global balance(world pop)-Time balance(currently playing)-Local balance(In a specific area)

Local Balance is the problem of WvW. This is a basic fact as no amount of changes to the other two balances will do anything to fix WvW if they don't change the local balance issue. Alliances fixes issues on a global scale and a Time scale.

Global Balance(world pop) does not need to be balanced. It doesn't matter of one world has ten million while another has two hundred. If no one from the ten million world plays then They are not going to win. We should not be focusing on balancing theoretical players.

Time Biased balance is the tricky one. You can have this perfectly balanced (eg each server has the same number of players playing at the same time.) One could could write books(and have) on this balance level. It's messy, its hard, and it's never perfect. The best method of doing Time biased balance would be the dynamic queue previously stated. However this would mean your team's open slots on a world would be governed by your enemy rather than you. I think I speak for everyone when saying I don't want to get "The enemy has too many players so you can't play" messages.

This is left with Local balance. Or balance in individual battles and areas. This is once again hard, and once again books have been written. However this should be ground zero for any balance fixes.

Think about this: What is a worse situation for you?-Your versing a world with double your population?-The enemy team has twice the numbers you have right now?-Your tower is under attack by twice as many defenders?

Its a trick question; they are all the same thing. If Your versing a world with double your population, then your likely to have twice as many numbers on right now, that means the towers are likely to be attacked by twice as many defenders. It's a problem that moves down the line.

So why don't we do as Alliances suggests and fix world pop sizes? If you noticed I never said WILL in the above sentience. That's because there are countless x factors that degrade and corrupt balance as it moves from global>time>local. The only way to ensure balance is to do it at a local scale. This way It doesn't matter if the servers are unequal or the enemy has more players, The game is still balanced.

Alliances only focuses on the global and the time balance. Local balance will still be a mess with alliances.

What we really need is a something I like to call "Dev Magic" Careful tweaks in the game that focus players into fights and ensure that large groups are met by other large groups. This is already being done on the maps. ever noticed how there's giant mountains separating areas of EGB? This is local balance in action, those mountains are not placed haphazardly, rather are designed to focus all movement between the three sides of the map between three routes; through SMC, Next to SMC wall, or through a Merc camp. Sentry flags are then put at the entrances/exits to these routes to allow players to notice when a sentry goes missing(and in recent years see red dots on the map) of forces moving between these.

Things like that won't fix population sizes, but one thing will not fix the balance problem.

what you wrote here is guess work.

did you read the dev post and faq?

world includes alliances, which includes guilds registered and non registered visitors.

on our part, players will make 24 hour coverage if they choose to work at it.

ex. guild a for na, guild b for eu, guild c for in between. thus covering local, time, and global, where whatever remains is based on anet calculation with your non representer.

the only issue besides hacking in gw2 is pop coverage balance. if it cant be fixed because players can choose not to play, like jq (good fighters but tankers), coverage is lost. in the least the proposal allows players to find allies when their current ones dont play.