How to cheat the new alliance system

[Tomahawk.7361]

They should have never allowed a 500 person coalition, that is really really really really really really really dumb. Max for a server group should be 50 on a matchup, and even then...

[Sovereign.1093]

there is this thing called world cap. =)

oh my friend is there. full oh nos

[MedievalThings.5417]

@Sovereign.1093 said:there is this thing called world cap. =)

oh my friend is there. full oh nos

World caps are not going to be a hard number. They have even said 1 world could have 25% less population than another. I want to be hopeful for what they are trying to do, but I imagine it's going to look like everything else and turn in to a shitstorm.

[Sovereign.1093]

only if players choose to forfeit =) but those kinds of players want to be carried by easy fights.

[Aeolus.3615]

create alliances of secondary free accounts?

[Dayra.7405]

@Aeolus.3615 said:create alliances of secondary free accounts?

Let them be linked to other worlds, but never play them to weaken these worlds?But can hit yourself as well. And if they aren't played they add not much player-hours.

[Swamurabi.7890]

I can see three ways to game the system if max guild is 500 and max alliance is 1000.

1. Have all the GW2 commanders in one guild/alliance.
2. Have the timezone with the fewest players form an alliance.
3. Have an alliance of two guilds. One guild covering EBG 24/7 and blue BL for two timezones (6 maps of 80 players or 480 players). The other guild covers Green BL 24/7 and Blue BL for the other two timezones. (480 players). Three maps covered 24/7. Pugs go to DBL.

[Koman.7064]

By discussing ways to "cheat the system" while the system is still being built all your doing is giving anet more stats paterns and behaviors to look for in the automated match paring algorithm.

It's way too early to discuss a system that isn't even in production yet.

[Dayra.7405]

@"Koman.7064" said:By discussing ways to "cheat the system" while the system is still being built all your doing is giving anet more stats paterns and behaviors to look for in the automated match paring algorithm.

Yes, thats the goal!

It's way too early to discuss a system that isn't even in production yet.

Given this gaol, I think it is just in time.

[Aeolus.3615]

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Aeolus.3615 said:create alliances of secondary free accounts?

Let them be linked to other worlds, but never play them to weaken these worlds?But can hit yourself as well. And if they aren't played they add not much player-hours.

well u can run several clients on the same machine, theres risk of bots starting to apear in alliances :\

[Brother.1504]

Players will always leverage any game system for the max advantage and profit, even to the point of breaking the system. I don’t think it’s possible to create a system immune to this fact. Hopefully Anet doesn’t develop this new paradigm with a one and done mentality. They will need to monitor each match, respond to feedback, and make thoughtful corrections when appropriate. And for the love of Balthazar we need more Devs actually playing the mode regularly. Eyes on the ground.

[Fuel.3285]

Oh, this can't go wrong in the slightest. /popcorn

[moonstarmac.4603]

One thing I wonder about is how hard will it be for those of us in small guilds who pop in to ride the WvW fun for a while to join in after the changes. If anything I guess it is a way to boost the multi-guild system.

Personally I'd like to see a third WvW setup...where there are three keeps with lords and the goal is to kill the other alliance's lord. The map resets after two lords are removed. Massive GvG action there!

[LetoII.3782]

@moonstarmac.4603 said:

Personally I'd like to see a third WvW setup...where there are three keeps with lords and the goal is to kill the other alliance's lord. The map resets after two lords are removed. Massive GvG action there!

So... Alterac Valley?

[moonstarmac.4603]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@moonstarmac.4603 said:

Personally I'd like to see a third WvW setup...where there are three keeps with lords and the goal is to kill the other alliance's lord. The map resets after two lords are removed. Massive GvG action there!

So... Alterac Valley?

lol haven't touched WoW in 9 years but yeah, something like that....or classic Alliance Battles from GW1

[LetoII.3782]

You should see what AV has become before wishing it here. Both sides rushing past one another in a dps-the-lord race. It's barely PvP -_-

[Strider Pj.2193]

@LetoII.3782 said:You should see what AV has become before wishing it here. Both sides rushing past one another in a dps-the-lord race. It's barely PvP -_-

Honestly seems like they got EBG right with a king of the hill perspective and the towers being able to hit keeps and the castle. (Yes, red side has issues depending on perspective)

Something that is advantageous to fight over that gives your side an advantage, or greatly hinders the other side would be a good addition. Bloodlust was a nice attempt, but when 1-2 people can cap it, it defeats the purpose.

[Grim West.3194]

I would suggest that the Devs not release too much information about how they calculate participation and the metrics they use for determining matchups. Keep it as vague as possible. The more information exploiters have, the easier it is for them to game the system.

[Hexinx.1872]

How is the new system going to prevent people from farming lower tiers? Won't sitting out a week again match you up with someone who plays less than you? I have tried to think of how this will ever change anything. If anything, all it does is create a new friends list/guild list of who you want to wvw with. Just changing the system so you control who is on your world/alliance. Whatever you want to label it as.

[Euryon.9248]

@"Hexinx.1872" said:How is the new system going to prevent people from farming lower tiers? Won't sitting out a week again match you up with someone who plays less than you? I have tried to think of how this will ever change anything. If anything, all it does is create a new friends list/guild list of who you want to wvw with. Just changing the system so you control who is on your world/alliance. Whatever you want to label it as.

Only being able to control 20-25% of who is on your world versus 100% is a huge change. Season resets mix up all the tiers because all the worlds will be re-created from scratch, and worlds won't have a built-in "fear factor" or "reputation" that other worlds will scramble/tank to avoid, at least not until late in the season when maybe a couple of worlds will have some kind of rep -- which will then be reshuffled as soon as the next season starts.

[Hexinx.1872]

You really don't think people hold 100% control over there world right now do you? Anyone is free to move servers as they open/close. Just because a group gets organized and takes on managing incoming guilds and coverage doesn't give them the power to say who walks into WvW or not. I just have this gut feeling we'll see a few superior alliances sitting up top of the brackets just the same as we see worlds today.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Hexinx.1872" said:You really don't think people hold 100% control over there world right now do you? Anyone is free to move servers as they open/close. Just because a group gets organized and takes on managing incoming guilds and coverage doesn't give them the power to say who walks into WvW or not. I just have this gut feeling we'll see a few superior alliances sitting up top of the brackets just the same as we see worlds today.But the world generation is random, so what brackets are you talking about? Each 8 week "season" will be like a total glicko reset to 0 and then every week you fight up the new tiers. If the superior alliances are up top... they fought to get there. Isnt that the point?

[Hexinx.1872]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Hexinx.1872" said:You really don't think people hold 100% control over there world right now do you? Anyone is free to move servers as they open/close. Just because a group gets organized and takes on managing incoming guilds and coverage doesn't give them the power to say who walks into WvW or not. I just have this gut feeling we'll see a few superior alliances sitting up top of the brackets just the same as we see worlds today.But the world generation is random, so what brackets are you talking about? Each 8 week "season" will be like a total glicko reset to 0 and then every week you fight up the new tiers. If the superior alliances are up top... they fought to get there. Isnt that the point?

I'm saying the superior alliance can still farm lower tiers by taking breaks the same way JQ does. The same kinda problem exists.

[Aeolus.3615]

@Hexinx.1872 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Hexinx.1872 said:You really don't think people hold 100% control over there world right now do you? Anyone is free to move servers as they open/close. Just because a group gets organized and takes on managing incoming guilds and coverage doesn't give them the power to say who walks into WvW or not. I just have this gut feeling we'll see a few superior alliances sitting up top of the brackets just the same as we see worlds today.But the world generation is random, so what brackets are you talking about? Each 8 week "season" will be like a total glicko reset to 0 and then every week you fight up the new tiers. If the superior alliances are up top... they fought to get there. Isnt that the point?

I'm saying the superior alliance can still farm lower tiers by taking breaks the same way JQ does. The same kinda problem exists.

Basilcy an alliance will tank themselves so they get less players playing and be paired with alliances with that respective playtime?

IF that happens map and gameplay design should be prepared for that, that only it is aproblem cause WvW is all about blob deploy ton of siege and cap, theres poor gameplay mechanics envolving the sieges.

Population gap should not be a issue if game had decent mechanics to deal with it, still no matter what changes Anet does believe that WvW is mainly to blob and ktrain, if they see that much defense or every time a blob atacks another blob counters and stales WvW (reason they will mantain the 3 way system) they will nerf strucutres to the ground or raise siege damage to make harder to a blob respond to an atack and defend.,

They want a game easy on offense almost impossible to defend to avoid stalness, this creates stucture loss and that makes server have thing to do as recap stuff, this is an extreme limited game design....Reason WvW ietself as to change to acomodate the alliance changes over time.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Aeolus.3615 said:I'm saying the superior alliance can still farm lower tiers by taking breaks the same way JQ does. The same kinda problem exists.And? The alliance system doesnt solve all problems. It's not meant to. It's meant to solve the massive difference in population between low tier and high tier by cutting the playerbase into smaller groups than large static servers and then reach a good median for all worlds when combining them back together. That's it. Nothing more.