Kicking ppl from servers

[Tiny Doom.4380]

As proposed, as far as I can see, everyone gets kicked from the server every 8 weeks because each 8 week reset causes the creation of new servers. The number of servers in each 8 week period can change from period to period as well. That's the point of the whole excercise. Alliances will keep their integrity from period to period but there is no guarantee the same alliances will end up on the same server from period to period, any more than the same guest server is guaranteed to stay with the same host now. Basically it's a completely new "competition" every 8 weeks and ANEt decides who the teams are and who plays who.

[enkidu.5937]

@"Jski.6180" said:As the "server" is build arone that group there is a massive amount of control by that group.Anet stated:@Gaile Gray.6029 said:Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 membersand recently:@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.I guess, many Alliances won't even reach that cap, anyways. And many Alliances that will, might be composed of a handfull of guilds. So, you might avoid Alliances that are composed of a single guild with 500 ppl, and instead look for a small-scale guild, with a more familiar atmosphere.

[Iozeph.5617]

Nope. Op has a point. This is stupid. The alliance system is a disaster waiting to happen.

It's just a repeat of all the lame excesses that ruined Shadowbane. Players should never have this sort of power even if it's every eight weeks. We don't need more lord of the flies idiocy. WvW has to stay open to all or people will just drop it. And no, open doesn't mean being subjected to a system where they'll be relegated to the 'island of misfit toys' because they didn't accede to the demands of some puffed-up, forty year old man-child. Hard liners might say the kick feature is good but they're full of it because they tend to have more than one game to fall back on.

Couple years ago the fight crowd complained that the mode was dying. That servers/battlegrounds were deserted. So Anet came up with inducements via gear and other rewards to bring fresh players into the mode. The result of that was that these players were slammed for being "PvE carebears" who 'brought down the level of play.' So toxicity drove a good number of them off as it always does. Making alliances won't make up for that. The community's incestuous enough as it is- with poaching going on back and forth, robbing peter to pay paul- in order to keep certain servers stacked. Right now the server names don't even matter to those doing the most harm because they exalt or desert them at whim -similar to locusts hopping from one fertile field to the next once they've scoured the last down to the rocks. Nobody asked what the people who actually care about their in game homes have to say. They're just collateral damage in all this. And sorry, a tag over your head saying what non existent server you used to belong to doesn't cut it. But back to alliances...

Only major difference right now is that Anet's getting money out of transfers. Alliances will just hasten the demise of the mode and perhaps the game. At the least we have to ask where the shortfall in transfer fees is going to be made up for? Where will new content and new talent come from when there's less of this money coming in? Money that, as it was, was probably being shifted to other game modes, or other promised features and bridges to nowhere such as years-long delayed legendary weapons and their attendant quest lines.

Seriously, if anyone of consequence is even reading this thread- if there's no better solution right now for matchmaking than Alliances, then leave things as they are, please? What we have now is terrible, yes, but it's better than driving off any possible new blood that might be tempted to try it still by giving a select few to power to arbitrarily ruin their experience.

Here's something. Remove commander tags. That one change alone might be enough to clear the air some here. Give tag holders back their three hundred gold. Three hundred gold is nothing now so it isn't as though it's going to drastically affect the in-game economy. Particularly when weighed against the potential good it could do. Besides- if they're truly skilled they won't need tags to run. They'll just go back to coordinating over third party voice chats to arrange their in-game wankathons. Isn't as though they haven't been doing it all along anyway.

[Luranni.9470]

It's already been amply demonstrated that server and wvw communites aren't a factor in decision making, unfortunately.

[subversiontwo.7501]

@XenesisII.1540 said:Not sure what you're trying to say here.Players cannot be kicked from a server [day-to-day caveat]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:They can only kick you out of guild part of the alliance. They can't kick you out of server.

@Jski.6180 said:That IS going to be the server lolWell, indirectly they can since if you annoy your own guild enough to make them kick you then you run a good chance of not being pieced together with the same combat cluster on the next reset (unless you get to join another guild in the same alliance). Alliances may also get some influence over guilds with regards to their players that may not be void of conflict and controversy.

At the same time, the guild was your ticket into the combat cluster so if you disappoint them enough to make them want to kick you, would you really want to keep playing with them for longer than up to eight weeks? If an alliance pressures your guild does your guild really want to stay with them or do you really want to stay with a guild that lets itself be pressured? In 99% of the cases these things will work themselves out and it feels like Jski is more concerned about snowflake antics having repercussion than anything else. At the end of the day these changes are being made to give organized players a measure of control over forces that act to disorganize them, like players who constantly follow them around to consume their content while not contributing and in many cases while actively discouraging them by acting and speaking in unpleasant ways. In other news, water is wet.

[subversiontwo.7501]

@Crazy.6029 said:

@enkidu.5937 said:

It seems to me, Anet doesn't want WvW to be competitive. Instead of GvG, Anet made a big-scale mode for the broad masses (that also pay this game), and wants ballanced worlds, not skill-based matchmakings and rankings.

Anet doesn't want this mode to be competitive is right.It is an interesting topic you bring up guys. I'd like to think that they have swayed back and forth on this a bit. Initially the game released with WvW being given a fair bit of attention and there were not any comments given by Anet about it so they were most likely just looking to see in what direction things would head. After a while they decided to give sPvP more attention as a competetive game mode and then they started making remarks as to what WvW would entale (when they actually commented on GvG being unsupported, guilds not being the focal point of the mode, rather servers, or how there were no WvW-typical players with an identity like PvE-typical players).

However, since then, with the things the game mode has gone through (EotM, Desert, HoT pirateship era etc.) the little communication we do get seem to show that they are more aware of the machinations of WvW again as they are factoring in more things for guild-level gameplay. Not just with alliances but with cautious tests of different GvG elements too (guild hall arenas, new EotM arena, ongoing work on TDM-maps in sPvP etc.). So we have had a loop of relative silence to active discouragement to realizing the discouragement being detrimental and going back to relative silence to trying spark some life in guild-oriented content even if it is very cautious.

While we can only guess where it comes from my guess would be that they actually did understand the community's pointers about how guilds are an indirect lifeblood to WvW because they often stand behind the content that is produced and later consumed by unaffiliated players. Without the guilds there will not be enough content for the casual visitor to consume. That is afterall the, bar none, biggest problems in WvW right now. Forget stale meta or issues stemming from PoF mechanics that have gone unadressed for too long. The number one issue in WvW right now is the lack of players who take initiatives to create content (guilds, roamers, commanders, havoc-leaders, focus-leaders, build/comp designers, etc.). The content that does get produced right now is far too often just routine without ambition. That's why all the meta talk is so predominant because even if there is plenty to say about how Anet has been slow- or off in reaction to PoF balance most servers I see today also just copies builds and tactics off MB or other servers' public guides. It is not one thing or the other, it is both things going hand in hand.

[Caliburn.1845]

Player choice is good(deciding who you do and do not play with).Player agency is also good(the power to effect events around you in WvW).The first by design will be part of Alliances, the second should be an indirect result of Alliances.Those who argue against these things will always cloak their arguments in straw men such as "People are mean", "Guilds have stacked", "Players can't be trusted with this power".Sure those things have happened, and will happen again, but having player choice and player agency trump every single instance of those examples.

[ArchonWing.9480]

Absolutely not a problem. The idea that there would be egotistical power hungry e-dictators being put in a position that they would be able to easily abuse power in a petty fashion is never a concern on the internet.

[Dayra.7405]

You cannot kick people from Server now, and you will not be able to do that in the Allianz-System future.In the allianz-system a Team/Server will consist out of1) several alliances2) allianzless peopleIf you kick someone from an alliance, he stays on the server, just moving from group 1) to 2)On next relinking the kicked player (assuming he stays allianceless) may be linked into another server as the alliance he was in, but this is only the more likely case, it may happen that both be linked into the same server again.

[PrinceKhaled.5104]

@Widmo.3186 said:So people that want this game to be so competetive and not casual like atm still exist :open_mouth:Imo, idc about kicking, but it shouldn't exist in alliance mode, too much bullying could appear. Dear ANet, why won't you eventually add GvG mode to this game (which is called G u i l d W a r s). We have only unbalanced PvP and casual WvW, we want more competetive stuff, not another plush teddy bear PvE Raid Wing...

A man after my heart!

[Iozeph.5617]

@"Caliburn.1845" said:Player choice is good(deciding who you do and do not play with).Player agency is also good(the power to effect events around you in WvW).The first by design will be part of Alliances, the second should be an indirect result of Alliances.Those who argue against these things will always cloak their arguments in straw men such as "People are mean", "Guilds have stacked", "Players can't be trusted with this power".Sure those things have happened, and will happen again, but having player choice and player agency trump every single instance of those examples.

Player choice and player agency are well and good when it comes to choosing what quest line you want to play or what set of gear you want to work toward and equip on a given day because arguably the only person's experience you're making better or ruining is your own.

That said, the argument you made above could just as easily be reversed -that people who enjoy being able to kick others out of communities and social groups and thus ruin their chances of advancement cloak their misanthropy behind arguments based on the merits of player choice and agency- which on the surface are laudable arguments most players would readily get behind but which -again- completely sidestep whatever ulterior motives the presenter might have. The largest motivation being able to play despot in whatever shallow, online pool they've decided to stake out for themselves. This has happened over and again, within guilds, within raid groups, and with alliances of guilds within these sorts of games. More than enough so that we don't even have to/need to Godwin this thread.

Yes, you had this behaviour before in old WvW, and though they could try to make your life miserable they couldn't kick you off a server. And yes, whilst you might not want to be stuck in a certain place for eight weeks more if people are trying to make your play experience terrible you might also have an equal number of people you get along with in that alliance who are worth staying around for in spite of the bullies. Why should someone who might be the focus of this sort of bullying be the one forced into an experience of itinerant wandering? Because player choice and agency is good?

This is why majority rule has to be tempered with a system of laws/guidelines and impartial third party mediation. So that no single group of people are given this sort of power over others. This, because true democracy, while it's capable of doing some good, is also the sort of system which allows the majority of people in a room to agree that one person should be singled out, taken aside and then repeated stabbed until they bleed out. More than enough history to prove how wrong things go when left up to mob rule.

Look at all the as-it-happens-in-map-chat, popcorn-worthy dramas that occur when large raiding, pvp, and wvw guilds implode when the stubborn pride or greed of a few personalities in positions of leadership force people to choose sides as though it's some sort of messy divorce. We don't even have to go second hand for much of that.

Saying that choice and agency trump every single instance of the examples listed in this thread isn't just an empty assertion, it's a facetious one. Time and again players have supplied all the proof needed to show that they don't deserve that sort of power. If choice and agency -in this instance the sort of self-governance of online communities some hope will come in with alliances- was so universally beneficial/benevolent, then the sorts of anecdotes being listed in this and other threads wouldn't be such an ubiquitous experience across so many platforms and games played online.

Whether you want to admit it or no, more than not it's people, typically a select few, who ruin these games for everyone else. We don't need even more of that heaped onto an already-dying game mode.

[Caliburn.1845]

^Solid reasoning, and I agree with much of it in regards to real world politics and democracy. But not when it comes to gaming and in particular WvW alliances.

We're talking about gaming communities, guilds, clans, or alliances, whatever label you want to put on it. And those communities, every single one I've ever been a part of are built on some sort of shared values or standards. Do many of those communities have toxicity or have interpersonal drama at some point? Yeah, they're all built by flawed humans. But denying people the ability to pick and choose who they play with creates even more problems. For example, people in GW2 want to argue about how toxic this or that server or guild is, but they're ignoring the larger context. Look at communities in say CoD or LoL, where the toxicity is far far more severe than anything in GW2. And it is largely because of the choices those games have made in regards to player choice and player agency.

I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of every game or gaming community ever, so you guys can prove me wrong. All you have to do is a provide an example of a successful game where players do not get to pick who they play with, while the game overall has a non-toxic community(with the caveat that it should be a PvP game of some sort).

[Warlord.9074]

Alliances have nothing to do with fighting. The people who pushed for alliances the most wanted to them for reasons that have to do with PPT. And disguised this to the developers as an actual fix for the game. Fight guilds just go out and fight other players, they don't need an alliance for that. The people who want to use alliance for fighting are just people who want to voltron everything and respectable fight guilds don't like doing this in general.

[Kaiser.9873]

@Jski.6180 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:They can only kick you out of guild part of the alliance. They can't kick you out of server.

That IS going to be the server lol.

Get a better guild. Seriously, you need a guild that is not going to boot you. If you're worried about getting gkicked, then perhaps hyper-competitive guilds are not for you.

[juno.1840]

You cannot get kicked from a server. You will remain on the server until the next "relink" which is the reassembly of the worlds using all the players in the game (yeah all).

If you want to play with a group of friends, simply join their guild. If you get kicked from that guild then those Players aren't your "friends". Even if you do get kicked, you still remain on the server until next relink. If you have no friends left on the server, then you will value the relink.

The entire discussion is rather silly because it's not a real hypothetical -- in other words it's a use-case that makes no sense.

EDIT: I forgot to mention you can still pay to transfer to another "world". Every relink your world may change and you may want to transfer again, but it's still an option. So even if your hypothetical is valid (which it is not), you have the same options you do today.

[Celsith.2753]

@"Jski.6180" said:

Very much is as now your no longer "locked" into that groups server. You may hang for a time in that group server but your effectually kicked out as the next swap will see you as solo or in another group. As well as social nomrls kicking in if your ousted from a group often you will not be able to play with ppl with in that group with out the other living in fear of getting kicked as well. As the "server" is build arone that group there is a massive amount of control by that group.

As there should be. Why would you want to play with people that have clearly indicated they don't want or like you? This sounds like the adult version of your parents demanding you play with obnoxious little johnny down the street.

If you get kicked from a guild but are still friends with other people in the alliance, you could ask to join your friends guild or if your friends don't want you either, simply transfer - this option I believe they said would be available with some limitations.

[Jski.6180]

@Celsith.2753 said:

@"Jski.6180" said:

Very much is as now your no longer "locked" into that groups server. You may hang for a time in that group server but your effectually kicked out as the next swap will see you as solo or in another group. As well as social nomrls kicking in if your ousted from a group often you will not be able to play with ppl with in that group with out the other living in fear of getting kicked as well. As the "server" is build arone that group there is a massive amount of control by that group.

As there should be. Why would you want to play with people that have clearly indicated they don't want or like you? This sounds like the adult version of your parents demanding you play with obnoxious little johnny down the street.

If you get kicked from a guild but are still friends with other people in the alliance, you could ask to join your friends guild or if your friends don't want you either, simply transfer - this option I believe they said would be available with some limitations.

That never the best way to deal with problems ppl even the ones who are going out of there way to be harmfully. Better to use them as an example or they will just bug some one else or worst yet they will group up with other ppl to kill other groups 8 weeks. We are talking about removing ppl from your side of play or needed to deal with some one on your side for 8 weeks with out any real server environment that tends to keep ppl like this from getting too out of control.

This is important for both the one player and groups having a server community keeping things in order. Soon there will be no server community and ppl will be left to there own wills both for the better and for the worst.

And ppl are mixing things up so badly your still going to have mega pve worlds to play with and deal with ppl this is only wvw whom getting this hard lock by the group of ppl you put your hat in once ever 8 weeks. You will both regret the chose of having and hate the lost over and over.

[shiri.4257]

server communities died when players realized its just a coverage and numbers game. aka seasons. no worries though! you can still create a server alliance. the difference is, i just have to put up the incessant yapping for only 8 weeks and no gems required to be rid of the deadbeats on said server!

[Dabrixmgp.4758]

@enkidu.5937 said:Let's take this scenario:

Alliance A (fight- / meta-focused)B (fight- / meta-focused)

C (casuals that want to catch some butterflies)D (casuals that want to catch some butterflies)

E (night watchmen that play from 23pm to 7am)F (night watchmen that play from 23pm to 7am)

G (roamers / small havoc groups)H (roamers / small havoc groups)

(+ randoms that don't belong to an alliance)

I don't expect Anet to link A+B, C+D, E+F, and G+H. Instead, I would expect: A+C+E+G, and B+D+F+H.

Consequently, meta-players, casuals, roamers, randoms etc. will still have to arrange themselves. o_O

It seems to me, Anet doesn't want WvW to be competitive. Instead of GvG, Anet made a big-scale mode for the broad masses (that also pay this game), and wants ballanced worlds, not skill-based matchmakings and rankings. Ballance by server linking doesn't work well, because the modules (=whole servers), that Anet wants to puzzle with, are just too clunky. Anet said, they want smaller modules, with more granulation, that are easier to handle. That's the goal.

I don't think the goal is, that people with the same play style / goals / attitude can play together and exclude other ppl from their playground.

PS: but I share your sceptics about people getting kicked from their community, because some leaders decided so

Lets do A+B+E+F+G+H vs C+D

[luzonophir.7134]

i still have to see one person (or make it 2) making all people from the server leave and making the server a ghost town and he (and the other) 2 vs mapqueue zerg fighting.