Any word on alliances?

[xikira.3264]

Hello I have been gone for about a year give or take a few months. I have only recently returned. I was wondering has there been anymore info on when the world alliances are going to happen?

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

Maybe for the 10th year anniversary. Don't get your hopes up though.

[sephiroth.4217]

@"Paradoxoglanis.1904" said:Maybe for the 10th year anniversary. Don't get your hopes up though.

[Kovu.7560]

The short answer is no.

The long answer is... well, no.

[LetoII.3782]

Right after HoT is stable

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Bird is the word. That is about as accurate as any player can be in this thread.

D:

[Strider Pj.2193]

If you go here: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/73411/guild-wars-2-forum-the-library-wvw#latest

You will see several posts about world restructuring. There have been two ‘updates’ since the initial post, including a small blurb on it in the ‘where do we go from here’ post after the layoffs.

But honestly, there really isn’t anything new other than they ‘still have it as a priority’.

[enkidu.5937]

Obviously, I'm too dumb to understand what they are working on and why it takes years.

Instead of 27 servers (EU), that are currently linked with each other to a total of 15 worlds, they want smaller compounds to handle world population more precisely, fine.

So, what exactly is the problem? Just keep the current 27 servers and add the opportunity for guilds to create additional mini-servers aka alliances, where the more competitive players can organize themselves.

Then create match-ups as it is now.

Done.

I would prefer, that the current servers and the newly created alliances get separate match makings. Then add a leaderboard, where every server / alliance gets its victory points or whatever score (since the current positions in tier 1-5 actually dont say much, because of server linking and bandwaggoning). I also would prefer a shuffle every 4 weeks, with the possibility to transfer from one server / alliance to another only in the last days before the next shuffle. If alliances and non-alliance players are put in the same world, it will be too hard for the latter ones to find ppl to play with.

[xikira.3264]

Thanks for all the answers hopefully we get some news soon :)

[knite.1542]

@xikira.3264 said:Thanks for all the answers hopefully we get some news soon :)

I am sure we will. I can't wait!! Alliances are going to be awesome!

[devastoscz.9851]

The last actual "update" was 7 months ago...if you can call that an update. Naively bumping for Dev answer.

[XenesisII.1540]

@enkidu.5937 said:Obviously, I'm too dumb to understand what they are working on and why it takes years.

Instead of 27 servers (EU), that are currently linked with each other to a total of 15 worlds, they want smaller compounds to handle world population more precisely, fine.

So, what exactly is the problem? Just keep the current 27 servers and add the opportunity for guilds to create additional mini-servers aka alliances, where the more competitive players can organize themselves.

Then create match-ups as it is now.

Done.

I would prefer, that the current servers and the newly created alliances get separate match makings. Then add a leaderboard, where every server / alliance gets its victory points or whatever score (since the current positions in tier 1-5 actually dont say much, because of server linking and bandwaggoning). I also would prefer a shuffle every 4 weeks, with the possibility to transfer from one server / alliance to another only in the last days before the next shuffle. If alliances and non-alliance players are put in the same world, it will be too hard for the latter ones to find ppl to play with.

We've seen like 5 different multi guild alliances in NA the past 2 years that have formed and basically failed because they become bored, meanwhile screwing up populations after relinks and leaving vacuums in servers when they leave. Can't leave anything to players cause they'll just screw it up even more, plenty of history to support that.

Alliances will populate servers to fill in the numbers to make all worlds as close in player numbers activity time. The system will be fully automated (it isn't right now), and can do this on a more individual level, rather than having to use a big chunk of players (current servers) to put together for a world, like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle instead of the kiddy 27 piece giant sized ones.

Once the automation is in place and worlds can be refreshed every two months (even that can easily change when it's automated) more evenly than now, I believe they be able to do tournaments/seasons.

[Min Min.9368]

Who can say what happened to the World Server system will not happened in Alliances?

We are still the same players from the World servers except that now we are broken into smaller Worlds named Alliances and forced to join Alliance guilds which will inevitably encourge more toxic, elistic guild leaders enlisting only meta clasess into their guilds.

For the first few months, there may be more players due to the new system they wnt to try out but give a few months or maybe just weeks, after the dust settled, players will see that we are still having the same core problems. Only meta classes needed.

We totally lost server identity but retaining the same sets of problems and encourages more elistic commanders and their minions to take over the population.

How is this better? It will be better only if ANet stop the powercreeps, reinstate or strenghten defence or support mechanics, including better tower defence. Give us a choice and a fair chance to play defence and not always running around in numbers. For once, give us a real balance update and not nerfs. Of course, many will say " why not just quit WvW? " But, is this what ANet wants with Alliances? To make more players give up WvW?

[Gop.8713]

Anet stated that the purpose of removing the language restrictions on EU links was to prepare for the alliance system, so at the very least we do know it is still on their radar. That's about all we know though. I don't think I could honestly say whether I'd be more surprised if it showed up next month or didn't show up for another two years . . .

[DeadlySynz.3471]

In the mean time they could just eliminate the bottom 6 servers and disperse the players into the upper 6. At the bare minimum at least the players/activity will be somewhat in line, and it is a step to see how players react to somewhat even numbers or do they still persist on trying to stack.

[Ubi.4136]

Getting an answer is like shaking one of those Magic 8 balls: and it just keeps coming up on uncertain or try again later. Pretty sure this all got put on a back burner (in an overseas warehouse somewhere) when the layoffs happened. Honestly, it looks like the earliest we could even hope for is a year or 2 from now

[Justine.6351]

@Ubi.4136 said:Getting an answer is like shaking one of those Magic 8 balls: and it just keeps coming up on uncertain or try again later. Pretty sure this all got put on a back burner (in an overseas warehouse somewhere) when the layoffs happened. Honestly, it looks like the earliest we could even hope for is a year or 2 from now

And that will still be before CU rofl.

[hunkamania.7561]

Aint happening anytime soon

[enkidu.5937]

@DeadlySynz.3471 said:In the mean time they could just eliminate the bottom 6 servers and disperse the players into the upper 6.

Pretty sure, Anet will not reduce the number of linking puzzle pieces from 27 to 21 (EU), when their ultimate goal is to increase the number of puzzle pieces.

[Ubi.4136]

@Justine.6351 said:

@Ubi.4136 said:Getting an answer is like shaking one of those Magic 8 balls: and it just keeps coming up on uncertain or try again later. Pretty sure this all got put on a back burner (in an overseas warehouse somewhere) when the layoffs happened.

Honestly, it looks like the earliest we could even hope for is a year or 2 from now

And that will still be before CU rofl.

Ain't that the truth. My wife and I got our money back last year when we realized that game is never going to release. If by some miracle it does, the graphics will look just as bad as the first DAoC looks now.

[XenesisII.1540]

@"Mil.3562" said:Who can say what happened to the World Server system will not happened in Alliances?

We are still the same players from the World servers except that now we are broken into smaller Worlds named Alliances and forced to join Alliance guilds which will inevitably encourge more toxic, elistic guild leaders enlisting only meta clasess into their guilds.

For the first few months, there may be more players due to the new system they wnt to try out but give a few months or maybe just weeks, after the dust settled, players will see that we are still having the same core problems. Only meta classes needed.

We totally lost server identity but retaining the same sets of problems and encourages more elistic commanders and their minions to take over the population.

How is this better? It will be better only if ANet stop the powercreeps, reinstate or strenghten defence or support mechanics, including better tower defence. Give us a choice and a fair chance to play defence and not always running around in numbers. For once, give us a real balance update and not nerfs. Of course, many will say " why not just quit WvW? " But, is this what ANet wants with Alliances? To make more players give up WvW?

You only join guilds in the alliance to make sure you get into the same worlds as those guilds, if you don't want to play with elitist guilds or commanders then don't join their guilds. Mind you, you still might end up in the same worlds are those guilds, there's no real way to get away from them, so just ignore them like you currently would?

The difference from current world? the worlds will always be refilled, unlike now when a bunch of players leave a server, that server itself is screwed it becomes low population and then has to hope to be linked with a high population server so they don't become dead. We've seen servers get dumped and then rebuild over a period of months to even years, the alliance system will repopulate the servers every two months, if they keep it at two months.

Server identity was lost a long time ago, a lot of people stopped caring about defending the homeland since 2015, certain servers were known for certain things and even that has been erased over time. We can blame anet for that all we want, but frankly players got tired of it too. What I hope they would do for the new worlds is some sort of branding, like a sports team, building a theme around it, give something to rally around, give them unique names like the gods and elder dragons, titles, flags, icons the whole shabang, but I know that's a pipe dream.

As for balance, that's a separate team, and they don't care about wvw balance.

[Dawdler.8521]

@DeadlySynz.3471 said:In the mean time they could just eliminate the bottom 6 servers and disperse the players into the upper 6. At the bare minimum at least the players/activity will be somewhat in line, and it is a step to see how players react to somewhat even numbers or do they still persist on trying to stack.People complain loudly when just one server goes without a link so that some guilds get split, how do you think six entire servers would react?

[Strider Pj.2193]

@XenesisII.1540 said:

@"Mil.3562" said:Who can say what happened to the World Server system will not happened in Alliances?

We are still the same players from the World servers except that now we are broken into smaller Worlds named Alliances and forced to join Alliance guilds which will inevitably encourge more toxic, elistic guild leaders enlisting only meta clasess into their guilds.

For the first few months, there may be more players due to the new system they wnt to try out but give a few months or maybe just weeks, after the dust settled, players will see that we are still having the same core problems. Only meta classes needed.

We totally lost server identity but retaining the same sets of problems and encourages more elistic commanders and their minions to take over the population.

How is this better? It will be better only if ANet stop the powercreeps, reinstate or strenghten defence or support mechanics, including better tower defence. Give us a choice and a fair chance to play defence and not always running around in numbers. For once, give us a real balance update and not nerfs. Of course, many will say " why not just quit WvW? " But, is this what ANet wants with Alliances? To make more players give up WvW?

You only join guilds in the alliance to make sure you get into the same worlds as those guilds, if you don't want to play with elitist guilds or commanders then don't join their guilds. Mind you, you still might end up in the same worlds are those guilds, there's no real way to get away from them, so just ignore them like you currently would?

The difference from current world? the worlds will always be refilled, unlike now when a bunch of players leave a server, that server itself is screwed it becomes low population and then has to hope to be linked with a high population server so they don't become dead. We've seen servers get dumped and then rebuild over a period of months to even years, the alliance system will repopulate the servers every two months, if they keep it at two months.

Server identity was lost a long time ago, a lot of people stopped caring about defending the homeland since 2015, certain servers were known for certain things and even that has been erased over time. We can blame anet for that all we want, but frankly players got tired of it too. What I hope they would do for the new worlds is some sort of branding, like a sports team, building a theme around it, give something to rally around, give them unique names like the gods and elder dragons, titles, flags, icons the whole shabang, but I know that's a pipe dream.

As for balance, that's a separate team, and they don't care about wvw balance.

This^

Probably one of the more accurate and unbiased descriptions of where we are at and going.

Well said

[Bristingr.5034]

Servers would be more active if incentives for going higher were worth it. We need another WvW Seasonal Tournament.

[Gop.8713]

@Bristingr.5034 said:Servers would be more active if incentives for going higher were worth it. We need another WvW Seasonal Tournament.

Servers would suffer even more population imbalance if there were any reward for winning at all. If alliances provide anet with the tools necessary to create balanced matchups -- and that's a huge if -- then it would be possible to increase the rewards for winning . . .

With so many players willing to bandwagon for free, paying them to do so seems counterintuitive . . .