Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Any word on alliances?


Recommended Posts

@"XenesisII.1540" said:Snip 8<

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.

Snip 8<


Pipe dreams do come true...sometimes.

1) NFC & AFC leading to an annual NFL Super Bowl event.2) AL & NL leading to an annual MLB World Series event.3) EU & NA & ASIA leading to an annual WvWvW World Tournament event

Can you see any pattern here?


Ok...ok...2 out of 3 pipe dreams coming true is pretty good in my book.

ANet World Tournament event still needs work.

It would be easier & more straight forward if we did 5 simple things to change WvW into creating an ANet World Tournament:

1) Remove the current match-up system, but keep a system for World Ranking.2) Assign each World server a single map to defend.3) Let players pick any three maps to fight on weekly.4) During the week show players the top three enemies attacking their home map.5) Finally only reward players when they fight on a map or an enemy map that is "Ranked Higher or Equal to" their home map.

The above helps to provide...A Better Match-Up Mechanic where:

1) Players don't need to transfer to find fights, but can still transfer if they really want to.2) Players weekly pick their own match-ups.3) Players picking popular maps will have to wait in queue to enter, but can pick maps with smaller queues as part of their weekly choices.4) Players can play with friends & family from any server by choosing to meet on a shared enemy map.5) Players from different time zones protect each other's home map through retaliatory attacks against their shared enemy's map. An attack against one is an attack against all.

We continue using an overall "World Max Capacity Seats" to control how many players can declare a Server their Home World.

While tweaking the "Reserved Map Entry Seats" to control how many players can actually enter a Server map to fight on.

Reserved Map Entry Seats:50% = Home Defenders40% = Enemy Attackers10% = ANet GMs

Adjustable %

It's better to Fix things by using Better Match-Up Mechanics...imho

We tried to use Better Team-Creation Mechanics like World Linking...which failed & destroyed most if not all Guest Server communities

The same use of Better Team-Creation Mechanics of Alliance Linking...will also fail...and I'll predict...destroy most if not all Host Server communities as well.

In the Long-Term...ANet is slowly killing off the "Goose that lays their golden eggs" as they kill off the long standing WvW communities that provides a major draw to why players return to GW2.

When the Long-Term WvW crowd of players is short-shortsightedly being encouraged to drift away from playing WvW...the real money that they've been spending in the Gem Store...will to ANet's misfortune...follow them out the door...imho

Sadly...the players here won't really care & will continue to focus on discussing silly topics that don't really matter to the long-term health of the game & ANet's financial future.

We don't demand ANet to be held accountable, and ANet doesn't want to be held accountable...it's a Win Win situation...but we all lose when the game shuts down.

Yours truly,Diku

Credibility requires critical insight & time.

The Goose That Laid Golden Eggs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Gop.8713 said:

@"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 . . .

Yeah, giving a "real" reward isn't the solution. A lot of players are already willing to pay to transfer just for easy fights (so loot and ranks) where they almost always outnumber their opponent. Not sure there is a solution to be had as long as server transfers are available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to be that person but the Alliances update won't save WvW. The balance is an infernal mess, warclaw was an unnecessary change (that was welcomed by many for some strange reason) and so it all boils down to blobbing and k-training. I was thinking, I remember people complaining incessantly about defensive and so it got nerfed (even though anyone with a brain could've taken advantage of shield gens which, at the time, would have rendered sup acs useless if you kept the walls hot too). And they didn't even think to split the changes i.e. reduce damage dealt by acs to players but leave damage to siege as is. Nor were they consistent in nerfing the damage trebs and mortars do to players. People don't even bother to defend paper towers anymore. In my mind, as much as you might want people to get better at fighting, not everybody is suited for it. People have different skillsets. And since the devs have helped to eliminate the multifaceted nature of WvW, in providing different ways to play i.e. objective defense and roaming, all that's left for people to do is join the zerg. It was never perfect but sometimes you end up making things worse. I can only speak for myself but WvW is as good as dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think anyone thinks alliances alone is going to save wvw(in fact it's probably too late to save it at this point), it only partly solves the population problem and not even going to solve off hours coverage as they're not even going to include time zones in their population shuffle, there's certainly a lot of other problems that need to be looked at. But it is one of the biggest problems that is required to be fixed in order to be able to provide certain other content to wvw.

Class balance needs to be looked at for groups and zergs, classes have core and two elite specs and still forced into either roamer or group and not much variety for both or very niche.Damage balance needs to be looked at for all levels roaming group zerg blob, one shots to aoes from class to class.That leads to combat mechanics, boons vs corruption, damage immunity, shields, etc should be looked at.Wvw game play could use a refresh, siege damage, structure upgrades, time to cap could to be looked at, time for one level of walls and gates?. Put actual mechanics to split zergs up, not a 5 cap ruins that only requires 2 people to do.

PPTing, PPKing, could also be looked at. Scoring mechanics, like the leading side structures should reward more when enemy cap it. The 2v1 on the weakest team should not be promoted, players should want to go after the leader to keep them from increasing their lead, they shouldn't be beating up on the weakest and be content with being 2nd and not really pushing for 1st always. People shouldn't want to tank, it's one of the dumbest things that happens in wvw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking to a very probable situation in the future and if the Alliance system can solve it.Think at a player, member of several guilds. Each of the guilds is member in a different Alliance. By playing for one guild, that player may be put in the situation to fight against the other guilds he is member in. This is not an improvement of the actual situation.

The problem with the Alliance system is that it is not a rework of the WvW starting from the base. It is a tentative to modify something already existing. But, unfortunately, the actual WvW system has so many problems that I'm afraid few changes to some aspects will not be able to make it too much different from what we have now.

So, it is very possible to wait a lot of time for the Alliance system. And in the moment when it will be released to see that (almost) nothing changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I revived the thread mostly because over a year ago, this community was promised something major, and we've only had two mediocre updates about a system that was supposed to save/fix/improve our game mode. Instead we've been given half-baked 'features' and changes that make very little sense to the general population (3 dodge un-CC'able mounts) without much explanation at all. Even the interesting tweaks (invisible commander tag) were promptly taken away because they were 'not ready'. Ready for what? Ready for there to be no players at all?

Honestly, at this point I'm looking at anything that will shake up WvW in a positive way. I can't even get my hopes up with these week-long events (btw Anet, just make them week-end events) because usually half the mechanics are broken anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@XenesisII.1540 said:

@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.


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.First part of their alliance system: Switching from the current transfer system to the new one (=transfers only allowed 1 week before re-linking).→ This could have already been implemented. Because it should only take weeks, not years.

Second part: Creating more puzzle pieces.→ Just keep the current servers, and add a button „create alliance“, a second button „invite guild“, and a third button „We are ready!“. That would make everyone within this alliance (who chose the respective guild as „my WvW guild“) to (temporarily) leave his / her home server and instead get linked as part of this alliance for the next 8 weeks. Creating some buttons also should only take weeks, not years.

Third part: Improve the automated linking mechanics.→ This has to be done after the above two parts are already implemented. Improving the linking mechanics beforehand seems impracticable to me.

So, I still dont see why what they are working on for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to say 'I told you so' , so I won't.

WVW might have one intern looking at it on a Friday afternoon if some NPC's toenail doesn't need an urgent makeover- that's about where it sits in Anet's priority list.

Much hype when they announced it- since then it's been crickets apart from the rare statement about it still being a 'priority'. Despite there being no one actually working on it full time and no dedicated wvw team..

At this stage I should push back my estimated release date as my first guess is looking way too optimistic...let's just say I'm not really hopeful it will ever happen in the format they first proposed.

You can tell the love wvw gets by the number of new and exciting maps that have been released and the number of skills that are changed for wvw only to ensure balance in the mode....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm...this is just my personal observation & opinion.

ANet should seriously be concerned when & why content providers begin to leave their game due to the toxic community that's attracted & enabled by your game design.

I'm not the only one saying Alliances is predicted to fail because it fails to address the core problem. Population in-balance...which could be resolved by directly replacing the Match-Up mechanics that is creating a bottle-neck that allows certain servers to consistently win over 80-90% of the time since GW2 launched.

Server Linking failed to fix this population in-balance & it destroyed Guest Server Communities in the process. Focus was to use better Team-Creation.

Depriving the Guest Servers of their identities was the worst idea ever...we stripped them of their honor & dignity. Concepts that are intangible to measure were the primary reasons to fight for...in a cause greater than any single player, guild, or alliance of guilds could provide...imho

We now fight for Red, Green, or Blue...it's no wonder players can turn toxic...when every link...you'll get a new Host/Guest server that you'll have to help carry or leech from.

Alliance Linking is using the same concept of trying to improve Team-Creation....and it will next destroy Host Server Communities in the process.

I'll sadly be there saying..."I told you so".

You don't have to believe or agree with me, but it breaks my heart to watch these self-inflicted wounds happen over the years...but when your bottom line consistently falls out & your revenue streams consistently come up dry...it's going to make me really sad...when this game has to shut-down due to a lack of funds.

ANet's has a huge stake in this...their financial survival is directly tied to the long-term health of communities that only exist within the WvW ecosystem...which in turn should be a primary motivation to encourage players to return & play GW2 to make purchases in their gems stores.

Using Guilds to replace WvW servers will change the inter-personal dynamics & allow players to create toxic communities as Guild Officers decide who stays or goes in being able to win.

Players that truly love GW2...even though they may say..."they're done with it"...will carefully continue to watch from the sidelines...please give them a good reason to return & support GW2...imho

Please replace the actual Match-Up mechanics (Fixed 3-way Battles Locked in Bronze, Silver, and Gold Tiers) & stop fussing with the Team-Creation mechanics already...which is useless in addressing the core problem & tends to nurture the creation of a toxic community in the Long-Term.

Yours truly,Diku

Credibility requires critical insight & time.

I think I'm done with GW2 [News + Future]Published on Jul 6, 2019

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well a few things about that video...He was mostly talking about the twitch community being appreciative and toxic at the same time and he's tired of it. Thing is if anyone has spent time in any twitch chats you know this is how that community is overall because there are many streamers who promote trolling and toxicity, then those people go to other chats and think it's the normal thing to do, trolling and being toxic for every little thing. There are some clean streams out there, but they have to be highly moderated, and maybe Jawgeous didn't do that? and let it get to him.

This isn't something Anet can do anything about, they don't run twitch, and they already highly moderate their own forums.

Pvp is always going to have toxicity in it, it naturally breathes from competition, it isn't a pillow fighting where you're hitting each other giggling the entire time, which some people apparently think it should be. People need to grow some thick skin in pvp and learn to start ignoring or roll with the toxicity. But even games like league of legends have a huge amount of this and yet has a large player base and audience. If you don't want to deal with that level of toxicity then there's pve to do. There is nothing Anet can do here, there are no redesigns that can break toxicity other than removing all in game chat.

Second part of his rant is about the future of gw2, he hated living story 4 and the future of the game is up in the air, wvw getting alliances but that will not fix the core issues, as he points out that it will go nowhere if balance isn't looked at which I highly agree with. A lot of streamers have already quit gw2, this was just one of the last few who still bothered to stream gw2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bristingr.5034 said:

@Usagi.4835 said:warclaw was an unnecessary change (that was welcomed by many for some strange reason)

Not sure where people wanted Warclaw... from what I've heard through chats and forums, everyone didn't want a mount.

Actually.... Here are some comments.

@JayAction.9056 said:I just took the time to actually play first story of PoF.

I think mounts should be usable in WvW.

and later comments@JayAction.9056 said:REMEMBER,

Thumbs up bros if you want to join Raptor Boiz ?.Fun for everybody. Get the with the program family.

Raptor Boiz ?.

That was May 2018, he got 13 thumbs up. Isn't this dude a PvP player?Anyway I bumped the thread if you wanted to read it for yourself.

There's another one in April 2018 that was just linked by @"DemonSeed.3528"https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/37089/please-add-mounts-to-wvw/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...