Alliances will kill WvW. A nail in the coffin for GW2 PvP.

[subversiontwo.7501]

3 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

 

But but but, I thought only being able to listen was required to join, now we have to talk too?!

Gosh, they keep upping the requirements.

 

Haha, yes. Times are tough 🙂.

[jul.7602]

9 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

I am getting firmly reminded why I stopped logging in here.

The word pug stands for pickup group. It doesn't stand for anything else. It is its name. It should be perfectly fair to use.
Now, if you want to have your own definition of it, have at it.

However, does it escape you how ridiculous it is when you dress my post in your definition and cry about it?

You are getting yourself riled up over some perceived slight that was never there.

Your definition group is more suitable for MMOs without open world WvW. For instance, in a dungeon or raid your definition of PUGs is fine because you need a group to initiate the instance. In WvW, there is very little distinction between random people that are in your squad following you, and random people that are not in your squad but following you. In WvW the definition of a pug has evolved to mean anyone that's not in a premade guild group. 

[kash.9213]

50 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Then you don't understand what a "pug" is and/or you misunderstand the context of the post you qouted.. It is literally someone who joins a commander's pickup group. By definition, you can not be a pug without a commander. You become a "pug" when you join the tag.

 

Ed. Just to underline that: Since a pug doesn't exist without a tag it also creates no content without a tag. Players may create content in other ways than with pickup groups or in ways that require no commander, but that is not what the post you qouted was about.

Everyone here uses the term pug for anyone out there not in a guild group, you suddenly getting tight with the definition is desperate. You can move the goal post with details and dodge if you want, I wasn't even going in hard. That's especially disappointing considering the thread itself had already defined the term pug and you had no problem with it before. 

 

If you're trying to be super precise about a Pick Up Group, that's the group that picks up all of the other floaters loosely without being an official squad or guild group, unless that's changed over the years. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by kash.9213

[subversiontwo.7501]

3 minutes ago, kash.9213 said:

Everyone here uses the term pug for anyone out there not in a guild group, you suddenly getting tight with the definition is desperate. You can move the goal post with details and dodge if you want, I wasn't even going in hard. That's especially disappointing considering the thread itself had already defined the term pug and you had no problem with it before. 

 

If you're trying to be super precise about a Pick Up Group, that's the group that picks up all of the other floaters loosely without being an official squad or guild group, unless that's changed over the years. 

Actually, I think you should go back and read the post that you qouted again. I'm sure that if you take another look at it you can see that it in no way discusses roaming, clouding or anything else that you can do on your own irrelevant to the context of Alliances or whatever other definition of the word than its name 😅.

 

There is something called projection. You may feel like "goal posts are being moved" or something "suddenly changed" or I "had no problem with it before". Before when? Go back to the post you qouted and you can see that it directly references pickup groups whereever your concern applies. Look, you misunderstood the post you qouted. That is fine. However, there's no reason to double down on your mistake and project your insecurities on me. Like I told Letoll: It becomes pretty ridiculous if you are suggesting that words are not allowed to be used the way they were first coined and that something else was implied. It becomes even more ridiculous if you can just go back to the post in question and read it again to see that the use in context of it lines up with what I am saying here.

[kash.9213]

3 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Actually, I think you should go back and read the post that you qouted again. I'm sure that if you take another look at it you can see that it in no way discusses roaming, clouding or anything else that you can do on your own irrelevant to the context of Alliances or whatever other definition of the word than its name 😅.

 

There is something called projection. You may feel like "goal posts are being moved" or something "suddenly changed" or I "had no problem with it before". Before when? Go back to the post you qouted and you can see that it directly references pickup groups whereever your concern applies. Look, you misunderstood the post you qouted. That is fine. However, there's no reason to double down on your mistake and project your insecurities on me. Like I told Letoll: It becomes pretty ridiculous if you are suggesting that words are not allowed to be used the way they were first coined and that something else was implied. It becomes even more ridiculous if you can just go back to the post in question and read it again to see that the use in context of it lines up with what I am saying here.

"Pickup groups". But your talking about people in a commanders squad. Which is it? 

[subversiontwo.7501]

11 minutes ago, kash.9213 said:

"Pickup groups". But your talking about people in a commanders squad. Which is it? 

If you went back and read the post, maybe you would know 😊.

Ps. What it is talking about is the Alliance system and whether or not it will ruin WvW. That is the topic of this thread.

Edited July 15, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[God.2708]

When is the next forum tournament, someone contact guildMM, because I'd like to stake 250 bags on subversiontwo one pushing everyone.

Misunderstanding of definitions aside, It feels very strange for the complainant to basically describe WvW in its ideal sense and then say 'And that will kill WvW'.

WvW wasn't designed to be a fantasy fortnite. You drop in, kill stuff, and fly away feeling good. It was meant to be a massively coordinated RvR where PvP would be occurring even when enemies weren't on your screen because you were strategizing group placements and objectives. That requires coordination, and I'm sure the forum goers will crucify me for saying this but: And that means there has to be leadership, and servers as they were did not facilitate an environment to produce that.

Anet made a meme of themselves calling out fight guilds oh so long ago for ignoring that intended purpose, and their lack of reinforcing that climatic scale has cost them dearly. But, that doesn't change what the purpose behind the mode is and how it's designed.


 

[subversiontwo.7501]

58 minutes ago, God.2708 said:

When is the next forum tournament, someone contact guildMM, because I'd like to stake 250 bags on subversiontwo one pushing everyone.

Misunderstanding of definitions aside, It feels very strange for the complainant to basically describe WvW in its ideal sense and then say 'And that will kill WvW'.

WvW wasn't designed to be a fantasy fortnite. You drop in, kill stuff, and fly away feeling good. It was meant to be a massively coordinated RvR where PvP would be occurring even when enemies weren't on your screen because you were strategizing group placements and objectives. That requires coordination, and I'm sure the forum goers will crucify me for saying this but: And that means there has to be leadership, and servers as they were did not facilitate an environment to produce that.

Anet made a meme of themselves calling out fight guilds oh so long ago for ignoring that intended purpose, and their lack of reinforcing that climatic scale has cost them dearly. But, that doesn't change what the purpose behind the mode is and how it's designed.


 

Haha 😊. You raise something pertinent here though. Things do not have to be that exclusive. I think it is fair for there to be "fantasy fortnite" content. That is what roaming is, by and large. It is fine to not care about or partake in the strategic layer. However, it is then odd to be concerned about the strategic layer when it doesn't affect one or what one claims to do. That sort of ties back to the whole pickup, roaming or whatever else discussion.

 

I think alot of these concerns and fears that take form in some sort of anti-alliance sentiments and threads has little to do with the systems and any such sensible discussion about what the systems facilitate and produce. I think it is many times as simple as Player A being afraid that Player B (a figure Player A finds influential) will choose to avoid them when given the choice (or more freedom over the choice). Alot of what I have said in this thread has been some attempt at tempering those fears by pointing out what can already be done, how some people already behave and what can be done under the new system. I think most other things are largely irrelevant and that people dress things up in unecessary circulars (server pride, those elitist guilds etc.) to not show their hand.

Edited July 15, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

alliances come just pretty late. if not a lot of old guilds go re-active again, it may get complicated. like, current t1 and t5 for example of EU are a crazy mess. nearly unplayable, everyone doing random stuff.  even bad guilds can farm for days these days, which is kinda sad.

 

too many players play Wvw as strictly non comptetitive, non pvp, dwarven fortress-style or call-of-duty-style game. which is just a bit weird and corrupts the whole system since months.

 

the feb2020 "balances" did hurt the system even more. battles became slow, stale and if u dont have full stealth and superspeed, the enemy blobsized cloud just runs away like scared chicken, scattered into all directions, even if they're 50+ and u have like 20-25...

 

or hides in some tower and sieges it up with 9999 arrowcarts, trebs, catas.... literally yikes

[LetoII.3782]

Hoo boy

[Dawdler.8521]

8 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

I am getting firmly reminded why I stopped logging in here.

The word pug stands for pickup group. It doesn't stand for anything else. It is its name. It should be perfectly fair to use.
Now, if you want to have your own definition of it, have at it.

However, does it escape you how ridiculous it is when you dress my post in your definition and cry about it?

You are getting yourself riled up over some perceived slight that was never there.

Which is... a random group of independant players randomly meeting each other at for example an objective to smash down the gate and take it, or at a camp, or just mid field. There is nothing that specify it has to be a group already or a commanded group that "pick them up". Just a gathering of players doing the same thing. So thats pugs. Everyone on the battlefield thats not in a preset group (ie on a commander) is by GW2 design a pug. 

 

Well unless maybe you're the type that runs off to the centaur camp and then stays in that corner refusing to talk to anyone or do anything. Then you're just weird.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Gotejjeken.1267]

10 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

I am getting firmly reminded why I stopped logging in here.

The word pug stands for pickup group. It doesn't stand for anything else. It is its name. It should be perfectly fair to use.
Now, if you want to have your own definition of it, have at it.

However, does it escape you how ridiculous it is when you dress my post in your definition and cry about it?

You are getting yourself riled up over some perceived slight that was never there.

 

Right, but a pug can be four people that create a party--no commander needed.  You are 'picking up' other players when you group with others you have no real affiliation with.  

 

Commanders just provide some level of organization but I have no idea why some feel they are the end all be all of the mode.  You don't need any semblance of organized play for WvW, if you got rid of all commanders the gamemode would proceed fine as there's really no skill bar (like a raid or some other organized content).  

 

I don't see how alliances change anything other than allowing interested guilds to stay together over relinks.  There's no reason to even have named alliances because the alliance part is a mechanic not an extra level of initiation.  

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

 

Right, but a pug can be four people that create a party--no commander needed.  You are 'picking up' other players when you group with others you have no real affiliation with.  

Why even go that far? If you are building a cata, realize that kitten it this aint gonna be finished, then someone suddenly comes and build it too and stay with you to cap the tower, gratz you're both pugs because did he join you or did you join him? Since games features vary, while group is in the name the term pug doesnt actually mean being in a defined party - just players doing the same thing together even as an informal group.

 

Or hell, step back further:

 

We are joining a WvW instance with a team. No matter how you argue, your teammates are on your side and you intentially joined the same instance as them.

 

Thats literally one big pug.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[XenesisII.1540]

Excuse me, but we like to be referred to as "WvW Secret Elite Special Forces Division", not some snug faced dog.

/snap /snap /snap

Thank you.

[anduriell.6280]

On 7/14/2021 at 2:44 AM, jul.7602 said:

A very unpopular and controversial opinion, but from my nearly ten years pugmanding, leading servers, leading guilds, and playing WvW I know exactly how this is going to play out if alliances ship anything close to how it was drafted by Anet. I believe Anet has woefully misunderstood the interests, and behavior patterns of WvW players, much to the fault of listening to closely the loud and relatively small *hard-core GvG players* (which I closely relate to).

 

Alliance Stacking will create the most lopsided match ups in history.

Alliance stacking is the natural and inevitable outcome of this newly proposed system. People will stack alliances. They stacked servers when this game was released, then they stacked them again when tournaments were released, then they also stacked server links when those were released as well. Alliances will be even worse because stackers wont be limited by server caps or tens of thousands of gold worth of transfer fees. Further, it will be easy and convenient; I imagine an clean and well crafted UI where the alliance leader simply invites X,Y,Z guilds to the alliance, and then the guild leaders maintain their own roster. 

 

I'm going to call it right here. We will have at least one GvG alliance consisting of DED/LATE/SQ/WAVY, then another major alliance of pugmanders that will consist of at least INDO+NIC+BANA. Tiffy would probably pugmand during EU, INDO for NA, NIC for late PST, then BANA will public tag during SEA. Bam, that's 80% of the time zones covered. Everyone who is not in one of these VIP alliances will be on a server that gets farmed throughout the day unless another big WvW guild like SF decides to tag with a 50/50 squad. There you have it, you will get to play WvW for 2 hours for up to 3 days a week based on another guild's decision to rally. Mark my words, these will be some of the most lopsided match ups in WvW history. Imagine if Maguuma was linked with Fissure of Woe and then matched against Gate of Madness. The first week of alliances will see KDR records smashed, possibly finishing at 3 or above the by end of the week. I wouldn't be surprised if the GvG server could perpetually hold the other 2 EBG keeps for days on end while spawn camping the enemy both of the opposing servers. Similar to what Mag does, except worse because the spawn campers would be running full ascended+metabattle builds, and will have 24/7 coverage. Don't be surprised if one or both servers are perpetually banned from stepping into EBG. The adjacent borderlands wont be much better, and you'll still get rolled over anyway, but at least you wont get spawn camped.

 

As for the people saying you don't need to be a part of an alliance, or that you can just join a good alliance; this is probably not going to be that straight forward. My bet is that alliance leaders will impose strict activity rules on their member guilds such that they can maximize the amount of people that can fit in their 500 man alliance cap. What does that mean? It means that the first criterion for even getting into a decent alliance will be (1) being close to a daily player. That basically excludes all of the PvX players, and most of the casual WvW players. (2) To get into the strong alliances, you will need to be well above average in terms of skill level because your competing for 1 of 500 spots (if not smaller). If you can't get into a good alliance, your going to be thrown into a random server with people you've probably never seen before, commanders that you may, or may not recognize, and will get steamrolled. 

 

As it stands, alliances cannot be allowed to proceed unless their design is completely redone.

What you are describing is what is currently happening in WvW with the server links and it is very uninformed from what has been provided until now. 

 

Alliances will only  improve the situation. 

* Spared guilds not in the alliance will be switched around in each link. 

* Random players will be switched around too. 

* Because the parts are more and smaller, forecasting the next link results will be not possible, as new WvW can be formed at any time. 

 

The control the guilds will have to game the system is actually less than the current system, so i would say it will be better as staking will be more difficult to achieve. 

The problem we are having now is players can switch links very fast and accurately to a cheap linked server , while Alliances will not allow that as changes to the WvW guild is only effective from the next link. And the next link will change the whole of the alliances landscape. 

 

I can't wait for alliances to be implemented. 

 

 

[Dawdler.8521]

22 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Excuse me, but we like to be referred to as "WvW Secret Elite Special Forces Division", not some snug faced dog.

/snap /snap /snap

Thank you.

Alright, a schnauzer instead then.

[XenesisII.1540]

2 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Alright, a schnauzer instead then.

 

Schnauzers are awesome bearded dogs, this is acceptable.

[LetoII.3782]

34 minutes ago, anduriell.6280 said:

Alliances will only  improve the situation. 

* Spared guilds not in the alliance will be switched around in each link. 

* Random players will be switched around too

See, that's the gorilla in the room: pugs aren't random.

 

Guilds aren't central to the social aspect of this MMO. As we've seen in this very thread, the big fight blobs have become so insular from moving around and acting like the broader community is an accessory to their own agenda that they've started to speak their own language. 

 

And they're dying off like any cult that walls itself off from the broader population.

 

For the larger population, MOST of the population at this point, the people they've seen for years on their server is the central social body. Pooh-pooh'ed though the concept might be, logging in and seeing my neighbors of nearly a decade is why I still have gw2 on my SSD instead of a different game.

 

And I'm not saying this as a pug, I came to this game in an active guild and I'll leave in one. In fact I could go play a different game with my guild right now..  I'm not even worried about not getting into any of the new winning alliances. No, the people I'll be losing touch with are like me, not in guilds large enough individually to put 50 people in a boon ball by ourselves, but part of a larger conglomeration of small guilds that are certain to get broken up and dispersed as... _spare parts_ For the cults to use interchangeably.

 

And I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one that's gonna go over with like a lead balloon.

[Abanga.7451]

For a long time already there are servers on which people like to fight crowd against crowd only in a certain build from some fan site there is no problem to transfer to someone who likes this and play with them, but if in alliances it becomes mandatory and there will be no way to leave them normal to run on WvW in the build that I like myself and play more effectively with the capture of objects by small wars by killing dolyashek, then a very large amount of PVE content is needed to replace WVW fans with their fun in the game, but for some pvp the aspect is more interesting and they may look for it starting in other projects is a very risky idea

[Dawdler.8521]

30 minutes ago, Abanga.7451 said:

For a long time already there are servers on which people like to fight crowd against crowd only in a certain build from some fan site there is no problem to transfer to someone who likes this and play with them, but if in alliances it becomes mandatory and there will be no way to leave them normal to run on WvW in the build that I like myself and play more effectively with the capture of objects by small wars by killing dolyashek, then a very large amount of PVE content is needed to replace WVW fans with their fun in the game, but for some pvp the aspect is more interesting and they may look for it starting in other projects is a very risky idea

Have you at any point been on the same world as it was T1 and dropped to T4 or vice versa? Through "fight guild" transfers to and from the server? Seen popular commanders coming and going? 

 

Because if you have, you should know what you just said is completely irrelevant. Worlds dont control how people play. There are people of all types on servers today - the same people that will be there on another matchup system. There will be "fight alliances" for sure - fighting against similar alliances. Which is no difference from how guilds behave today.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Jilora.9524]

15 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

If you went back and read the post, maybe you would know 😊.

Ps. What it is talking about is the Alliance system and whether or not it will ruin WvW. That is the topic of this thread.

You get you were the one to argue the definition of pug which wasn't the topic but lets explain what it means in WvW

I'm a pug

If I'm alone I'm a pug.

If I'm defending a tower with 7 other players from a group we are all pugs

If I follow a tag but don't join your squad I'm still a pug

Even if I join your squad but not in discord I'm a pug

If a guild group is in our keep and we have no guild group tagged we are all pugs

Pugs are just the soloers who are not organized or care enough to join a group to become a small havoc or larger guild group.

Now you can call yourself a roamer if you taking and defending camps and fighting solos but once you show up to defend a keep you are now just a pug

It has nothing to do with the original pick up group in WvW

I'm a pug no matter what I'm doing until I join a guild and never leave spawn ever w/o 20 or so of my frands and farm pugs from the other teams.

It's basically if you are not an organized guild even a small 5 man havoc who always play together you might be a pug

[displayname.8315]

1 hour ago, Jilora.9524 said:

I'm a pug no matter what I'm doing until I join a guild and never leave spawn ever w/o 20 or so of my frands and farm pugs from the other teams.

😀😃😄😁😆 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣   

[displayname.8315]

4 hours ago, LetoII.3782 said:

For the larger population, MOST of the population at this point, the people they've seen for years on their server is the central social body. Pooh-pooh'ed though the concept might be, logging in and seeing my neighbors of nearly a decade is why I still have gw2 on my SSD instead of a different game.

Nice seeing you and HUNT when I'm playing on MAG.  Also nice fighting against you guys so I don't really care about servers.  There will be a mag alliance I'm assuming so the concept will still be there kinda.

[zinkz.7045]

All these silly arguments about the term "pug".

 

Doesn't matter whether you roam, smallscale, zerg (Discord or not), play in a guild or don't, GvG, PPT for the realm, etc, everyone falls under the same term - 'clown'.  And that goes double if you are actually such a roleplayer you are still tryharding at this joke of a "PvP" game mode in 2021.

 

And as for alliances, might have been a good idea 5+ years ago, but will make little to no difference in 2021. On the other hand WvW has been dead to anyone with even a vague interest in at least passable gameplay for at least 3 years, so quite what people think alliances would kill other than their roleplay sessions is a mystery.

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by zinkz.7045

[Diku.2546]

1 hour ago, zinkz.7045 said:

All these silly arguments about the term "pug".

 

Doesn't matter whether you roam, smallscale, zerg (Discord or not), play in a guild or don't, GvG, PPT for the realm, etc, everyone falls under the same term - 'clown'.  And that goes double if you are actually such a roleplayer you are still tryharding at this joke of a "PvP" game mode in 2021.

 

And as for alliances, might have been a good idea 5+ years ago, but will make little to no difference in 2021. On the other hand WvW has been dead to anyone with even a vague interest in at least passable gameplay for at least 3 years, so quite what people think alliances would kill other than their roleplay sessions is a mystery.

 

 

After seeing your post.  One word came to mind in regards to our WvW Community.

 

Deprived

 

Yours truly,
Diku

 

Credibility requires critical insight & time.