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

[SweetPotato.7456]

5 hours ago, kamikharzeeh.8016 said:

@SweetPotato.7456 what u fail to see. if ppt would be competitive or will ever be, the best ppt groups would stack around the strongest fighting guilds... this is not directly the case, since figthing groups avoid them on the long term, bc ppt tends to be uncontrollable. once u carry them to t1, u can be 1000% sure, they make u stuck in there. no matter if u barely log in for dailies even.

 

and theres 0,.000000000% rewards for t1. similarily 0% for beeing #1 in tier 1. the only reward is, you damage "you server" forever. many people will not wait out a whole month of tier 1 pointlessness and leave the server. ppl continue ppting as crazy, but dmg is done.

 

alliances CAN, however they finally will look, only improve things. Wvw is at probably the worst possible stance currently. no wonder, since the work gone into it for years now been... very small.

______________

 

about the "alliance-world number cap"... ofc that should be existing. would be nice if we finally would know exactly how full a server is.

 

map caps are sth a bit over 70. no way they are 80, think someone said 74 roughly. sometimes u see barely people on the whole map and have a Q, justsaying.

 

people heavily underestimate how huge 70 ppl alone are - biggest numbers of one color i ever saw on one place are like roughly 60. many people mis-report 20-30 people groups as BLOB yet lmfao. or 10ish groups as ZERG. like, oh boy, that's so far from the sense making usage of these terms. 25+ starting becoming a zerg if on voice, 40-45+ a blob... the 60ish are sometimes called "zoneblobs", as its nearly a full capped out borders' numbers. still, can be farmed by half of their size. 😜

I have no idea what you are talking about. 
My version of restructuring ppt and fight goes hand in hand. can't have one without the other. 

Edited July 18, 2021 by SweetPotato.7456

[Diku.2546]

Honestly....I believe we need to change the Base Match-Up Mechanic & Not the Team Creation Mechanics that Alliances will attempt to do.

 

Here's how I would do it in a nutshell:

 

1)  Re-purpose Server Guesting & Allow players to weekly pick 2 Enemy Servers (Green & Blue) to fight against.

 

2)  Redo WvW maps so players can use this Re-purposed Server Guesting in a King of the Hill battle by region.

 

3)  Reward players only for attacking Enemy Servers that are ranked higher than their Red Home Server map.

 

Can we stop making things so complicated?

 

Yours truly,
Diku

 

Credibility requires critical insight & time.

Edited July 18, 2021 by Diku.2546

[Fatal.1347]

It is true alliances are terrible idea. But relinkings are doing the same. Guilds don't have to PPT because relinkings provide them all population to stay in high enough tier to get fights. Stacking ain't necessarily bad and will always happen as people look for most fun server to play in. Cheap transfers and instability sucks tho.

Edited July 18, 2021 by Fatal.1347

[SWI.4127]

On 7/13/2021 at 5:44 PM, jul.7602 said:

DED/LATE/SQ/WAVY

On 7/13/2021 at 5:44 PM, jul.7602 said:

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.

 

Lol your perception of these guilds is way off.  First of all Wavy doesn't even play the game anymore.  Secondly, DED/LATE/sQ are already on the same server.  If they were going to camp both EBG spawns or whatever, wouldn't it already be happening?  I think you vastly overestimate how many people are in those guilds. 

[XenesisII.1540]

Been thinking about it and wondering how they are actually going to handle the guild limitations in alliances. Because you could have 10 guilds of 50 players just form one guild for all their 500 members, get into the new world together, then go about their business as 10 guilds as usual.

 

There has to be something else with the alliance connection to make guild members want to pick their own guild at the reforming. Like bonuses for being in an alliance at the reform? more bonuses for being at max guilds in an alliance when reforming? more bonuses for being in an alliance for different periods of time? I hope they gave some thought to it.

 

[Dawdler.8521]

14 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Been thinking about it and wondering how they are actually going to handle the guild limitations in alliances. Because you could have 10 guilds of 50 players just form one guild for all their 500 members, get into the new world together, then go about their business as 10 guilds as usual.

 

There has to be something else with the alliance connection to make guild members want to pick their own guild at the reforming. Like bonuses for being in an alliance at the reform? more bonuses for being at max guilds in an alliance when reforming? more bonuses for being in an alliance for different periods of time? I hope they gave some thought to it.

 

Well, ask yourself, why are there multiple guilds now?

 

500 man guilds would offer better wvw coms, better show of force, etc. Yet there are small guilds, fight guilds, medium sized guilds etc. New guilds get created all the time. Why arent we only seeing a couple 500 mans per world and thats it? 

 

We know one reason of course - claiming. But also we know people are selfish pompous bastards that think they're the best at everything and they're gonna have their own guild because kitten your guild. 

[XenesisII.1540]

26 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Well, ask yourself, why are there multiple guilds now?

 

500 man guilds would offer better wvw coms, better show of force, etc. Yet there are small guilds, fight guilds, medium sized guilds etc. New guilds get created all the time. Why arent we only seeing a couple 500 mans per world and thats it? 

 

We know one reason of course - claiming. But also we know people are selfish pompous bastards that think they're the best at everything and they're gonna have their own guild because kitten your guild. 

 

I understand all that. My question isn't why they aren't forming 500 man guilds right now, because it's obvious there's no reason to, relinks aren't being built around guilds.

 

Alliance system is being built around alliances and guilds, and players will take advantage to maximize their numbers.

 

They don't have to leave their main guilds, just join one guild for the "reforming" of the world to get in together, then go back to their usual separate ways and have their usual separate claiming rights and repping, thereby getting past any alliance max guild limitation.

 

So I'm wondering if there is going to be perks to encourage them to pick their own guilds at reforming. Otherwise there really isn't a point to having an alliance of guilds is there? other than maybe if someone is at max 5 guilds already that they absolutely can't drop one, or make it so you can only claim stuff with that guild you listed as your wvw guild.

 

Otherwise Just stack the one guild, reform, go about your usual business repping 4 other guilds for another 8 weeks.

Edited July 20, 2021 by XenesisII.1540

[joneirikb.7506]

Interesting question. I suspect it's probably something as easy as what Dawdler is saying. Human comfort and ego.

 

If you tell people "You need to form a guild to stay with people", you're going to have a pile of people screaming bloody murder because "I'm already in 5 guilds, and I like it that way!" or "No way am I joining a guild under/with that guy!"

But the whole alliance idea is basically a way to make a more modular guild system, that lets them keep the illusion of control.

[Sviel.7493]

The issue Alliances hope to solve isn't that people stack up.  Rather, it wants to avoid having one stack be bigger than another stack.  At the base, this means that discrepancies in match outcomes will be because one alliance did different things than the other alliance--perhaps they were better organized or fought better.  However, they won't be winning simply because they have hundreds more people than their opponents.

The chief problem today is not that servers stack, but that this then leads to massive population imbalances.  There is no reasonable amount of player effort that can overcome the population imbalance.  If you keep the total numbers roughly the same, however, players can reasonably hope for their efforts to bear fruit if they change how they play or organize.

I sincerely hope to face an alliance full of GvG or fight guilds.  I imagine they will have a hard time adjusting and would love running circles around them while they flex their one-dimensional gameplay.

[keramatzmode.1906]

First off, stop being antisocial in MMO. 
Join a group, band together and achieve something great by having a common goal with other players. Join a guild. Join a tag and get on their voice channel.
Get better and improve yourself in PvP with friends. 

Isn't competitiveness is better for all parties? Isn't that is the entire point of PvP? You expect to capping circles all day long and had Anet to pamper you with pips and rewards for a good job? From what I see, Arenanet has enough with trying to rebalance the world with arbitrary "Population", and decided to give the power to the players, to pick which player to play with them constantly. I see it as a big win. Alliance leaders pick which main NA timezone players, Evening players and SEA players they wanted in their roster. They want players that has specific builds and knows their roles? So be it, they don't want to deal with "random build" andys that contributes nothing to the zerg or small groups but become another bag for the enemy team. And then again, I am sure there will be "less hardcore alliances" you can roll with where they have lower intensity gameplay for busy folks, but I'm sure you will be the one mad at them for "not playing good enough" up your standards.
If you pug forever, you'll never achieve greatness in your plays, and I don't think you deserve the highest reward in an MMO.

You're trying to paint "Alliances" as problematic, because some players are better at the game and wanted to band together with players that have a common goal with them, to get good at the game. And I'm pretty darn sure, they'll add new players in their ranks that has the same motivation about WvW, willing to learn and willing to get on VC, willing to gear and get better. Nobody wants an AFK autorun in their garri, nobody wants baggage in their zergs. 
It's the same argument of people complaining about hidden commander tags, and commanders that only lets you in their squad if you're on their voice chat. Because some people don't want to deal with free riders.

Edited July 24, 2021 by keramatzmode.1906

[enkidu.5937]

2 hours ago, keramatzmode.1906 said:

First off, stop being antisocial in MMO.

In fact, your whole text is extremely antisocial. No interest to play together with most of the ppl that are linked to you for the next 8 weeks. Instead, a bunchload of demands, and weired excuses why those ppl that dont fullfill your demands are kicked from squads and such.

 

2 hours ago, keramatzmode.1906 said:

If you pug forever, you'll never achieve greatness in your plays, and I don't think you deserve the highest reward in an MMO.

If you refuse to play with ppl that dont fulfill your personal idea of playstile, i dont think you deserve rewards at all in an MMO. 😏

[joneirikb.7506]

Honestly all he is saying is that some/most people wants to play together with like-minded people (this goes both/all ways)

And that an alliance system puts that in the hands of players, so they can decide to play with whoever they want (for good or bad).

Edited July 25, 2021 by joneirikb.7506

[kash.9213]

3 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Honestly all he is saying is that some/most people wants to play together with like-minded people (this goes both/all ways)

And that an alliance system puts that in the hands of players, so they can decided to play with whoever they want (for good or bad).

We'll have to see how easy that will be. How easy will it be to get to recognize players in other worlds over time to gauge where you want to go to find a better fit in an ever shifting population? Ratios, numbers, and time played aren't the best read of who people want to actually team up and run around with. If Alliances are intended to basically be SPvP scaled up then I guess that would be true.

[LetoII.3782]

10 hours ago, keramatzmode.1906 said:

.You're trying to paint "Alliances" as problematic, because some players are better at the game and wanted to band together with players that have a common goal with them, to get good at the game. .

Exploiting the AoE cap is, was and likely always will be Meta in Gw2... But it will never be a path to gEt GuD. It's the easiest, most forgiving way to play short of sitting on siege safe from reprisal entirely. Should you wish a demonstration, note how effective all those "better" players are next time your commander gets sniped... You'd think someone turned their UI off.

 

 

[ArchonWing.9480]

Well, that's definitely a great preview of the mini-fiefdoms run with by those with egos but nowhere near the personal skill or social graces needed to run one.

 

But jokes aside, people probably need to prepare and organize, lest they be tossed in whatever GvGstan appears.

[CrimsonRise.7650]

Server linkings have been a bandaid for years, it's gone through a testing phase, but still has many issues and so will Alliances.

So will WvW be better or worse off?  You would hope the former because they haven't really tweaked Server linking's that much, beyond cutting NA down to Four Tiers and removing 3 servers, they only experimented with Four Tiers in the EU, but kept all 27 servers.

 

Also the Population Algorithms has rarely changed and doesn't adjust frequently enough to calculate significant changes in Population and we also still see has Servers; who are more active than others especially in T1 EU staying open compared to EU servers in T5 and other less active servers.

[keramatzmode.1906]

8 hours ago, enkidu.5937 said:

In fact, your whole text is extremely antisocial. No interest to play together with most of the ppl that are linked to you for the next 8 weeks. Instead, a bunchload of demands, and weired excuses why those ppl that dont fullfill your demands are kicked from squads and such.

 

If you refuse to play with ppl that dont fulfill your personal idea of playstile, i dont think you deserve rewards at all in an MMO. 😏

Never once I said I refuse to play with randos, I will join their discord even if I had to type it manually for the sake of better communication. If the tag suck or whatever, I roll with it and do my best when to pulse the stabs, I will not complain whatsoever because losing is part of the game even after you tried your best. When to dodge roll. When to drop the AOE. When to gyro.
-bunchload of demands, and weired excuses
Again, voice comms are very important for zerg coordination because they want to actually win in a zerg clash, and even that not many players are willing to join in. If you're on scrapper for example, at least even tell what build you're running on squad chat otherwise the commander will think you run cleanse. Not many players even have the etiquette to type this in chat. That's the "ppl" I had to deal with.
It's not even about playstyle. I'm bad at the game, I'm not the WvW roamer god that oneshots poor people doing their sentry daily, or a supreme commander tag that PPTs like its breakfast. But at least communicate with everyone of what you're running. GW2 has been catering these players that never socialized for years across all game modes. 

 

33 minutes ago, LetoII.3782 said:

Exploiting the AoE cap is, was and likely always will be Meta in Gw2... But it will never be a path to gEt GuD. It's the easiest, most forgiving way to play short of sitting on siege safe from reprisal entirely. Should you wish a demonstration, note how effective all those "better" players are next time your commander gets sniped... You'd think someone turned their UI off.

 

 

Supply and logistics is the core mechanic of WvW, siege and supply planning is part of the metagame and a WvW skill in my opinion. I'll admit, there are not many offensive siege option compared to how powerful defensive ones especially with how cheap you can build shield gens. On commander sniping, it is part of WvW but it could be better balanced. And yes, I do agree with you and its up to the devs to balance sieges.

 

20 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Well, that's definitely a great preview of the mini-fiefdoms run with by those with egos but nowhere near the personal skill or social graces needed to run one.

 

But jokes aside, people probably need to prepare and organize, lest they be tossed in whatever GvGstan appears.

I'll admit, I'm not the best player, or even a decent player. I'm pretty bad at the game. But I do wish as a whole, WvW players who wanted to play in real comp group have a channel to do so with likeminded players by joining an alliance. It's all what I'm saying.
In addition, OCX and SEA players are struggling to find a SEA WvW guild scattered around servers (unless you're JQ or SoS). With alliances, these regions can actually play with their WvW static without having to stay up late in the morning and work together with NA guilds on their downtime.

[subversiontwo.7501]

On 7/20/2021 at 6:55 AM, XenesisII.1540 said:

Been thinking about it and wondering how they are actually going to handle the guild limitations in alliances. Because you could have 10 guilds of 50 players just form one guild for all their 500 members, get into the new world together, then go about their business as 10 guilds as usual.

 

 

On 7/20/2021 at 7:33 AM, XenesisII.1540 said:

 

I understand all that. My question isn't why they aren't forming 500 man guilds right now, because it's obvious there's no reason to, relinks aren't being built around guilds.

I haven't looked at the announcement post in a while now, but doesn't it say that there is a 500-player and 5-guild cap?

 

As far as 500 man guilds go, and as a funny aside, those used to exist. My first guild at launch was a player capped PvX guild. That guild and other like it (or many in general) quit around the EotM times over WvW being so neglected while it at the same time was the only real reason to have a guild (ie., world bosses, guild missions were getting stale etc.). That's pretty much verbatim what the guild leader said when it left. He wanted to lead a guild and needed a game for that.

 

That guild drifted around for a while during that second MMO boom and then went (back) to WoW, which is a pretty funny thing in and of itself since WoW was the poaching target for HoT but it had already partially backfired before it ever came out. Other guilds that are old and pretty sizable today probably have pretty substantial rosters as well even if they may be far from the cap and carry alot of dormant weight.

 

Those aside though, the message in your post is obviously correct.

Edited July 26, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501
snippets

[XenesisII.1540]

20 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

 

I haven't looked at the announcement post in a while now, but doesn't it say that there is a 500-player and 5-guild cap?

 

As far as 500 man guilds go, and as a funny aside, those used to exist. My first guild at launch was a player capped PvX guild. That guild and other like it (or many in general) quit around the EotM times over WvW being so neglected while it at the same time was the only real perpetual reason to have a guild (ie., world bosses, guild missions were getting stale etc.), throughout 2014 or so.

 

My guild drifted around for a while during that second MMO boom and then went (back) to WoW, which is a pretty funny thing in and of itself since WoW was the poaching target for HoT but it had already partially backfired before it ever came out. Other guilds that are old and pretty sizable today probably have pretty substantial rosters as well even if they may be far from the cap and carry alot of dormant weight.

 

They're leaning to 500 members, and I guess no hard limit to guilds.

 

Quote

 

Alliance size

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.

Minimum Guild Size

The original plan was to count a guild within the alliance at some rounded-up size rather than exact size when calculating how full an alliance was. The benefit of this method was it would give more autonomy to the individual guilds to control WvW members, i.e., recruit new members or if current guild members decide they want to start playing WvW.

 

 

I believe there were a couple 1000+ member guilds running around way back in first few years.

 

But I really don't see a point to guild caps if they're not going to make repping a guild more important, and not when you could easily just rep one guild to get every one in anyways. Which frankly kinda sucks, it will make stacking easier.

We'll see I guess as we haven't had any updates in years anyways.

Edited July 26, 2021 by XenesisII.1540

[subversiontwo.7501]

1 minute ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

 

They're leaning to 500 members, and I guess no hard limit to guilds.

 

I believe there were a couple 1000+ member guilds running around way back in first few years.

 

But I really don't see a point to guild caps if they're not going to make repping a guild more important, and not when you could easily just rep one guild to get every one in anyways. Which frankly kinda sucks, it will make stacking easier.

We'll see I guess as we haven't any any updates in years anyways.

Hm, interesting.

I could have sworn I saw that 5 somewhere. It feels too specific for me to just pull out of thin air myself. However, it isn't impossible 🙂 .

Whether to have a cap within the cap or not is also a pretty interesting discussion actually. I am expecting holding guilds in many cases anyway, because the mechanics of an alliance could actually be ineffective and far more difficult to organise with than simply using a guild structure to stand-in as an alliance with the whole repping thing.

[SweetPotato.7456]

On 7/24/2021 at 2:48 PM, keramatzmode.1906 said:

First off, stop being antisocial in MMO. 
Join a group, band together and achieve something great by having a common goal with other players. Join a guild. Join a tag and get on their voice channel.
Get better and improve yourself in PvP with friends. 

Isn't competitiveness is better for all parties? Isn't that is the entire point of PvP? You expect to capping circles all day long and had Anet to pamper you with pips and rewards for a good job? From what I see, Arenanet has enough with trying to rebalance the world with arbitrary "Population", and decided to give the power to the players, to pick which player to play with them constantly. I see it as a big win. Alliance leaders pick which main NA timezone players, Evening players and SEA players they wanted in their roster. They want players that has specific builds and knows their roles? So be it, they don't want to deal with "random build" andys that contributes nothing to the zerg or small groups but become another bag for the enemy team. And then again, I am sure there will be "less hardcore alliances" you can roll with where they have lower intensity gameplay for busy folks, but I'm sure you will be the one mad at them for "not playing good enough" up your standards.
If you pug forever, you'll never achieve greatness in your plays, and I don't think you deserve the highest reward in an MMO.

You're trying to paint "Alliances" as problematic, because some players are better at the game and wanted to band together with players that have a common goal with them, to get good at the game. And I'm pretty darn sure, they'll add new players in their ranks that has the same motivation about WvW, willing to learn and willing to get on VC, willing to gear and get better. Nobody wants an AFK autorun in their garri, nobody wants baggage in their zergs. 
It's the same argument of people complaining about hidden commander tags, and commanders that only lets you in their squad if you're on their voice chat. Because some people don't want to deal with free riders.

Playing together is 2 ways (many ways). If a tag won't cooperate with the roamers or other smaller group, they failed the common goal objective as well, more than a single roamer, if I may add, since they took away most of the players.

Edited July 26, 2021 by SweetPotato.7456

[subversiontwo.7501]

44 minutes ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

Playing together is 2 ways (many ways). If a tag won't cooperate with the roamers or other smaller group, they failed the common goal objective as well, more than a single roamer, if I may add, since they took away most of the players.

It feels like you guys are bringing back the discussion to the ridiculousness of a couple of pages prior now.

 

Look, if you want to roam, knock yourself out. However, if you prefer to roam, there is still nothing stopping you from joining a guild or an alliance that roams or joining a guild or an alliance that appreciate players who roam. Do you have any such groups with you today who value you and what you do? Good, then that is not going to change after the systems change either. The same goes in the reverse. If you have groups today who "won't cooperate" with you, then why would you want to be on the same server as them or in the same guild or alliance as them? You wouldn't, right? The systems change means that the both of you can go your merry ways and the chips will fall where they may. Groups will see what the system does, encourages and rewards and they will adapt over time. Find something that fits and appreciates you. Hopefully the ladder will improve and feed you with matchups that reflects the content you can take and reciprocate. That means more fun for you because you will get more content that fits you and your choices.

 

I still think most of the fears and outrage in this thread or elsewhere over this comes from players who value groups that do not value them back and they are now getting some kind of separation anxiety. However, you should never have been allowed to dictate whether they should play with you against their wishes, at least not to the degree of the existing transfer system where you can transfer in ahead of their friends and guildmates (and then demand cooperation or whatever). Nore is that going to make anyone happier than giving players the tools to find the situations that fits them and other players who can like them back.

 

It's either that or I am once again out of the loop of how nomenclature has "evolved" on the underbelly of these forums to where roaming doesn't mean roaming anymore and rather means being a hermit, sitting in a cave, stroking its beard and yelling at the world.

Edited July 26, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501
Added paragraph two

[XenesisII.1540]

45 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Hm, interesting.

I could have sworn I saw that 5 somewhere. It feels too specific for me to just pull out of thin air myself. However, it isn't impossible 🙂 .

Whether to have a cap within the cap or not is also a pretty interesting discussion actually. I am expecting holding guilds in many cases anyway, because the mechanics of an alliance could actually be ineffective and far more difficult to organise with than simply using a guild structure to stand-in as an alliance with the whole repping thing.

 

I think it was mostly the forums thinking 3-5 would be a good number to have. Since the min/max number of players is going to be 500 anyways, it really doesn't matter how many are in there, no point for caps on number of guilds when again you can just take one guild and dump members from like 20 guilds in there to get in to make the world.

 

Limiting guild claiming to just the guild you set as your wvw guild would be an interesting limitation though, unless they let you change that option any number of times in the 8 weeks, then it's just pointless again.

[Telgum.6071]

Tactics/Desert Borderland/Siege/Warclaw/Stealth/... will kill WvW

 

Now with Alliances the list keeps going!

[XenesisII.1540]

50 minutes ago, Telgum.6071 said:

Tactics/Desert Borderland/Siege/Warclaw/Stealth/... will kill WvW

 

Now with Alliances the list keeps going!

 

Well the population isn't exactly growing with each addition now is it?