Jump to content
  • Sign Up

WvW Alliances confirmed information


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Telgum.6071 said:
- Not saying that's what they're doing <emphasis from Grouch, but the idea of a wheel for quick comms (like in apex per example) is something that could help bridge the gap between players who don't want to join voice comms and commanders being able to control it's zerg

The other stuff sounds good but this is something I've thought they needed but it will likely be as ignored as Alert Target currently. Alert Target would be great if it was global and not only within group. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In that case the entire game is in trouble.

Alliances info: - Alliance beta will not align up with elite specs betas - No plans for siege turtle to be in WvW - First fix population balance then adding new rewards, giving guilds r

Please allow me a moment to laugh at everybody that thought it would be.   Hahahahahahahahaaaa!

2 hours ago, zinkz.7045 said:

 

 

Not really, games with pitifully low numbers of players (less than I assume GW2 has) still put out expansions, do reworks, etc, such as the aforementioned LOTRO. As such work being done on a game does not magically equate to a strong, thriving population.

 

It should also be added that a studio owned by a publisher may recieve funding because a product is faltering and they risk losing a market slice or because there is opportunity to gain a market slice. With regards to Anet and NCsoft right now it is probably a combination of both. GW2 has become their only western market title and the western MMO landscape is chaotic with alot of players moving between titles more again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

It wasn’t suggesting Guild would be locked.

 

onky that WORLDS would be locked, until the next matchmaking scenario.

 

so… if an unguilded/solo player likes a guild on their ‘world’, they could be invited to that guild and become a member of that guild, if the guild has room.  (Current guild membership cap)

 

If there is a remaking of a world after that joining, then, as long as the alliance that the guild is in has a space, that player would join that guild in the new world.

 

Recruitment theoretically will get easier and more appropriate.

As described now there is no "if" on the remake, it happens every week.

I'm *guessing* that the intent here is to try get the week by week worlds "stable" with big alliances forming the foundation (that cant be reshuffled easily because they are too big so a couple big alliances practically replace a constant world) and the random pug floaters/smaller guilds on top being constantly shuffled around to maintain numbers. There would always be room because if someone want to move a world, another unaffiliated person can get shuffled out from it. Recruitment is much, much easier since you can recruit anything and anyone with a mere 1 week delay but the large alliances remain. 

As a side effect you could also kick someone off the world by kicking them from the guild, if they get lucky enough to be picked for reshuffle. I wonder if it's going to be so fun that guild leaders can kick people 1m before reset and have them end up on another world because they where a single player, lol.

That's what I meant before with links at least having 2 months intervals. We *know* it's 2 months, even for solo players. It's not so short it's meaningless, it's not so long it's endless. We can fight to gain world rank over 2 months and we know that between week 4 and week 5, a victory still meant we go up. Then it's relink. Under the new system... 1 week. Rince and repeat. Fight to win or fight to loose. Doesnt matter if you are a solo player or a small guild. You can end up where ever on random next week. As a pro it will drive many into larger guilds and larger alliances I guess, but I wonder how many will be left out in the cold week to week. Anet seem to have thrown the 7+1 week full reshuffle concept out the window and want to skim the top instead.

Edited by Dawdler.8521
  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The match-up length doesn't seem to be set in stone.  Grouch mentioned doing 1 week match-ups to quickly get information on how the matchmaking system was working during the beta, but he seemed to suggest that they would be longer under normal circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521  I missed the part about the one week remakes.  Thank you for pointing that out, though I hope, as @Sviel.7493just pointed out,  that it will be short lived.


I guess my intent of my post was that guilds won’t necessarily be locked as the person whom I quoted initially seemed to fear.

 

I will say, whether good or bad, it will be a change.

 

I imagine it will have both good AND bad with it..

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TazR.8745 said:

For anyone looking to watch the Q&A without looking through the entire stream, a highlight is available at https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1120947701




 

 

at 16 minuets is interesting with the dynamic server filling and locking "as the matchup starts" so way better.  If it gets set and filled every time a new matchup starts that's pretty cool.  Think he said no transfer too.

 

The earlier stuff about "making winning matter" after the population rework is finished sounds nice hope it's done by performance somehow and not just raw warscore, since 3rd place when determined by warscore is usually locked in pretty quickly and people get discouraged by that.

 

Edited by displayname.8315
Link to post
Share on other sites

"- Memes about WvW being dead are just memes, WvW actually has one of the most healthy population numbers in the game." 

 

Oh Anet, I do so love how you play with us 🙂 It is great to know honestly just how much the devs care that they pat attention to everything we say here 😉 And a Scrapper main, so the knowledge as to how supports/healers get less rewards is known! 

 

All sounds rather interesting I was wondering if they will also increase the amount of WVW tickets we can get per week, as well as memories of battle. Cause It being the slowest way in the entire game to get anything good out of them, is not the funnest experience

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Talindra.4958 said:

Can we have a greater insight of the size of an alliance? or a rough estimates? 

 

It would be great if they told us.  Not sure they will at first, much like we don’t know the play hours or populations of current worlds..

 

it was speculated in the first 6 months after alliances was first discussed that it would be in the ballpark of 2500 players.  (Two large alliances of 500, and it was speculated that would be about 40% of the total world population). 
 

again, most of that was inferred…. And involved a large amount of speculation.

 

that being said, I’d be shocked if they tell us the actual population numbers.  They have always guarded that like it was a virgin daughter…

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Talindra.4958 said:

Can we have a greater insight of the size of an alliance? or a rough estimates? 

 

In the stream Grouch says that the first beta will be guilds only.

Alliances are also likely to have the same cap as guilds as they're just meant to be an alternate form of organising your puzzle piece.

It makes zero sense to cap them lower than guilds and it makes little to no sense to cap them larger than guilds too, at least relative current population levels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reward system in WvW should also be one of the main focus to be updated for WvW dedicated players.  

Look at this poor commander, so much "junks" cumulated from WvW rather than the gold in comparison. 🙂

https://imgur.com/o0l0DJ1 

 

It will be nice if we have rare loot drop from wvw as well i dont mean precursor, but more of a merchant to exchange for loot box using the token collected from hourly spent in wvw, and that loot box contain chances to get infusions from pve world. 

 

Edited by Talindra.4958
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Talindra.4958 said:

The reward system in WvW should also be one of the main focus to be updated for WvW dedicated players. 

Grouch brings that up in Indo's stream there too. He repeats it a couple of times that he envisions the stages for WvW to be 1. population balance, 2. reward reviews and 3. other core systems reviews (like objective/siege mechanics etc.).

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

In the stream Grouch says that the first beta will be guilds only.

Alliances are also likely to have the same cap as guilds as they're just meant to be an alternate form of organising your puzzle piece.

It makes zero sense to cap them lower than guilds and it makes little to no sense to cap them larger than guilds too, at least relative current population levels.

 

a rough number would be good for some existing guilds within a server to manage or prepared what is coming. generally it is better for players to be well informed what they are expecting to come to avoid frustration especially hanging in the queue for hours. 

 

4 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Grouch brings that up in Indo's stream there too. He repeats it a couple of times that he envisions the stages for WvW to be 1. population balance, 2. reward reviews and 3. other core systems reviews (like objective/siege mechanics etc.).

yes heard that too which is nice especially knowing that the dev is well aware of the situation.. if players can suggest and express what we want.. or expect. what kind of reward exactly do we want? how can we have a balance of rewarding system across all diff game modes etc

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Talindra.4958 said:

 

a rough number would be good for some existing guilds within a server to manage or prepared what is coming. generally it is better for players to be well informed what they are expecting to come to avoid frustration especially hanging in the queue for hours.

Well, the rough number is 500 until they come out and say something different.

The example figures we've had to ball with in theory is World ~2500 and Guild/Alliance 500. In which any player-made entity (puzzle piece) would constitute roughly 1/5th of a world, at most. Essentially any guild can be 1-500 and any allliance can be 2-500. So any player or player-made entity can be 1-500 those are the pieces used to lay the puzzle (world).

 

That can obviously change. However, there is no specific reason for it to have changed that we know of so it is fair to assume that these are still working figures until someone decides to polish for live balance or has a specific idea for a change which would then probably come with an explanation.

 

Edited by subversiontwo.7501
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Well, the rough number is 500 until they come out and say something different.

 

that is interesting to see what it gonna turn out to be like but 500 is good start for the test. hopefully we don't see people complaining in queue that they cant get in during a beta test.. players need to be very patience too with these tests and updates. hopefully there are rooms to bring in solo players and eventually join a guild then alliance.

Edited by Talindra.4958
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

The example figures we've had to ball with in theory is World ~2500 and Guild/Alliance 500. In which any player-made entity (puzzle piece) would constitute roughly 1/5th of a world, at most. Essentially any guild can be 1-500 and any allliance can be 2-500. So any player or player-made entity can be 1-500 those are the pieces used to lay the puzzle (world).

 

That can obviously change. However, there is no specific reason for it to have changed that we know of so it is fair to assume that these are still working figures until someone decides to polish for live balance or has a specific idea for a change which would then probably come with an explanation.

 

thats a good assumption.. lets hope the dev will release more information in the coming weeks. 🙂 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alliances = big guild vs big guild, small guild/roamers all to ghetto, one big guild can queue one map, and guild supremacy only want guildies in their squad and map. 

Its should have be 2 tiers alliance, called "Elite Alliance", "Ghetto Alliance"

Edited by foxof.8752
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

No.  An alliance is part of a World.

 

some have theorized that based on info in the threads and from devs that even two ‘full’ alliances would only make up 40% of a world.

 

whether that is correct or not, we DO know that an alliance is only a part of a world.

oh yeah, right right. nvm

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Talindra.4958 said:

 

that is interesting to see what it gonna turn out to be like but 500 is good start for the test. hopefully we don't see people complaining in queue that they cant get in during a beta test.. players need to be very patience too with these tests and updates. hopefully there are rooms to bring in solo players and eventually join a guild then alliance.

As I have argued before, its not a "good start" but the only number that actually work. If alliances are sizeably smaller than guilds, players will just game the system and create huge guilds. If alliances are sizeably larger than guilds, it defeats the purpose of their own balancing intent with smaller chunks. You could change guild size but I dont think people want to get forcibly kicked from large guilds. So Anet is stuck with that number unless they do something weird.

 

No info on the structuring and control over alliances though (ie how do guilds join and leave, how are players counted, how is it managed, how is it seen on the field, etc), that would be far more interesting to know.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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...