Chaba.5410 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > Uh what? > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > From the stickied thread... > > "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." Did you happen see the image attached to that stickied thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted October 24, 2018 Author Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > Uh what? > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > "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." > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. From the 1st info thread... "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" Again from the latest thread... "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." Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > "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." > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > From the 1st info thread... > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > Again from the latest thread... > > "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." > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. It is still World vs World Vs World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaba.5410 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 Think of Worlds as a team and think of alliances/non-affiliated guilds/individuals as current host/mercenary servers linked together to form a single team. World Restructuring simply makes the pieces that get linked together smaller so they have greater/higher resolution in linking to form a team. Using servers is like 8-bit population blocks resolution while Restructuring will make the resolution more like 32-bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted October 24, 2018 Author Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > "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." > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > "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." > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > It is still World vs World Vs World. "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. You are missing something. The alliances will be 500 people. And each alliance will be part of a world. Worlds = alliance (likely 2 per world) + non allied guilds + individuals not part of an guild or alliance. So.., it will be closer to our current world cap of 2000-2500 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaba.5410 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. More wording: "We will build a world from any number of Alliances, Guilds, and Solo Players. This means a single alliance will not necessarily dominate the population of a world. The goal is to create even worlds, so the matchmaker builds the worlds out of whatever pieces makes sense to fulfill that goal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joneirikb.7506 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/45856/world-restructuring-update-1/p1 > # Updates, Clarifications and FAQ > ## _What makes up a world?_ > We will build a world from any number of Alliances, Guilds, and Solo Players. This means a single alliance will not necessarily dominate the population of a world. The goal is to create even worlds, so the matchmaker builds the worlds out of whatever pieces makes sense to fulfill that goal. 2 minute search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted October 24, 2018 Author Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. > > You are missing something. > > The alliances will be 500 people. And each alliance will be part of a world. > > Worlds = alliance (likely 2 per world) + non allied guilds + individuals not part of an guild or alliance. > > So.., it will be closer to our current world cap of 2000-2500 people. > "500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently" CURRENTLY is the key word here to highlight the difference between now and after alliances. "Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance? Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full." An Alliance is capped at 500 then will be considered full.... "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" An Alliance is then assigned to a world for X amount of time for a match up of... iirc, 8 weeks I think? Gotta check... ...That first quote does not mean that each world will be 2,000 or 2,500 players, it was merely used as a comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > > > > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > > > > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. > > > > You are missing something. > > > > The alliances will be 500 people. And each alliance will be part of a world. > > > > Worlds = alliance (likely 2 per world) + non allied guilds + individuals not part of an guild or alliance. > > > > So.., it will be closer to our current world cap of 2000-2500 people. > > > > "500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently" CURRENTLY is the key word here to highlight the difference between now and after alliances. > > "Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance? > > Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full." > > An Alliance is capped at 500 then will be considered full.... "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > An Alliance is then assigned to a world for X amount of time for a match up of... iirc, 8 weeks I think? Gotta check... > > ...That first quote does not mean that each world will be 2,000 or 2,500 players, it was merely used as a comparison. See, now you are just arguing to argue. If you don't get it after the last 10 replies, you aren't going to get it. Good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted October 24, 2018 Author Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > > > > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > > > > > > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > > > > > > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. > > > > > > You are missing something. > > > > > > The alliances will be 500 people. And each alliance will be part of a world. > > > > > > Worlds = alliance (likely 2 per world) + non allied guilds + individuals not part of an guild or alliance. > > > > > > So.., it will be closer to our current world cap of 2000-2500 people. > > > > > > > "500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently" CURRENTLY is the key word here to highlight the difference between now and after alliances. > > > > "Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance? > > > > Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full." > > > > An Alliance is capped at 500 then will be considered full.... "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > An Alliance is then assigned to a world for X amount of time for a match up of... iirc, 8 weeks I think? Gotta check... > > > > ...That first quote does not mean that each world will be 2,000 or 2,500 players, it was merely used as a comparison. > > See, now you are just arguing to argue. If you don't get it after the last 10 replies, you aren't going to get it. Good luck I'm using clear dev quotes. No where does it state that a single Alliance world will be made up of 2k-2.5k players... Everything points to 500 vs 500 vs 500 max player match ups, NOT 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players. In fact, let's see if @"Raymond Lukes.6305" can clarify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zinkz.7045 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > > > > > > > > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > > > > > > > > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. > > > > > > > > You are missing something. > > > > > > > > The alliances will be 500 people. And each alliance will be part of a world. > > > > > > > > Worlds = alliance (likely 2 per world) + non allied guilds + individuals not part of an guild or alliance. > > > > > > > > So.., it will be closer to our current world cap of 2000-2500 people. > > > > > > > > > > "500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently" CURRENTLY is the key word here to highlight the difference between now and after alliances. > > > > > > "Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance? > > > > > > Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full." > > > > > > An Alliance is capped at 500 then will be considered full.... "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > An Alliance is then assigned to a world for X amount of time for a match up of... iirc, 8 weeks I think? Gotta check... > > > > > > ...That first quote does not mean that each world will be 2,000 or 2,500 players, it was merely used as a comparison. > > > > See, now you are just arguing to argue. If you don't get it after the last 10 replies, you aren't going to get it. Good luck > > I'm using clear dev quotes. No where does it state that a single Alliance world will be made up of 2k-2.5k players... Everything points to 500 vs 500 vs 500 max player match ups, NOT 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players. > > In fact, let's see if @"Raymond Lukes.6305" can clarify? LOL, except for the diagram on the first post by Anet.  As everyone has told you, but for some inexplicable reason you can't grasp, it is not alliance vs alliance it is world vs world where each world will be made up of alliances, guilds and solo players, hence the population of each world will be way more than the 500 limit of one alliance. And why the idea of this thread is trying to solve an issue that does not exist, because in theory Anet will be able to balance off-peak times by mixing alliances, guilds and players that have activity at different times of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted October 24, 2018 Author Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"zinkz.7045" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > > > > > > > > > > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > > > > > > > > > > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something. > > > > > > > > > > The alliances will be 500 people. And each alliance will be part of a world. > > > > > > > > > > Worlds = alliance (likely 2 per world) + non allied guilds + individuals not part of an guild or alliance. > > > > > > > > > > So.., it will be closer to our current world cap of 2000-2500 people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > "500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently" CURRENTLY is the key word here to highlight the difference between now and after alliances. > > > > > > > > "Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance? > > > > > > > > Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full." > > > > > > > > An Alliance is capped at 500 then will be considered full.... "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > An Alliance is then assigned to a world for X amount of time for a match up of... iirc, 8 weeks I think? Gotta check... > > > > > > > > ...That first quote does not mean that each world will be 2,000 or 2,500 players, it was merely used as a comparison. > > > > > > See, now you are just arguing to argue. If you don't get it after the last 10 replies, you aren't going to get it. Good luck > > > > I'm using clear dev quotes. No where does it state that a single Alliance world will be made up of 2k-2.5k players... Everything points to 500 vs 500 vs 500 max player match ups, NOT 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players. > > > > In fact, let's see if @"Raymond Lukes.6305" can clarify? > > LOL, except for the diagram on the first post by Anet. > >  > > Hint: As everyone has told you, but for some inexplicable reason you can't grasp, it is not alliance vs alliance it is world vs world where each world will be made up of alliances, guilds and solo players, hence the population of each world will be way more than the 500 limit of one alliance and why the idea of this thread is trying to solve an issue that does not exist. > I saw that chart, I go by wording in the various dev posts. Additionally, that chart was made in a post that gave estimates of 500-1000 players to make up an alliance for world assignment. It was clearly stated later that an alliance will be 500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zinkz.7045 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"zinkz.7045" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something. > > > > > > > > > > > > The alliances will be 500 people. And each alliance will be part of a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > Worlds = alliance (likely 2 per world) + non allied guilds + individuals not part of an guild or alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > So.., it will be closer to our current world cap of 2000-2500 people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently" CURRENTLY is the key word here to highlight the difference between now and after alliances. > > > > > > > > > > "Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full." > > > > > > > > > > An Alliance is capped at 500 then will be considered full.... "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > An Alliance is then assigned to a world for X amount of time for a match up of... iirc, 8 weeks I think? Gotta check... > > > > > > > > > > ...That first quote does not mean that each world will be 2,000 or 2,500 players, it was merely used as a comparison. > > > > > > > > See, now you are just arguing to argue. If you don't get it after the last 10 replies, you aren't going to get it. Good luck > > > > > > I'm using clear dev quotes. No where does it state that a single Alliance world will be made up of 2k-2.5k players... Everything points to 500 vs 500 vs 500 max player match ups, NOT 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players. > > > > > > In fact, let's see if @"Raymond Lukes.6305" can clarify? > > > > LOL, except for the diagram on the first post by Anet. > > > >  > > > > Hint: As everyone has told you, but for some inexplicable reason you can't grasp, it is not alliance vs alliance it is world vs world where each world will be made up of alliances, guilds and solo players, hence the population of each world will be way more than the 500 limit of one alliance and why the idea of this thread is trying to solve an issue that does not exist. > > > > I saw that chart, I go by wording in the various dev posts. None of the dev posts you have quoted are about the world population, they are about alliance size which is an entirely different thing, they do not contradict the diagram in any way. >Additionally, that chart was made in a post that gave estimates of 500-1000 players to make up an alliance for world assignment. It was clearly stated later that an alliance will be 500. Which changes nothing in regard to worlds being made up of multiple alliances, guilds and solo players, other than you could combine more 500 max alliances on a world than if alliances were 1000 strong with the same overall world population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swamurabi.7890 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 The words of the devs do back up what's in the chart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaba.5410 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > > > > > > > > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > > > > > > > > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. > > > > > > > > You are missing something. > > > > > > > > The alliances will be 500 people. And each alliance will be part of a world. > > > > > > > > Worlds = alliance (likely 2 per world) + non allied guilds + individuals not part of an guild or alliance. > > > > > > > > So.., it will be closer to our current world cap of 2000-2500 people. > > > > > > > > > > "500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently" CURRENTLY is the key word here to highlight the difference between now and after alliances. > > > > > > "Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance? > > > > > > Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full." > > > > > > An Alliance is capped at 500 then will be considered full.... "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > An Alliance is then assigned to a world for X amount of time for a match up of... iirc, 8 weeks I think? Gotta check... > > > > > > ...That first quote does not mean that each world will be 2,000 or 2,500 players, it was merely used as a comparison. > > > > See, now you are just arguing to argue. If you don't get it after the last 10 replies, you aren't going to get it. Good luck > > I'm using clear dev quotes. No where does it state that a single Alliance world will be made up of 2k-2.5k players... Everything points to 500 vs 500 vs 500 max player match ups, NOT 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players. > > In fact, let's see if @"Raymond Lukes.6305" can clarify? You're cherry-picking dev quotes and tossing out the ones that explain to you clearly what a World is versus an Alliance and how Alliance fits into World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > > > > > > > > > > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > > > > > > > > > > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something. > > > > > > > > > > The alliances will be 500 people. And each alliance will be part of a world. > > > > > > > > > > Worlds = alliance (likely 2 per world) + non allied guilds + individuals not part of an guild or alliance. > > > > > > > > > > So.., it will be closer to our current world cap of 2000-2500 people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > "500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently" CURRENTLY is the key word here to highlight the difference between now and after alliances. > > > > > > > > "Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance? > > > > > > > > Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full." > > > > > > > > An Alliance is capped at 500 then will be considered full.... "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > An Alliance is then assigned to a world for X amount of time for a match up of... iirc, 8 weeks I think? Gotta check... > > > > > > > > ...That first quote does not mean that each world will be 2,000 or 2,500 players, it was merely used as a comparison. > > > > > > See, now you are just arguing to argue. If you don't get it after the last 10 replies, you aren't going to get it. Good luck > > > > I'm using clear dev quotes. No where does it state that a single Alliance world will be made up of 2k-2.5k players... Everything points to 500 vs 500 vs 500 max player match ups, NOT 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players. > > > > In fact, let's see if @"Raymond Lukes.6305" can clarify? > > You're cherry-picking dev quotes. And he isn't reading what I wrote. If he did, he would realize that no where did I state (or anyone else) that an ***alliance*** would have 2000-2500 players. He is ihtentionally confusing the terms World and alliance because he has an agenda in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted October 24, 2018 Author Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something. > > > > > > > > > > > > The alliances will be 500 people. And each alliance will be part of a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > Worlds = alliance (likely 2 per world) + non allied guilds + individuals not part of an guild or alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > So.., it will be closer to our current world cap of 2000-2500 people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently" CURRENTLY is the key word here to highlight the difference between now and after alliances. > > > > > > > > > > "Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full." > > > > > > > > > > An Alliance is capped at 500 then will be considered full.... "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > An Alliance is then assigned to a world for X amount of time for a match up of... iirc, 8 weeks I think? Gotta check... > > > > > > > > > > ...That first quote does not mean that each world will be 2,000 or 2,500 players, it was merely used as a comparison. > > > > > > > > See, now you are just arguing to argue. If you don't get it after the last 10 replies, you aren't going to get it. Good luck > > > > > > I'm using clear dev quotes. No where does it state that a single Alliance world will be made up of 2k-2.5k players... Everything points to 500 vs 500 vs 500 max player match ups, NOT 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players. > > > > > > In fact, let's see if @"Raymond Lukes.6305" can clarify? > > > > You're cherry-picking dev quotes. > > And he isn't reading what I wrote. > > If he did, he would realize that no where did I state (or anyone else) that an ***alliance*** would have 2000-2500 players. > > He is ihtentionally confusing the terms World and alliance because he has an agenda in this. > > > I don’t have any agenda... it was @"Dawdler.8521" who brought up “There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today.” You jumped into the fold and I was making comments... geez with the personal attacks like I have some scheme here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 Oh, so now we encouraging to stack alliance harder, what's the different from now then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The alliances will be 500 people. And each alliance will be part of a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Worlds = alliance (likely 2 per world) + non allied guilds + individuals not part of an guild or alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So.., it will be closer to our current world cap of 2000-2500 people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently" CURRENTLY is the key word here to highlight the difference between now and after alliances. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full." > > > > > > > > > > > > An Alliance is capped at 500 then will be considered full.... "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > > > An Alliance is then assigned to a world for X amount of time for a match up of... iirc, 8 weeks I think? Gotta check... > > > > > > > > > > > > ...That first quote does not mean that each world will be 2,000 or 2,500 players, it was merely used as a comparison. > > > > > > > > > > See, now you are just arguing to argue. If you don't get it after the last 10 replies, you aren't going to get it. Good luck > > > > > > > > I'm using clear dev quotes. No where does it state that a single Alliance world will be made up of 2k-2.5k players... Everything points to 500 vs 500 vs 500 max player match ups, NOT 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players. > > > > > > > > In fact, let's see if @"Raymond Lukes.6305" can clarify? > > > > > > You're cherry-picking dev quotes. > > > > And he isn't reading what I wrote. > > > > If he did, he would realize that no where did I state (or anyone else) that an ***alliance*** would have 2000-2500 players. > > > > He is ihtentionally confusing the terms World and alliance because he has an agenda in this. > > > > > > > > I don’t have any agenda... it was @"Dawdler.8521" who brought up “There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today.” > > You jumped into the fold and I was making comments... geez with the personal attacks like I have some scheme here... So what of it? I was talking about worlds at that number - a conglomerate of alliances+guilds+randoms. Just like how worlds (servers) work today, but replace alliances with even more guilds. You got it right there in the quote. Will worlds be *exactly* that number? No. It's based on Anets average mention of current world sizes. The alliance system allow them to set a target population - 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, *whatever* and then restructure worlds and the amount of tiers around that. Alliances is just Lego with smaller pieces instead of pieces glued together into larger blocks even if it's the same amount of pieces. You may not have an agenda but you're not really listening. The alliance system doesnt work like you think it works. Your entire premise of this thread is as I said, wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 I'm not sure I understand how either suggestion would alleviate the problem of coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted October 24, 2018 Author Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The alliances will be 500 people. And each alliance will be part of a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Worlds = alliance (likely 2 per world) + non allied guilds + individuals not part of an guild or alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So.., it will be closer to our current world cap of 2000-2500 people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently" CURRENTLY is the key word here to highlight the difference between now and after alliances. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An Alliance is capped at 500 then will be considered full.... "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An Alliance is then assigned to a world for X amount of time for a match up of... iirc, 8 weeks I think? Gotta check... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...That first quote does not mean that each world will be 2,000 or 2,500 players, it was merely used as a comparison. > > > > > > > > > > > > See, now you are just arguing to argue. If you don't get it after the last 10 replies, you aren't going to get it. Good luck > > > > > > > > > > I'm using clear dev quotes. No where does it state that a single Alliance world will be made up of 2k-2.5k players... Everything points to 500 vs 500 vs 500 max player match ups, NOT 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players. > > > > > > > > > > In fact, let's see if @"Raymond Lukes.6305" can clarify? > > > > > > > > You're cherry-picking dev quotes. > > > > > > And he isn't reading what I wrote. > > > > > > If he did, he would realize that no where did I state (or anyone else) that an ***alliance*** would have 2000-2500 players. > > > > > > He is ihtentionally confusing the terms World and alliance because he has an agenda in this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t have any agenda... it was @"Dawdler.8521" who brought up “There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today.” > > > > You jumped into the fold and I was making comments... geez with the personal attacks like I have some scheme here... > So what of it? I was talking about worlds at that number - a conglomerate of alliances+guilds+randoms. Just like how worlds (servers) work today, but replace alliances with even more guilds. You got it right there in the quote. Will worlds be *exactly* that number? No. It's based on Anets average mention of current world sizes. The alliance system allow them to set a target population - 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, *whatever* and then restructure worlds and the amount of tiers around that. Alliances is just Lego with smaller pieces instead of pieces glued together into larger blocks even if it's the same amount of pieces. > > You may not have an agenda but you're not really listening. The alliance system doesnt work like you think it works. Your entire premise of this thread is as I said, wrong. What of it? “If he did, he would realize that no where did I state (or anyone else) that an alliance would have 2000-2500 players.”... I was clarifying to someone else, that’s what’s of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artaz.3819 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 @OP Correct - this is a weakness with limiting the pool to 500 players. But the alternative is worse (i.e. now for most server matches). The "REAL" solution is limiting the matches to much less than 7-day time (think 8-hour shifts) or providing a higher incentive to peak hours based on map fulfillment by enemies (or basically a penalty to your score for when other teams having outmanned bonus). Outmanned bonus flag is where you start and then go from there with PPT. The best alternative is to provide BOTH an Alliance option and a World Server (less Tiers) matchup option. The Alliance option could be just a queue to a single map with higher population limits. But in the end, my guess is with WvW Alliances is they are going to fuel the problem of the unbalanced PPT mechanic with coverage represented by the LOL PPT crowd against the PPT crowd. Eventually, the most dedicated (no sleep) WvWers will sit on top of PPT ratings but will burnout in 8-16 weeks, then become highly vocal (toxic), and then blame the alliance system. By that time, many more 'not part of the elite alliance' WvWers will have moved on in frustration. In the end, Alliances may very well greatly diminish participation in WvW unless ANet gets more creative with rewards (both winners and losers). Bragging rights will only go so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The larger you make the chunks, the more difficult it is to balance the three sides. 21 chunks into 21 spots had a wide range of populations, but 21 chunks into 12 spots . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher the ratio of chunks to spots means the better the balance is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, on paper. When you look at caps of 500 vs 500 vs 500 then players automatically assume that things will be great... That's not the case. There are not any guarantees that any of those 500 individuals on any alliance will log in and will cover every time zone. The human element causes the issue with any balance equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You put more in the pot then you have higher percentages participating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread makes no sense, the premise is all wrong. 500 is the (presumed) alliance cap, not the **world** population. There wouldnt be 500 vs 500 vs 500 under alliances. That cap is **irrelevant**. There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today. Because Anet will match multiple alliances and random people vs multiple alliances and random people to match current world sizes, roughly. Except with this system they can be flexible and drop or expand tiers without killing servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Players dont just vanish into thin air because WvW gets rearranged to alliances. It's still the same players. If WvW has 30,000 players now... it'll have 30,000 players under alliances too. If they're not there for alliances they've quit the game and that's fine, I guess. It's allowed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the stickied thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes? You are absolutely correct. But it means nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 500 man limit is obviously there because guild cap is 500 man. It's the easy baseline unless you want to change current guild cap. An alliance cap of say... 250... is pointless. People just make a guild instead and get 500 man cap automatically. An alliance cap of say... 1000... start to become counterproductive to what the system is designed to do - cut the WvW population into guild size chunks (500) rather than world size chunks (average 2500+ as per their note that an alliance would be 20%ish). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The TL;DR of alliances is that it's just smaller link servers. Instead of 2-3 like now, we're gonna see like... 10-20+ "servers" linked together (ie alliances+guilds+randoms). Maybe many more in a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the 1st info thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again from the latest thread... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless I'm misunderstand or missing a quote, then the info provided points to a match up being made up of 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance vs 500 player Alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we have explained, and as the diagram in the original post describing alliances, it ISNT alliance vs alliance vs alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is still World vs World Vs World. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we can call it alliances or worlds or whatever, but the wording points to 500 v 500 v 500 match ups. I'm not banking on the diagram here, I'm going by the numbers being used. No where does it state that a match up will be comprised of anything else, unless I'm missing something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are missing something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The alliances will be 500 people. And each alliance will be part of a world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Worlds = alliance (likely 2 per world) + non allied guilds + individuals not part of an guild or alliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So.., it will be closer to our current world cap of 2000-2500 people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "500 players is around 20-25% of WvW world sizes currently" CURRENTLY is the key word here to highlight the difference between now and after alliances. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Will there be a limit as to how many guilds are allowed in each alliance? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. That number of guilds is still being determined but there will be a cap. It will also depend on the guilds size. For example, an alliance might be able to have 5 small guilds before it is full, while another alliance might only be able to have 2 big guilds before it is full." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An Alliance is capped at 500 then will be considered full.... "We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An Alliance is then assigned to a world for X amount of time for a match up of... iirc, 8 weeks I think? Gotta check... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...That first quote does not mean that each world will be 2,000 or 2,500 players, it was merely used as a comparison. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, now you are just arguing to argue. If you don't get it after the last 10 replies, you aren't going to get it. Good luck > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm using clear dev quotes. No where does it state that a single Alliance world will be made up of 2k-2.5k players... Everything points to 500 vs 500 vs 500 max player match ups, NOT 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players vs 2k-2.5k players. > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact, let's see if @"Raymond Lukes.6305" can clarify? > > > > > > > > > > You're cherry-picking dev quotes. > > > > > > > > And he isn't reading what I wrote. > > > > > > > > If he did, he would realize that no where did I state (or anyone else) that an ***alliance*** would have 2000-2500 players. > > > > > > > > He is ihtentionally confusing the terms World and alliance because he has an agenda in this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t have any agenda... it was @"Dawdler.8521" who brought up “There would be 2500+ vs 2500+ vs 2500+ in a matchup of 3 worlds... like worlds work today.” > > > > > > You jumped into the fold and I was making comments... geez with the personal attacks like I have some scheme here... > > So what of it? I was talking about worlds at that number - a conglomerate of alliances+guilds+randoms. Just like how worlds (servers) work today, but replace alliances with even more guilds. You got it right there in the quote. Will worlds be *exactly* that number? No. It's based on Anets average mention of current world sizes. The alliance system allow them to set a target population - 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, *whatever* and then restructure worlds and the amount of tiers around that. Alliances is just Lego with smaller pieces instead of pieces glued together into larger blocks even if it's the same amount of pieces. > > > > You may not have an agenda but you're not really listening. The alliance system doesnt work like you think it works. Your entire premise of this thread is as I said, wrong. > > What of it? “If he did, he would realize that no where did I state (or anyone else) that an alliance would have 2000-2500 players.”... I was clarifying to someone else, that’s what’s of it... Back to the point which you seem to be failing to grasp: using math.., if alliance cap = 500 and if alliances = 20-25% of a world, then world population will equal 2000-2500. No more than Two alliances per world (hinted at) with residual filled in by non allied guilds and non allied individual players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 > @"Artaz.3819" said: > @OP Correct - this is a weakness with limiting the pool to 500 players. But the alternative is worse (i.e. now for most server matches). > > The "REAL" solution is limiting the matches to much less than 7-day time (think 8-hour shifts) or providing a higher incentive to peak hours based on map fulfillment by enemies (or basically a penalty to your score for when other teams having outmanned bonus). Outmanned bonus flag is where you start and then go from there with PPT. The best alternative is to provide BOTH an Alliance option and a World Server (less Tiers) matchup option. The Alliance option could be just a queue to a single map with higher population limits. > > But in the end, my guess is with WvW Alliances is they are going to fuel the problem of the unbalanced PPT mechanic with coverage represented by the LOL PPT crowd against the PPT crowd. Eventually, the most dedicated (no sleep) WvWers will sit on top of PPT ratings but will burnout in 8-16 weeks, then become highly vocal (toxic), and then blame the alliance system. By that time, many more 'not part of the elite alliance' WvWers will have moved on in frustration. In the end, Alliances may very well greatly diminish participation in WvW unless ANet gets more creative with rewards (both winners and losers). Bragging rights will only go so far. If the OPs assumption that each 'world' was only going to have one alliance and that was capped at 500 was correct, then all of what you said would be true. However, the OP is wrong based on the posts by the Anet Devs in that World = alliance (no more than 2) + non allied guilds + non allied individuals. Those worlds will fight other worlds. The 'Alliances' will give them smaller chunks to combine to form 'worlds'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now