Strider Pj.2193 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... Was no personal attack. If fact, it was addressed to someone else.the fact that you were notified is a function of the quoting mechanism here. Saying someone has an agenda is an attack now? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"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'. Dev is only giving a illustration on how it will work not on how it will work in practice. Mainly because we don't know if there will be a 500-men alliance or not and if there is, we don't know if that alliance will be a sole alliance in that server or not since we just don't have the population data. Also, I assume they will calculate the play hours of the alliances and then mix and match them in. This is simply a glorified version of current relinking but this time anet has more pieces to throw around. Problem is, the larger the size of the piece, the more unbalance it is. This question the viability of big alliance from balance perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"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'. > > Dev is only giving a illustration on how it will work not on how it will work in practice. Mainly because we don't know if there will be a 500-men alliance or not and if there is, we don't know if that alliance will be a sole alliance in that server or not since we just don't have the population data. Of course we don't actually know because it doesn't exist currently. Not helpful to the discussion. > > Also, I assume they will calculate the play hours of the alliances and then mix and match them in. This is simply a glorified version of current relinking but this time anet has more pieces to throw around. Problem is, the larger the size of the piece, the more unbalance it is. This question the viability of big alliance from balance perspective. Which is why the alliance size of 500 being 20-25% of the world size (note the range) and likely (though not known as it doesn't actually exist yet....) only 2 alliances per world allows for many small parts to tweak to assist in matchup production. But like anything, it's going to have problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"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'. > > > > Dev is only giving a illustration on how it will work not on how it will work in practice. Mainly because we don't know if there will be a 500-men alliance or not and if there is, we don't know if that alliance will be a sole alliance in that server or not since we just don't have the population data. > > Of course we don't actually know because it doesn't exist currently. Not helpful to the discussion. Disagree. Because there is no actual data, that is why there are so much assumptions. That is why this thread exist :) Furthermore, illustration means words to words quote from dev should not and cannot be used as a actual fact for argument. Even if it is a actual word to word quote, I don't think they ever mentioned "must". They only said can be more than 2. In logic term, "can" means capable of but it isn't equivalent to a "must". So yea, in reality, all the above arguments that say cannot be 1 is questionable because dev never said it must be 2 or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 well, it is good to have an idea of what it ought to be if ppl can agree on that. but be warned if the final product be entirely different dont be too attached or expect to much. my experience with anet is nega. they close my threads for asking players not to blob, and suspend me for it. =p back now though. the experience taught me no longer to buy or promote their product to my gaming community Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ubi.4136 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 The only thing certain about alliances, is that it isn't going to fix the problems with wvw and that players will do EVERYTHING they can so their Ktrain blob can keep ktraining, all under the guise of "looking for fights". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > Which is why the alliance size of 500 being 20-25% of the world size (note the range) and likely (though not known as it doesn't actually exist yet....) only 2 alliances per world allows for many small parts to tweak to assist in matchup production. I dont think that 2 per world cap is *technically* correct. The alliance system isnt gonna work on the basis of alliances being 500 people any more than WvW works on the basis that WvW raiding guilds contain 500 people. It was just an "ideal" size comparison Anet did. There could be 10 alliances in a world if they only contain 100 man each. Or 20 alliances. It doesnt matter. If you introduce a strict cap to this, players can literally grief Anets matchmaking by making tiny alliances that are forcibly matched against huge alliances. The balance will no doubt occur by total target population instead, the amount of guilds and alliances within that number is irrelevant. In regards to the response above, alliances is only supposed to fix one thing - the wildly varying population across tiers - in order to make it more level with more balanced activity. Why people keep reading alliances as the magical fix for all problems that ever existed in WvW I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadlySynz.3471 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 I can already foresee what's going to happen with alliances because it's already happening now; guilds are mainly stacking themselves in the NA time zones. We see this now with 2, maybe 3 servers. These servers have strong coverage during NA times, but are nearly completely absent at every other time of day (or once they start getting beat with even numbers, they log off). There is only so much off-hour coverage to go around; the servers at the top are the ones that have it, and the rest of the servers simply don't. It's not a population balance issue, it's a time zone balance issue. Those 2-3 servers who stacked themselves in NA times are still going to map hop with the blob running over groups smaller than them, or simply hide if they don't outnumber their enemy. Time wavers on, SEA time hits, they log off, then then those with coverage overrun the maps. I've mentioned this before, and they'll likely solve the majority of the issues right from the get go if they implement it with alliances; create a reduced player cap per map until all maps are filled, then start increasing the player cap per map incrementally. Start with say 20 per map, but in order to fit 25 per map, all maps must have at least 20 people on it first, then increases to 25; once every map has 25, increase it to 30. This way the blobby guilds/commanders are forced to fight evenly. They simply can't take their group of 60-80 and hop maps to attack a group of 15 attacking a keep. They will need to split up. On the flip side during say SEA time; it's much harder for a group of 20 to take a keep being defended by 5 people, than it would be if 60 were trying to take it from 5. The same applies in NA where those 2-3 servers stacked themselves. Being forced into a group of 20 to take a sieged up tower from 5 people will be exponentially more difficult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiawal.2351 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Current alliance leaders and members already could have an opinion based on their experience so far, on the subject of ideal alliance size while keeping competitiveness alive as well, but this isn't a number that can be set to a fixed size, always will depend on the size of the worlds, and more exactly on the number of active players: if WvW will become more alive in time, this size may need to be increased, but with what we have now (also being limited by lag vs. map limit), even 500 is almost too large (and even now, makes sense to have this big ONLY if that includes multiple time zones) -- otherwise there is a huge risk of one alliance dominating so much that competition will die (don't even start with saying that numbers & coverage are more important than quality, it's not, unless the quality has really low numbers and bad coverage). If competition dies, the whole system will collapse. Since current & past World will cease to exist as communities, Alliances will take this role, they will be the future communities, the heart(s) of a future World, where independent guilds will be smaller communities and then filled with players who haven't decided yet in joining any permanent community. The future Worlds won't mean anything, but a temporary place, holding real bigger and smaller homes: alliances & free guilds. If you want a real, permanent home; you will have to join an alliance or guild, and this will happen in time, after you see them in action, and will start to like one or hate another, providing new recruits. About increasing the size of alliances, making the alliance bigger than the current 500: Pros: 1. will allow keeping more (temporarily) inactive players 2. will allow better or ideal coverage of most or all timezones Cons: 1. may allow an alliance to gather enough coverage of very high quality players, that will kill the competition and that will kill the alliance itself (together with the game mode) These values can't be set in stone, they must remain open to future adjustment: to make it big enough to allow it to function flawlessly, but not allow to grow too large, because without a healthy balance, there won't be competition, nothing to play against, which will hurt the alliance just as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"Tiawal.2351" said: > About increasing the size of alliances, making the alliance bigger than the current 500: > > Pros: > 1. will allow keeping more (temporarily) inactive players > 2. will allow better or ideal coverage of most or all timezones > > Cons: > 1. may allow an alliance to gather enough coverage of very high quality players, that will kill the competition and that will kill the alliance itself (together with the game mode) Argh again with this? Can people please *stop* misunderstanding what an alliance is compared to a world? An alliance isnt meant to be a self sustaining competetive all-coverage unit in a world. Its just a another way of forming a "guild" without messing with the current guild system (ie maintain it for PvE). Its a *part* of a world, just like any guild is for current servers. And just like guilds, I highly doubt we will even see many 500 man alliances, most will probably be smaller groups of guilds that just want to play together. In fact at the cap of 500 you could remove alliances alltogether from this world restructure system. Its just a 500 man guild. No more, no less. Thats probably why Anet says 500 - alliances isnt a major factor in the alliance system, its a bonus for us the players to organize better with a new built in system. But its neither stronger or weaker than guilds - its in perfect balance with them. Dont try to make them into something they arent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > Which is why the alliance size of 500 being 20-25% of the world size (note the range) and likely (though not known as it doesn't actually exist yet....) only 2 alliances per world allows for many small parts to tweak to assist in matchup production. > > I dont think that 2 per world cap is *technically* correct. The alliance system isnt gonna work on the basis of alliances being 500 people any more than WvW works on the basis that WvW raiding guilds contain 500 people. It was just an "ideal" size comparison Anet did. There could be 10 alliances in a world if they only contain 100 man each. Or 20 alliances. It doesnt matter. > > If you introduce a strict cap to this, players can literally grief Anets matchmaking by making tiny alliances that are forcibly matched against huge alliances. The balance will no doubt occur by total target population instead, the amount of guilds and alliances within that number is irrelevant. > True. Definately can see how that would be a huge problem. > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said: > I can already foresee what's going to happen with alliances because it's already happening now; guilds are mainly stacking themselves in the NA time zones. We see this now with 2, maybe 3 servers. These servers have strong coverage during NA times, but are nearly completely absent at every other time of day (or once they start getting beat with even numbers, they log off). There is only so much off-hour coverage to go around; the servers at the top are the ones that have it, and the rest of the servers simply don't. It's not a population balance issue, it's a time zone balance issue. > > Those 2-3 servers who stacked themselves in NA times are still going to map hop with the blob running over groups smaller than them, or simply hide if they don't outnumber their enemy. Time wavers on, SEA time hits, they log off, then then those with coverage overrun the maps. > > A bigger issue would be if an alliance was established with SEA or OCX only players. That is the true Achilles heel of this system. In you example, which I agree is a current issue, those three alliances would be spread out, and likely end up matched up often. If we are talking about SEA or OCX, there likely wouldn't be enough in those time zones to match a large alliance of one of those time zone players. Whichever world they were assigned to would be difficult to beat in any given matchup. It's also why I don't want rewards to be upped for 'winning' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldrick.8967 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Reducing the numbers per map isn't the solution. There just aren't enough commanders around to run 4 maps of 20 people. Plus composition needs to change once the numbers increase- what works with a small core plus randoms doesn't work when you double the numbers. I'd love for them to bring in the ability to switch toons without having to re queue, this could make fights much more interesting and flexible. The better solution would be to redesign EB (move north keep away from SM a bit so it can't treb SM walls) then have less maps- say 2/3 EB maps and scrap the borderlands . there is a reason EB tends to be the most popular map- because objectives are closer and SM encourages a lot more fights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 you cant solve the population issue as is or in alliance. only way to do it is to have a shorter match like eotm and have a queue system like pvp. i see no other way. just can't be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiawal.2351 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > Argh again with this? Can people please *stop* misunderstanding what an alliance is compared to a world? > > An alliance isnt meant to be a self sustaining competetive all-coverage unit in a world. Its just a another way of forming a "guild" without messing with the current guild system (ie maintain it for PvE). Its a *part* of a world, just like any guild is for current servers. And just like guilds, I highly doubt we will even see many 500 man alliances, most will probably be smaller groups of guilds that just want to play together. > > In fact at the cap of 500 you could remove alliances alltogether from this world restructure system. Its just a 500 man guild. No more, no less. Thats probably why Anet says 500 - alliances isnt a major factor in the alliance system, its a bonus for us the players to organize better with a new built in system. > > But its neither stronger or weaker than guilds - its in perfect balance with them. > > Dont try to make them into something they arent. It's definitely an Alliance is very different, even if the limit is 500 player max. It's a matter of quality. Not the quantity of 500. I'm currently in a guild that is part of an Alliance of 6 guilds so far, but I wouldn't join some of those 6 guilds. No way a larger guild of 500 would have us all, because every guild has a "style" or focus or something else, that leads to incompatibilities (to say the least), but MAY work in an alliance (for a while) if the leaders can manage around and despite these differences. These are VERY important issues, no guild can gather so many good players, but an Alliance can, making it far superior to any guild in terms of quality vs. player number ratio (though a 20-30 sized guild alone can be higher quality). Also future Worlds will mean nothing community-wise, they will be reshuffled every 2months or so, just like current links are. The only way of having a permanent team is being part of an Alliance or a lone Guild, but even in this case an Alliance is a far richer option, compared even to a mega 500 sized guild. Thus an alliance is a very special part of the future system, nothing like the guilds we had: it's more like the communities we had, but on a smaller scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"Tiawal.2351" said: > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > Argh again with this? Can people please *stop* misunderstanding what an alliance is compared to a world? > > > > An alliance isnt meant to be a self sustaining competetive all-coverage unit in a world. Its just a another way of forming a "guild" without messing with the current guild system (ie maintain it for PvE). Its a *part* of a world, just like any guild is for current servers. And just like guilds, I highly doubt we will even see many 500 man alliances, most will probably be smaller groups of guilds that just want to play together. > > > > In fact at the cap of 500 you could remove alliances alltogether from this world restructure system. Its just a 500 man guild. No more, no less. Thats probably why Anet says 500 - alliances isnt a major factor in the alliance system, its a bonus for us the players to organize better with a new built in system. > > > > But its neither stronger or weaker than guilds - its in perfect balance with them. > > > > Dont try to make them into something they arent. > > It's definitely an Alliance is very different, even if the limit is 500 player max. > > It's a matter of quality. Not the quantity of 500. > I'm currently in a guild that is part of an Alliance of 6 guilds so far, but I wouldn't join some of those 6 guilds. No way a larger guild of 500 would have us all, because every guild has a "style" or focus or something else, that leads to incompatibilities (to say the least), but MAY work in an alliance (for a while) if the leaders can manage around and despite these differences. These are VERY important issues, no guild can gather so many good players, but an Alliance can, making it far superior to any guild in terms of quality vs. player number ratio (though a 20-30 sized guild alone can be higher quality). > > Also future Worlds will mean nothing community-wise, they will be reshuffled every 2months or so, just like current links are. The only way of having a permanent team is being part of an Alliance or a lone Guild, but even in this case an Alliance is a far richer option, compared even to a mega 500 sized guild. > > Thus an alliance is a very special part of the future system, nothing like the guilds we had: it's more like the communities we had, but on a smaller scale. Your percieved issues are from a personal point of view - it has absolutely nothing to do with the basic functionality of alliances and how they are just guilds without disrupting the guild system used not only for WvW. Its also why we have tiers. If an alliance cap out at 500 people, they get lots of quality people and coverage and they win a matchup for their world... Well that world go up in tiers, dont it? To face more challenge? Maybe they win again, maybe they loose. Thats how WvW works, thats how it'll still work with alliances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swamurabi.7890 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"Tiawal.2351" said: > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > Argh again with this? Can people please *stop* misunderstanding what an alliance is compared to a world? > > > > An alliance isnt meant to be a self sustaining competetive all-coverage unit in a world. Its just a another way of forming a "guild" without messing with the current guild system (ie maintain it for PvE). Its a *part* of a world, just like any guild is for current servers. And just like guilds, I highly doubt we will even see many 500 man alliances, most will probably be smaller groups of guilds that just want to play together. > > > > In fact at the cap of 500 you could remove alliances alltogether from this world restructure system. Its just a 500 man guild. No more, no less. Thats probably why Anet says 500 - alliances isnt a major factor in the alliance system, its a bonus for us the players to organize better with a new built in system. > > > > But its neither stronger or weaker than guilds - its in perfect balance with them. > > > > Dont try to make them into something they arent. > > It's definitely an Alliance is very different, even if the limit is 500 player max. > > It's a matter of quality. Not the quantity of 500. > I'm currently in a guild that is part of an Alliance of 6 guilds so far, but I wouldn't join some of those 6 guilds. No way a larger guild of 500 would have us all, because every guild has a "style" or focus or something else, that leads to incompatibilities (to say the least), but MAY work in an alliance (for a while) if the leaders can manage around and despite these differences. These are VERY important issues, no guild can gather so many good players, but an Alliance can, making it far superior to any guild in terms of quality vs. player number ratio (though a 20-30 sized guild alone can be higher quality). > > Also future Worlds will mean nothing community-wise, they will be reshuffled every 2months or so, just like current links are. The only way of having a permanent team is being part of an Alliance or a lone Guild, but even in this case an Alliance is a far richer option, compared even to a mega 500 sized guild. > > Thus an alliance is a very special part of the future system, nothing like the guilds we had: it's more like the communities we had, but on a smaller scale. There are several ways players will try to game the alliance system, we can only hope that Anet takes a more hands on approach to fixing obvious flaws. I can see where a new "WvW" guild that is maxed out at 500 players from 6 old WvW guilds. Players choose this new WvW guild as their WvW guild but rep their old WvW guild when they actually play. The 6 old guilds can still recruit but only the 500 in the new guild can be guaranteed to play on the same world. This could lead to a case where you could be on one of the six guilds, not be one of the 500 and be on an opposite side of a matchup as your old guild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > > @"Tiawal.2351" said: > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > Argh again with this? Can people please *stop* misunderstanding what an alliance is compared to a world? > > > > > > An alliance isnt meant to be a self sustaining competetive all-coverage unit in a world. Its just a another way of forming a "guild" without messing with the current guild system (ie maintain it for PvE). Its a *part* of a world, just like any guild is for current servers. And just like guilds, I highly doubt we will even see many 500 man alliances, most will probably be smaller groups of guilds that just want to play together. > > > > > > In fact at the cap of 500 you could remove alliances alltogether from this world restructure system. Its just a 500 man guild. No more, no less. Thats probably why Anet says 500 - alliances isnt a major factor in the alliance system, its a bonus for us the players to organize better with a new built in system. > > > > > > But its neither stronger or weaker than guilds - its in perfect balance with them. > > > > > > Dont try to make them into something they arent. > > > > It's definitely an Alliance is very different, even if the limit is 500 player max. > > > > It's a matter of quality. Not the quantity of 500. > > I'm currently in a guild that is part of an Alliance of 6 guilds so far, but I wouldn't join some of those 6 guilds. No way a larger guild of 500 would have us all, because every guild has a "style" or focus or something else, that leads to incompatibilities (to say the least), but MAY work in an alliance (for a while) if the leaders can manage around and despite these differences. These are VERY important issues, no guild can gather so many good players, but an Alliance can, making it far superior to any guild in terms of quality vs. player number ratio (though a 20-30 sized guild alone can be higher quality). > > > > Also future Worlds will mean nothing community-wise, they will be reshuffled every 2months or so, just like current links are. The only way of having a permanent team is being part of an Alliance or a lone Guild, but even in this case an Alliance is a far richer option, compared even to a mega 500 sized guild. > > > > Thus an alliance is a very special part of the future system, nothing like the guilds we had: it's more like the communities we had, but on a smaller scale. > > There are several ways players will try to game the alliance system, we can only hope that Anet takes a more hands on approach to fixing obvious flaws. > > I can see where a new "WvW" guild that is maxed out at 500 players from 6 old WvW guilds. Players choose this new WvW guild as their WvW guild but rep their old WvW guild when they actually play. The 6 old guilds can still recruit but only the 500 in the new guild can be guaranteed to play on the same world. This could lead to a case where you could be on one of the six guilds, not be one of the 500 and be on an opposite side of a matchup as your old guild. Which.... happens today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odokuro.5049 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 How about not forming alliances with people/guilds that don't match up with your timezone? How to do this? 1. Join/Create a guild that recruits solely people who are actively playing during your timezone. 2. Form alliances with guilds who uphold your ideals about maintaining an active say EST Timezone, who actively field players during, "Primetime." 3. Put forth simplistic activity rules that persons who wish to be in said guild/alliance adhere to, and cull the ones who don't. 4. Create guild activities say, "Guild/Alliance only raids", "Self and Squad synergy training," and hold duels in the GH for those who wish to, "Rank up." within the guild, mandatory. 5. Make being on and participating in voice comms (Discord/Teamspeak.) a MUST, even if they don't like to talk, they can still listen. 6. Offer intensives for being part of the guild/alliance such as, gold raffles, skin giveaways, and award mvp status to those who presented the best use of their build, communication, and ofcoarse slaughtering red named players. (MVP would be a week long "Rank", in the guild, and that person would be given 100G and useful items to use in WvW.) The above may be seen as harsh or "Elitist" but lets not forgot, WvW is all about seeing who swings the bigger weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"Odokuro.5049" said: > How about not forming alliances with people/guilds that don't match up with your timezone? > > How to do this? > 1. Join/Create a guild that recruits solely people who are actively playing during your timezone. > 2. Form alliances with guilds who uphold your ideals about maintaining an active say EST Timezone, who actively field players during, "Primetime." > 3. Put forth simplistic activity rules that persons who wish to be in said guild/alliance adhere to, and cull the ones who don't. > 4. Create guild activities say, "Guild/Alliance only raids", "Self and Squad synergy training," and hold duels in the GH for those who wish to, "Rank up." within the guild, mandatory. > 5. Make being on and participating in voice comms (Discord/Teamspeak.) a MUST, even if they don't like to talk, they can still listen. > 6. Offer intensives for being part of the guild/alliance such as, gold raffles, skin giveaways, and award mvp status to those who presented the best use of their build, communication, and ofcoarse slaughtering red named players. (MVP would be a week long "Rank", in the guild, and that person would be given 100G and useful items to use in WvW.) > > The above may be seen as harsh or "Elitist" but lets not forgot, WvW is all about seeing who swings the bigger weapon. And then do you complain when an alliance is formed with OCX or SEA only? And that alliance effectively allows whatever world they are assigned to carry a matchup? It's still a 24 hour game mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Agreed We already have +500 people preselecting their team. The whole point of alliances to to give Anet more pieces to work with. Addressing nightcapping is a separate issue, 20 people at 4am decide matches not 500.. A penalty system for severe imbalance, some incentive to not stack-and-win is what's needed. Hopefully they have something in mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swamurabi.7890 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 There are a couple ways to respond to gaming the alliance system. If a 500 player hard core guild/alliance forms to dominate WvW, whether it's in one time zone or several, they will get teamed up with a lot of low player-hour partners. I wouldn't be against Anet manually disbanding Alliances or Guilds which cause a severe imbalance to competition in WvW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"Swamurabi.7890" said: > There are a couple ways to respond to gaming the alliance system. > > If a 500 player hard core guild/alliance forms to dominate WvW, whether it's in one time zone or several, they will get teamed up with a lot of low player-hour partners. > > I wouldn't be against Anet manually disbanding Alliances or Guilds which cause a severe imbalance to competition in WvW. > I would. Listen, with egos the way they are.,... some of those alliances won't last long. But Anet needs to give us the tools, and the base structure, but then let the community figure it out. Providing disincentives or giving no rewards for 'winning' will be tools I'd support. But manually disbanding guilds? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diku.2546 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"LetoII.3782" said: > Agreed > We already have +500 people preselecting their team. The whole point of alliances to to give Anet more pieces to work with. > Addressing nightcapping is a separate issue, 20 people at 4am decide matches not 500.. A penalty system for severe imbalance, some incentive to not stack-and-win is what's needed. > > Hopefully they have something in mind --- **Instead of punishing players...we should support & encourage players to play with all of their friends & family.** As a suggestion...Why not run world servers like restaurants in a free open food court for everybody to pick & choose? Players should be allowed to with weekly limits on Which servers & How many different servers they can choose to eat at. Popular restaurants of course would get lots of customers, but it's expected that players will have to wait in queue to find a single seat, or a complete table for their party. We shouldn't be punishing players that want to only dine at the most popular restaurants. Let players make WEEKLY choices that will force them to wait in long lines, or allow them to quickly grab a meal without having to always wait in line...by choosing to eat at less popular restaurants. Off peak capping wouldn't be such a big problem if players made friends with other restaurant owners to coordinate retaliating attacks against the intruder's restaurant. **Punishing players in this context really works counter in creating what should otherwise be a positive game mode that attracts players to unite in an Alliance of fun.** Yours truly, Diku p.s. See some of my past posts...please vote Helpful or Thumbs up if you agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 MMO's live on community. They'd never forcefully disassociate players. There is a precedent in RvR for balancing factions though. Towards the end of it's life Warhammer Online instituted a system with proportional loot as the incentive. Renown Ranks, a form of XP was needed to get the best stuff. As your side grew larger in relation to the opponent, ranks took longer and vice versa for the losing side. Win motivated players would stay put and gear motivated players would chase the higher RR rate to be had on the losing side. It was a great system, very effective and a shame it came far too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artaz.3819 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said: >Start with say 20 per map, but in order to fit 25 per map, all maps must have at least 20 people on it first, then increases to 25; once every map has 25, increase it to 30. This way the blobby guilds/commanders are forced to fight evenly. They simply can't take their group of 60-80 and hop maps to attack a group of 15 attacking a keep. They will need to split up. > > On the flip side during say SEA time; it's much harder for a group of 20 to take a keep being defended by 5 people, than it would be if 60 were trying to take it from 5. The same applies in NA where those 2-3 servers stacked themselves. Being forced into a group of 20 to take a sieged up tower from 5 people will be exponentially more difficult The problem with that approach is it would be too easy for an server to log on afkers to the enemies map. Case in point, it's already pretty bad in T1 and sometimes T2 with tag watching. I can only imagine with only 20 soft cap allowed on a map, you could easily have an alliance coordinate an enemy map lockout (even just half that in accounts would be significant enough for a steam-roll) for a side. Lame, yes. But it definitely would happen to allow easy flipping of an entire T3 map. Like the thought but it would be way player abusive to use multi-accounts. 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