Tag Archives: implementation

Implementing Alliances (Part 8)

The alliance system that I have proposed over the past week is a massive change from the existing server system. This begs the obvious question: how to move from servers to alliances? To tie this series up, here’s what I suggest.

NOTE: The following order presumes that the infrastructure and back-end to implement alliances has been built, and all that remains is to transition.

Step 1: Servers into Mercenaries

At the start of a week’s match, a switch is flipped that turns all existing server matches (tiers 1-8/9) into mercenary-based matches. For sake of understanding, each of these matches is named based on the old servers that were a part of it. Players are all considered mercenaries, and can freely join any match with the same restrictions as outlined in Part 4.

Advantage

Having a “match selection” mechanic in place before alliance matches even happen removes a technical hurdle early on in the process, and gets players used to the new way of entering matches before the ladder activates.

Step 2: Open Alliance Registration

Ideally happening at the same time everyone becomes mercenaries, either an in-game interface (more convenient) or official website (could be faster to develop) launches, allowing guild leaders to register an alliance. This should have a few simple administration functions:

  1. Can start a new alliance, including name and description
  2. Can invite other guilds
  3. Can kick other guilds

The ability to kick can be implemented several ways, perhaps the alliance leader gets to do so, majority vote chooses, or the alliance leader can delegate kick authority.

The website should also have a list of registered alliances and their member guilds, allowing anyone to see who’s out there.

Requirement

Alliances can’t work unless there’s someplace to sign up, as well as somewhere to see who’s organized together. Opening registration is a mandatory part of making that a reality.

Step 3: Start the Alliance Ladder

After a couple of weeks of signups, or an adequate number of alliances has signed up (I suggest 12 or more), alliances are pitted against each other based on raw membership count. For each alliance match that starts, one of the 8-9 mercenary matches deactivates until there are none. Mercenary matches after that point are based on the demand of WvW beyond the alliance matches (see again Part 4).

These initial ladder matchups should run on a fresh algorithm (similar to the Glicko resets that happened early in Guild Wars 2‘s release), with minor weighting given to ratings to account for population differences. This reduces the likelihood of a big fights-focused, 3,000-man alliance from losing to two other similar ones, and facing a roaming-focused, 200-man alliance the next week.

Perhaps to help with settling ratings out quicker, matches could be 2-3 days long each, rather than a single week. If so, 3 day matches should be on the weekends, with two 2-day matches during the week to reflect similar population conditions.

Advantage

Population is a loose determiner of alliance strength, and with the flexibility of alliance size inherent in the setup (1-5000 people), can also be used by alliance members to “tilt the scale” toward a matchup they’re more interested in playing.

Step 4: The First Season

Once ratings have settled down (low volatility on the alliances), kick off the first season, pulling together groups of 6 and 9 alliances into leagues and organizing a format around them. This is virtually identical to how the previous 3 tournaments functioned, but takes into account the dynamic nature of alliances.

Step 5: Maintain

And that’s it. In four steps, WvW has fully transitioned from a server-based system to the new alliance-based system, with a consistent ladder and regular seasons.

Conclusion

Alliances are the best way to move forward with World vs. World. They’re not perfect, and they won’t satisfy everyone, but giving players the tools to self-organize and letting them compete on their terms best fits the competitive community that the mode has always fostered.

Further, by implementing alliances, mercenaries, and updated and prestigious rewards, ArenaNet can take a step back from WvW entirely. With minor course corrections and adjustments, an alliance system can be self-regulating and self-sustaining. It can reduce developer overhead (and player rage at WvW being ignored) tremendously.

On one level, alliances as I’ve proposed are a terrible idea. It relinquishes structural control over what players do, and if they destroy the game mode by their actions, the blame will still fall on the developer.

But any such destruction will be sudden and abrupt. WvW has been dying for years now, with activity dropping lower and lower, and its veterans getting more and more bitter over what they love being so utterly ignored.

It’s pretty much at the point of ArenaNet having nothing to lose by attempting something as radical as alliances, even if it fails. Players have been asking for it for years, guilds have left for other games over its lack, and it is far stronger than the server system ever can be. Take the chance, and make something amazing.

The Alliances Series

  1. Putting Guilds Back into Guild Wars: WvW Alliances
  2. Unbalanceable Problems: Why the Server System Cannot Work
  3. Heart and Soul: The Guilds of World vs. World
  4. The Case for WvW Alliances
  5. The Alliance Structure: Sidestepping the Problems
  6. The Pros and Cons of WvW Alliances
  7. Rewarding the Competition
  8. Implementing Alliances

Fractals Addendum: Splitting Out Fractal Runs

(Credit to ohoni and braballa for the token/key suggestion, and for getting me thinking in this direction)

UPDATE: Changed to reflect a more flexible approach to keys and flags.

On the reddit thread, one objection I’ve seen to  doing Fractals that I hadn’t thought about much was the sheer length of them. Any run of Fractals will take over an hour, and even the shortest Level 49 run will be about an hour and a half with PUGs. Let’s not even get started on low level runs where only one person (or none) knows the encounter mechanics. (three hours…at level 8)

Most people don’t have that kind of time available. Ironically, a format built for short, bite-size mini-dungeons strung together is more time-intensive than an actual full dungeon (or a full set of 3 paths with an experienced party).

So why not split fractal runs per fractal? Then the advantage of having a mini-dungeon is leveraged for people who might have 20-30 minutes handy, but not 60-90.

Rather than the current existence where people have time for just that first fractal, have to leave, and their reward level never moves from 1, why not implement a system that tracks individual fractal completion?

Continue reading Fractals Addendum: Splitting Out Fractal Runs