Guild Wars 2

Hmm, currently it seems like, as soon as one server dominates a match, the other two will start losing hope and players tend not to bother anymore.

Here’s an idea that tries to incentivise people to keep fighting, even if they are losing.

- Every points cycle, for each server and each map there is a fixed amount of rewards, to be shared between participating players. (I have no idea what a good level of reward is, so I am just going to make up a figure as an example.)

- Players who are actively contributing (whether succeeding in objectives, killing enemies, etc) will be eligible for an equal share of the reward.

Example: The reward is 3000 Karma per server & map & points cycle.
- Map is Yak’s Bend Borderlands. Yak vs. Darkhaven vs. Anvil
- In this map, there are 300 Yak players, 100 Darkhaven players, and 1 lonely Anvil player. Assume all of these players are succeeding at making some sort of contribution.

So every points cycle:
- each Yak player will get 10 Karma (3000 / 300)
- each Darkhaven player will get 30 Karma (3000 / 100)
- the sole Anvil player will get 3000 Karma.

Basically, when your side is losing and everyone is quitting, this system incentivises staying on to keep fighting. It also incentivises others to join in to even out the numbers a bit more.

I’m not sure what level of rewards would be meaningful for this, but that’s something to be decided and tweaked I guess.

Thoughts?

I like this approach of incentives compared to the plentiful short-sighted crying to nullify the effects of population differences.

I also think that repair costs should fluctuate based on pop.

Talk abouth being short-sighted, this improves nothing at all…. the reality of the situation is that the anvil player wont be able to kill anyone and at most do an event witch he could better do in a pve map cos its just pve. so u turn a pvp in to a nasty pve map were you probly get killed even bevore you can finnish your event for karma witch you have many wayes to get already.

the idea is not bad but not a solution by far. equilizing the force income is better and fair becouse battle wil be determent by skill and not numbers. if you dont think thats fair than you just went fullykitten q.

TSMTB.3254:

Talk abouth being short-sighted, this improves nothing at all…. the reality of the situation is that the anvil player wont be able to kill anyone and at most do an event witch he could better do in a pve map cos its just pve. so u turn a pvp in to a nasty pve map were you probly get killed even bevore you can finnish your event for karma witch you have many wayes to get already.

the idea is not bad but not a solution by far. equilizing the force income is better and fair becouse battle wil be determent by skill and not numbers. if you dont think thats fair than you just went fullykitten q.

Well, the reward can be anything, money, tokens for something, karma, all of the above. It just needs to be worthwhile so that one Anvil player thinks, “Sweet! Even if all I’m doing is harassing undefended NPCs, at least I’m getting a lot out of it.”

If the WvW menu shows the current population and reward distribution, it would also encourage other people to hop on. So even if that Anvil player can do nothing, that’s not the point – the point is to make it really attractive for an additional Anvil player to join in right now.

WvW is supposed to be as accessible as possible, so trying to prevent players from joining just because the other side doesn’t have enough players is not a solution. Server queues are an unavoidable reality due to real limits on hardware, but they shouldn’t be imposed when not absolutely necessary.

Just adding population caps to the battlegrounds would fix that without any need for odd rewards and incentive population to spread through servers to boot, since the servers with awful amounts of PvPers would have much longer queues than the servers with either less people or less PvPers.

It’s already been explained why population caps aren’t an acceptable solution. In my example, would you suggest that 299 Yak players and 99 Darkhaven players get booted out, just to make things fair for that Anvil player?

It can’t work.

You just stop allowing new players from Yak and Darkhaven while the third server has a very low population. Population imbalances are impossible to code around and still making game fun – Blizzard tried it a few years ago with Wintergrasp in WotLK and they ended up making the match a closed one precisely because no matter how much they buffed the side with few players the match was always won by the group with the most population. It just isn’t practical to have a battleground zone where population isn’t at all controlled.

wel it would be sweet and a nice motivator id agree, and im not saying to ban people from the map al together. i do believe that doing something like giving underpopulated sides a higher place in the qeu. lets say 2 player of anvil for 1 of yak and just keep darkh same would also help. there are enough maps to keep buisy for playing instead of al going to one map and filling it with one side.

for me being 1 agains 10 isnt fun but being 10 against 1 isnt fun eather. i persony love the batles that last long and take a hard fight, but a fight not a slaughter.