Guild Wars 2

People want “3-Faction” and “3-Server” over “2-Faction” and “2-Server” because we assume 3-server would be more balanced after taking examples from games such as DAoC and PlanetSide. But obviously we have seen terrible balance in almost all the tiers in GW2.

In hindsight, would 2 servers facing each other be better for GW2? Was taking ideas from other games a bad idea in this case?

For example, would it have been a better matchup this week if Blackgate faced SoR in one matchup and JQ faced TC in another matchup?

http://mos.millenium.org/na

3 servers vs 2 is a high level design decision that mostly involves flavor, not balance

the problems arise downstream near the customers with the lack of incentive to do anything but stack a single server or match

Without Anet manipulation people naturally gravitate to the strongest servers in order to win.

They need to start encouraging people to spread out over the tiers without taking population into account because PvE population is completely irrelevant. You can always guest. For example it should be free to move to mid-low tier silver for gold leaguers, regardless of populations.

They do need to play about with how exactly scores and rewards are determined. Give people a huge chunk more reward for targeting the top dog, for example, and the “2servers jump on topdog” might actually happen. Really depends on which demographic you’re going for, though; the fight-people or the casuals.

the problem is that ANet basically created a game with 2 opposing rules

1) 3-faction
2) ppt

the raison d’etre for 3 factions was so the weaker 2 could arrange truces of sorts, band up against the stronger one and beat on it till the power levels were similar

short matches make this largely irrelevant, people wont bother with something as difficult as starting talks and forging an alliance when in a few days the match will be over and forgotten.
the short matches also prevent from having some of the good drama that invariably accompanied (and made interesting) 3-faction games, where today’s ally would backstab you tomorrow, etc etc…

last but not least, the ppt mechanic makes alliances largely unviable. for the second server, it makes far more sense beating on the weaker one to get more points/rating than allying with it.

basically ANet made a 3 faction game just because DAOC did it too, but completly failing to understand the reasons behind it.

Not a balance issue. Rather, there is pretty much no incentive to double team the strong server. Rankings are determined by your ppt performance so you beat up on whoever you can to get as much points as you can.

Perhaps they should have had the rankings based on points where:

1st place —> 10 pts
2nd place —> 3 pts
3rd place —> 2 pts

or something like that, where there is great incentive to win the week. (Maybe even 2nd and 3rd place get the same number of pts).

Konrad Curze.5130:

the raison d’etre for 3 factions was so the weaker 2 could arrange truces of sorts, band up against the stronger one and beat on it till the power levels were similar

last but not least, the ppt mechanic makes alliances largely unviable. for the second server, it makes far more sense beating on the weaker one to get more points/rating than allying with it.

basically ANet made a 3 faction game just because DAOC did it too, but completly failing to understand the reasons behind it.

Agreed with your post 100%, but this all seems like common sense. How could ANet just miss this? Seems like such a terrible design.

Based on the current design, 3-factions is irrelevant. Two factions fighting each other would have been better. There is zero incentive to gang up and fight the stronger party.

3 – way is much better than 2 – way.

See DaoC vs WAR/SwToR.

Now, the issue is that Anet didn’t even move a finger to stop overstacking of certain servers, made a mode based totally on coverage and changed the matchmaking for the worse with RNG elements, so you rarely see situations where the 3 – way flavour of WvW can shine.

In other words: 3 way isn’t working much in Gw2 due Anet incompetent WvW team, the design itself is fine.

WvWvW’s 3 server system fails because the way WvW scores, the weakest servers is effectively the ‘rally bait’ for the middle server. Add that there is no in-game support for alliances between servers and players from the other two servers are virtually indistinguishable in combat (identical colored tags), and the potential of the 3 sever system never gets realised.

Solutions:

1. Change the scoring system to reward taking on the stronger server
2. Make the enemy tags for the two opposing servers different colors

Xcom.1926:

People want “3-Faction” and “3-Server” over “2-Faction” and “2-Server” because we assume 3-server would be more balanced after taking examples from games such as DAoC and PlanetSide. But obviously we have seen terrible balance in almost all the tiers in GW2.

Great post!

I agree – the vocal cry babies and whiners who complained endlessly when Warhammer Online only had 2-factions rather than 3 have fallen silent about the failure of GW2’s 3-faction WvW to tackle the issue.

It’s obvious that there needs to be an auto-Alliance mechanic. To make it work, they could introduce NPC Generals/Leaders who automatically negotiate an alliance between the two losing sides when they get battered to a certain extent. Not that this in itself is enough to fix the issue, but it’s a start – and you can hang other mechanics off it.

3 Faction warfare is better and more balanced because a stronger force should have a harder time keeping hold of everything it has acquired.

Unfortunately this isn’t the case in GW2 for two reasons.

1. Map size – like many other WvW issues the tiny map size is at the heart of many WvW issues in GW2. Defending 4 keeps isn’t significantly more difficult than defending one as there is typically only one point of friction on every map.

You only need 2 minutes to get almost anywhere on the map so there’s no real disadvantage to holding lots of land.

Compare that to ESO’s WvW zone that will take roughly 30 minutes to traverse then you can imagine that holding lots of land will naturally become more difficult.

2. The score system – As others pointed out, the score system doesn’t encourage you to face opposition. In fact it does the opposite. Ganging up on the weaker server is actually more beneficial as point per tick is all that matters.

Three servers work, but only if players let it. Unfortunately in GW2 many players are stupid and added a big stigma to double teaming, so instead of it letting three servers work to our advantage we enjoyed many unnecessary blow outs.

As Dee Jay pointed out the score system is also a problem, but given it didn’t improve when most of the sub tiers stopped caring about PPT I still lean towards the players are stupid view.

AndrewSX.3794:

3 – way is much better than 2 – way.

See DaoC vs WAR/SwToR.

Except not in GW2. And GW2 is the game we are playing. Old games mean nothing to what happens here.

There a ton of great matchups you could have with 2 servers head to head via the ratings. But it is very hard to have a great fight with 3 teams. And more than not when you do get 2 teams in a match that are even, the third team is wildly weaker or stronger which actually ruins the match, based on who they decide to focus on more.

3 Faction warfare in this game has been an utter failure. It’s more of a harm than good actually.

Ideas have been suggested to Anet on how to encourage 2v1 vs the top team to bring about natural balance, without the unrealistic dream of every server evening out in population. But so far, it seems there is no action and no one listening on this front.

Pendragon.8735:

AndrewSX.3794:

3 – way is much better than 2 – way.

See DaoC vs WAR/SwToR.

Except not in GW2.

And i told ya why.

AndrewSX.3794:

Pendragon.8735:

AndrewSX.3794:

3 – way is much better than 2 – way.

See DaoC vs WAR/SwToR.

Except not in GW2.

And i told ya why.

So ultimately you agree, 3 team does not work in GW2.

I disagree with your analysis anyway, even in closer fights, they dynamics still don’t encourage going after the top dog. Even in close fights you still always get a fight for 2nd place between the last two teams, with the top team determining who gets that 2nd place, by who they decide to focus on more.

The only way to make 3 faction work in this game is to make it more rewarding (via more points, more loot, more rewards, etc) to hit the assets of the team with the most points. And this can easily be done by making assets accrue in value the longer they are held.

It’s simple risk vs reward. And right now higher reward and less risk is always attacking the weakest team.

Anet already had a 2 faction system in GW1. When I played GW1 the few years before GW2 came out, the Luxon-Kurzick border was almost always in Kurzick territory. I can only remember a few times where the border was in Luxon territory.

The 3 team could work better if Anet ever had the stones to put in a system that equalized the sides 24/7 but since they have no desire to alienate any one player, we’re stuck with night capping STILL being an issue one year later.

Pendragon.8735:

AndrewSX.3794:

Pendragon.8735:

AndrewSX.3794:

3 – way is much better than 2 – way.

See DaoC vs WAR/SwToR.

Except not in GW2.

And i told ya why.

So ultimately you agree, 3 team does not work in GW2.

Well, one thing is saying that 3 – way server pvp doesn’t help with balance, that’s what i’ve read in the OP. Which, as proven by past MMOs, is false.

Another thing is saying that the 3 – way server pvp isn’t working in terms of balancing Gw2 WvW. And, just taking a look at the trends of scores on mos, anybody can agree with this.

3 servers is much much (x1 million) better than 2 server. WvW has survived this long for a reason. They need to tweak it however.

They tried to copy DAOC geography, but they missed an important detail. The enemy factions should come into closer conflict on entering a foreign borderland, the first keep should cause direct conflict. As it is 2 servers can easily eat up another server and barely have to fight.

It really comes down to the mechanics of the existing mode. 2 faction systems are notoriously imbalanced as when the other side begins to gain a lead it snow balls; losing side quits or swaps sides and the winning side gets over populated. Simple as that.

3 faction systems only work when it’s in the middle or losing side’s best interest to attack the winning side. But as it stands it’s either a free-for-all or you just attack the side the winning side is also attacking.

Just need to redo the scoring system is all. Bring back the old orb mechanic but no stupid buff mechanic. You grab the orb, you put the orb on the altar, you accrue “war score” points (or what the &#$@ ever they’re called) for as long as you hold it. All other capture points (keeps, sentries, camps, towers, the castle) would only award points at the point of capture, and not for as long as you hold them. To counter the disincentive to defend each successful defend event competed would award points based on the point being defended, I.E. defending a camp might be worth 1 war score point but defending Stonemist might be worth 10.

This way winning the match means capturing the orbs that would grant like 150 points per tick for as long as you can hold them. You losing? Wanna win? Attack the side hoarding the orbs. Crappy meta problem solved.

This “oh the orb mechanic was to easy to hack” excuse is bull $&#@. ANet makes online massively multiplayer games for a living, it’s their job to develop necessary asset protection in their design to ensure the entertainment product provides the end user with the intended game experience. Stating they can’t do it is admission they suck at their job.