Guild Wars 2

I’ve only been playing a year but this imbalance in WvW is getting on my nerves. It’s always 2 servers vs. 1. It’s never a fair fight. I realize that in this game there is no perfect scenario for a “fair” fight. But if WvW could be limited to 2 and only 2 servers I would think that this would bring about a more level playing field. It is unrealistic to think that having 3 servers compete would not encourage an alliance between 2 of the servers – it’s obviously logical. Discouragement of an alliance is a first step to rectifying the imbalance we now have on many servers.

I feel a 1v1 matchup every week would be incredibly boring. It would take away what suspense and strategy still remain in WvW. All you’d have to do is build a larger blob and run over the opposing blob knowing that there is no third blob that can run amok elsewhere. There would still be an imbalance. One server will have more players and more coverage and that server would still crush the lesser server.

Actually, the 1v1 faction system was implemented in other games before and found incredibly unbalanced (Warhammer anyone). A 3 faction system was far more balanced as it theoretically allowed a 2v1 on the stronger server, or even if there’s no 2v1, it allows the weaker 2 servers to gain ground back while the stronger server switches between targets to try maximise their points. Again, theoretically speaking.

Unfortunately, GW2 players are a bunch of casual carebears that would rather karma train than fight it out, so that’s why WvW is so, SO terribly unbalanced. As soon as a server is struggling, people bail. Each NA server has enough people to queue all 4 maps during NA prime, but only the top 6 servers can manage it, and only then, during reset. The WvW map limitations are tiny compared to the population this game has, so why can’t the maps be filled?

1v1v1 works better on a map designed like Eternal Battlegrounds. Each get a keep and fight over castle and their corner. The borderland maps on the other hand not so much.

The new map promises chokes to somewhat control the flow of map traffic, which should help when your home BL is getting double-teamed.

Elizabeth Reed.9173:

I’ve only been playing a year but this imbalance in WvW is getting on my nerves. It’s always 2 servers vs. 1. It’s never a fair fight. I realize that in this game there is no perfect scenario for a “fair” fight. But if WvW could be limited to 2 and only 2 servers I would think that this would bring about a more level playing field. It is unrealistic to think that having 3 servers compete would not encourage an alliance between 2 of the servers – it’s obviously logical. Discouragement of an alliance is a first step to rectifying the imbalance we now have on many servers.

Blobing tactic detected! Blobing tactic detected! Tbh it is supposed to have 1 server vs 2 it is what tactic is. Also i don’t think they had some deal, they just saw ur server busy with other so they jumped in to cap something when all ur players blobed at 1 place.

Often fights are unfair because enemy use some lamer specs and 80% blob players are warriors and guardians. It’s like 1 vs 1 fights. I often lose because i don’t have any condi removal or stunbreakers and lamer enemy use conditions and stuns.

The imbalances just ruin the game if you are a server vs server holic. So, @Elizabeth Reed, I feel your pain and so does my whole server. I honestly like the 3 way battles, but when a server always has a 4 to 1 ratio in people compared to you, 24 hours a day, it totally ruins the game experience. I am just hoping that future server v server maps have a balancing system in place. Numbers win battles folks the end.

Boysenberry.1869:

I feel a 1v1 matchup every week would be incredibly boring. It would take away what suspense and strategy still remain in WvW. All you’d have to do is build a larger blob and run over the opposing blob knowing that there is no third blob that can run amok elsewhere. There would still be an imbalance. One server will have more players and more coverage and that server would still crush the lesser server.

^Pretty much hit the nail on the head there on that idea. Unless there was a total rework on the whole mode. Which would be crazy amounts of work for Anet.
There are a lot of great ideas in a great many threads in all gw2 WvW sub-forums on ways to help all the major problems with WvW. Some wouldn’t take a lot of work. Most ideas are just frustrated players on a server with mostly pve & pvp players and kind of want a “free” equalizer without trying to put work in on their end like recruiting in various ways or there’s Others who “buy” whole WvW guilds(which doesn’t help this whole unbalanced issue OP is concerned about). Maybe HoT has some surprises to shake things up a bit I keed I keed.

I feel like all these postings always end up skirting the actual issue that human nature is what causes a lot of upsets.

Reverence.6915:

Actually, the 1v1 faction system was implemented in other games before and found incredibly unbalanced (Warhammer anyone). A 3 faction system was far more balanced as it theoretically allowed a 2v1 on the stronger server, or even if there’s no 2v1, it allows the weaker 2 servers to gain ground back while the stronger server switches between targets to try maximise their points. Again, theoretically speaking.

Unfortunately, GW2 players are a bunch of casual carebears that would rather karma train than fight it out, so that’s why WvW is so, SO terribly unbalanced. As soon as a server is struggling, people bail. Each NA server has enough people to queue all 4 maps during NA prime, but only the top 6 servers can manage it, and only then, during reset. The WvW map limitations are tiny compared to the population this game has, so why can’t the maps be filled?

Warhammer was miserable. You could only go to the field that was currently contested, and because the battles were strictly between the two factions on your server you were always fighting the same people.

Predictably, this led to there always being a faction on a given server and PvD was so rampant that the game gained the moniker of “Doorhammer”.

This wouldn’t necessarily be the case if it went to 1v1 here because the server you fight against changes every week, but I imagine that all the serious WvW players would flock to a couple servers and it would become a worse version of the Ktrains we have now unless the top servers only played each other.

That being said, no I don’t want a 1v1 system. I like having the 3 ways we do now despite its imperfections. It definitely could be better and they need to give incentives to defense so we can stop PvD, but there are still some fun battles to be had and roaming is still enjoyable to me.

Reverence.6915:

Actually, the 1v1 faction system was implemented in other games before and found incredibly unbalanced (Warhammer anyone). A 3 faction system was far more balanced as it theoretically allowed a 2v1 on the stronger server, or even if there’s no 2v1, it allows the weaker 2 servers to gain ground back while the stronger server switches between targets to try maximise their points. Again, theoretically speaking.

Unfortunately, GW2 players are a bunch of casual carebears that would rather karma train than fight it out, so that’s why WvW is so, SO terribly unbalanced. As soon as a server is struggling, people bail. Each NA server has enough people to queue all 4 maps during NA prime, but only the top 6 servers can manage it, and only then, during reset. The WvW map limitations are tiny compared to the population this game has, so why can’t the maps be filled?

Well if I were to ask myself “Why bother with WvWvW?” I can see why the population is dwindling. What determines a winner is laughable and the rewards are equally (and rightfully) bad, that alone will send people running and will get worse as the game ages. Even going achievement and skin hunting in WvWvW is unreasonable unless a season is active (which creates a whole host of other issues). Maybe someone just likes the combat but not the 10 second skill lag because of that SMC fight or the unplayable fps or the carefree hackers or hollow/unattainable victories and all of the other pitfalls of an arguably neglected coverage vs coverage vs coverage mode. Now with map completion gone there is zero incentive to come here much less stay. It’s just not sustainable.

Warhammer was miserable. You could only go to the field that was currently contested, and because the battles were strictly between the two factions on your server you were always fighting the same people.

Predictably, this led to there always being a faction on a given server and PvD was so rampant that the game gained the moniker of “Doorhammer”.

This wouldn’t necessarily be the case if it went to 1v1 here because the server you fight against changes every week, but I imagine that all the serious WvW players would flock to a couple servers and it would become a worse version of the Ktrains we have now unless the top servers only played each other.

That being said, no I don’t want a 1v1 system. I like having the 3 ways we do now despite its imperfections. It definitely could be better and they need to give incentives to defense so we can stop PvD, but there are still some fun battles to be had and roaming is still enjoyable to me.

Warhammer was also hampered by certain individuals who deliberately stacked one side (chaos) with all the players so they could do their version of k-train every night. That said I do agree with your statement that 3 ways despite its imperfections is better than 1 v 1. If ANet would give the incentives and a better way to defend – a much better way – then I think some of the on-going issues could be resolved.

Now a 1v1v1v1v1 map would make things interesting!

Just remove server transfers altogether. The PVE crowd won’t miss them since they have the megaserver anyways. If you can’t transfer out, then you can either create a new account somewhere else and suffer what pains go along with that, or put in the effort to resolve your server’s problems.

Of course then they couldn’t sell gems for people wanting to get on the latest bandwagon server, so obviously that’s out.

msalakka.4653:

Just remove server transfers altogether.

My opinion as well. But I’d not only like server transfers to go, but servers aswell, because they are not in the situation they originally were and it serves no purpose to have WvWvW. AvAvA is the better option.

Orochimaru.4730:

Now a 1v1v1v1v1 map would make things interesting!

I kind of agree… but it would be hard to have that many players on one map. The game is so laggy in WvW atm, so either they’d need to make the population cap 30-40 per side then, or we’d need completely new maps and better optimised servers.

msalakka.4653:

Just remove server transfers altogether. The PVE crowd won’t miss them since they have the megaserver anyways. If you can’t transfer out, then you can either create a new account somewhere else and suffer what pains go along with that, or put in the effort to resolve your server’s problems.

Of course then they couldn’t sell gems for people wanting to get on the latest bandwagon server, so obviously that’s out.

Ye but what when server die? Or queues get ridiculous? Ppl would like to transfer then

Kasteros.9847:

msalakka.4653:

Just remove server transfers altogether. The PVE crowd won’t miss them since they have the megaserver anyways. If you can’t transfer out, then you can either create a new account somewhere else and suffer what pains go along with that, or put in the effort to resolve your server’s problems.

Of course then they couldn’t sell gems for people wanting to get on the latest bandwagon server, so obviously that’s out.

Ye but what when server die? Or queues get ridiculous? Ppl would like to transfer then

As unpopular as the very notion may be, this is why MMOs have had server mergers since time immemorial. Because servers do die, as they should, as the game’s – or game mode’s – popularity dwindles.

We’re in gold and there are nights when we don’t have pugmander one on our home border in all evening, and we struggle to keep 15 reds from resetting the whole border because we don’t have defenders. Yet there’s a queue. I think it’s partially because of Anet in their infinite wisdom shoving PvE dailies bs into WvW, which means we got 2 guys defending and 8 recapping, and all ruins are manned while we lose keeps. The other probable reason is that they’ve lowered map caps to correspond with the fact that they needed server muscle for China and eSports and took them from WvW.

msalakka.4653:

Kasteros.9847:

msalakka.4653:

Just remove server transfers altogether. The PVE crowd won’t miss them since they have the megaserver anyways. If you can’t transfer out, then you can either create a new account somewhere else and suffer what pains go along with that, or put in the effort to resolve your server’s problems.

Of course then they couldn’t sell gems for people wanting to get on the latest bandwagon server, so obviously that’s out.

Ye but what when server die? Or queues get ridiculous? Ppl would like to transfer then

As unpopular as the very notion may be, this is why MMOs have had server mergers since time immemorial. Because servers do die, as they should, as the game’s – or game mode’s – popularity dwindles.

We’re in gold and there are nights when we don’t have pugmander one on our home border in all evening, and we struggle to keep 15 reds from resetting the whole border because we don’t have defenders. Yet there’s a queue. I think it’s partially because of Anet in their infinite wisdom shoving PvE dailies bs into WvW, which means we got 2 guys defending and 8 recapping, and all ruins are manned while we lose keeps. The other probable reason is that they’ve lowered map caps to correspond with the fact that they needed server muscle for China and eSports and took them from WvW.

Ye I’m in gold too, Deso, and here if we don’t have comm he is just stuck in queue or no1 want to lead. The other reason why u might not have comm with queue are guilds But it is also anet’s side problem cos they didn’t provide gvg arena / map so guilds raid at borders and fight eachother there so no spots left for defenders( atm cos of all changes it is like 70-80 spots).

Merge servers it is nice idea, but u miss something: EU. What is such sepecial about EU? 7 German servers, 5 French servers, 1 Spanish server and 14 English speaking servers. How u want to merge them? Also if it is about merging it should be like 6:6:6 – due to tournaments, so from 24 to 18, this would bring some queues and totally unbalance servers.

Kasteros.9847:

Merge servers it is nice idea, but u miss something: EU. What is such sepecial about EU? 7 German servers, 5 French servers, 1 Spanish server and 14 English speaking servers. How u want to merge them? Also if it is about merging it should be like 6:6:6 – due to tournaments, so from 24 to 18, this would bring some queues and totally unbalance servers.

That’s a good point about the DE/FR/SP servers.