The current WvW game type is flawed. The meta is a blob, the feared map zerg of frame rate destruction. Floating between borderlands to try and hold what you have in your servers less active time zones has become the norm. The fabled “2v1” – constant whining within the match up forums, claims of collusion and server politics… foul play.. idiocy.
WvW has become a chore. Guilds, real people, are putting in stupid hours to try and ‘win’ because one server is able to create an unshakable foothold due to a stronger presence in a particular time zone. Forced to place scouts at objectives for hours. “Ahhh, I just love standing atop this cliff at cragtop and watching for invaders!” – Said no one ever.
B-b-but learn to recruit! Sure, lets force us to coerce players and guilds into leaving their home server to come join our server so our match up is more competitive, with zero regard to their home server. Sounds like a fantastic idea. Not.
I’m proposing, in a sense, that borderlands be transitioned into 1v1 battles, as opposed to 1v1v1. Hear me out.
Borderland 1 – Server A vs Server B
Borderland 2 – Server B vs Server C
Borderland 3 – Server A vs Server C
The two existing invaders waypoints south of Bay and Hills become the two servers start points. Bay favours one, Hills the other. Garrison becomes neutral. The northeast and northwest towers again, slightly favour one over the other.
B-b-but what about Citadel? How does that factor in? When server A is dominant and holds garrison for x time period, (i.e. held garrison for 5 hours) the opposition server gains access to the citadel waypoint. This gives them a temporary handicap, and if they are successful in capturing garrison, the citadel waypoint once again becomes inaccessible to both servers. If that server then holds the garrison for an extended period, the same event occurs.
Also ArenaNet has the opportunity to give the weaker of the three servers the opportunity to start from the easier side, hills. Hills is far easier to defend and keep than Bay, so it would make sense that the weaker server potentially have the hills side against both the other two servers, pending on match up imbalance.
Eternal Battlegrounds? What of it? Its perfect the way it is. The perfect map for a 1v1v1. Therefore we have three 1v1 match ups where all three servers face each other, and EB for 1v1v1 aspect.
Unfortunately there is no real way to offset the map zerg blob until ArenaNet creates systems that better encourage alternative activities, or discourage it. I.e. a radial debuff when over 40 players are within x radius of each other. Who knows.