Guild Wars 2

Games that focus on large scale PvP conflicts like to focus on three-way warfare for a good reason.

In theory having three factions battle it out creates a natural balance.

The stronger faction expands faster, captures more territory and needs more resources to maintain it. They will be encountered and thus fought more often while fights between the two smaller realms are rarer.

Map design also caters to this natural balance as the more the dominant faction expands, the further it is from its respawn location and the more difficult it becomes to hold it. The EotM or Eternal Battlegrounds are a good example of this except for the fact that they are incredibly small.

However for a few reasons this doesn’t work in Guild Wars 2.

1. As mentioned, maps are too small. The whole theory of holding distant territory barely applies when your map takes less than 3 minutes to traverse. A single zerg can easily cover an entire WvW map without being stretched too thin.

2. Don’t fight if you can’t win. Due to reason #1, a dominant server will typically have more people than a weaker server and this population difference is very difficult to overcome. So in the end you’re better off avoiding the enemy you can’t beat and focus on the one you can. This means you pick on the weaker server, rather than gang up against the stronger.

3. Since Points-Per-Tick is all that matters (worst scoring system ever!) you’re actually encouraged to pick on the weaker guy, rather than gang up on the stronger. Assuming you’re fighting for second place in a matchup, pick on the weaker guy to deny him points and increase your own all that while avoiding the big guy.

Even in the few cases where there is competition for first place you’ll often be better off picking on the weak rather than fighting an uphill battle against a stronger opponent.

So in summery the entire reason to have 3-faction warfare is ruined by this really stupid points-per-tick scoring system. It’s about time it was replaced.

i, and i think many others, agree. this exact analysis has been posted before, probably more than once.

EotM could have been and still can be a testing ground for alternate scoring systems. hopefully Anet recognizes this….

There’ve been quite a few posts of late suggesting changes to the PPT scoring system. It seems to take repeating the same theme several times before it finally catches the devs’ attention. So keep posting until we’re heard.

Chant along with me while we lock arms in protest, swaying side-to-side in front of the virtual corporate headquarters of ArenaNet:

It invalidates skill, can’t you see!
Remove the failure that is PPT!

It rewards PvDoor, don’cha ya know!
This PPT system has to go!

One! Two! Three! Four!
Kick PPT out the door!

Five! Six! Seven! Eight!
ESO is here, but it’s not too late!

Nine! Ten! Eleven! Twelve!
Put PPT back on the shelf!

Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya…

Well, all of these problems have been brought up many times before.

A.net has stated repeatedly that they can’t make bigger maps (although their reasoning behind that decision remains partially unclear), so I don’t think larger maps are a viable idea. You could, however, achieve much of the same effect by having a larger map pool. But that would require the generation of a lot of additional content.

About PPT, it’s not as bad as you think. The idea of being rewarded for holding territory over time is decent enough, the system just needs to reflect who you captured that territory from and how many resources have been invested in it. Both of those are relatively simple fixes that do not require the full scale overhaul many people imagine. But you can go much further if you want of course.

ManaCraft.5630:

Well, all of these problems have been brought up many times before.

A.net has stated repeatedly that they can’t make bigger maps (although their reasoning behind that decision remains partially unclear), so I don’t think larger maps are a viable idea. You could, however, achieve much of the same effect by having a larger map pool. But that would require the generation of a lot of additional content.

About PPT, it’s not as bad as you think. The idea of being rewarded for holding territory over time is decent enough, the system just needs to reflect who you captured that territory from and how many resources have been invested in it. Both of those are relatively simple fixes that do not require the full scale overhaul many people imagine. But you can go much further if you want of course.

I can see both side of the PPT issue. In situations where there really is WvWvW and all 3 worlds are roughly equal in size and time zone coverage and each world spends equal amount of time attack each other world rather than persistently 2vs1, then PPT can actually be balanced. Problem is, players choose not to be balanced and will beat down the weakest world first, and then maybe they will fight it out with each other for 1st. There are no real in-game mechanics to prevent it. I agree with a previous poster that EotM could be used to experiment with different scoring systems and/or ways to better balance the fights.

What that could be I don’t know, but I would like to see some of the community’s ideas tested out. I had some ideas also to maybe introduce some balance, or at least add some twists into WvW when the matchups aren’t so close. For instance, what if mega bosses (dragons) triggered to attack the 1st/2nd place world’s keep/garrison whenever their points lead exceeds a certain threshold over the 2nd and 3rd place? It gives the world under the boss attack a reason to shift focus away from the other worlds to defend their territory. And, if they fail to defeat the boss such that the boss kills the keep lord, this could cause a point deduction from that team’s score. Maybe as much as half of their lead. So if 1st place was 10k points ahead and a boss killed their keep lord, then their lead is cut to 5k. I think it would also be cool if during this boss battle that a random player from an opposing team is given the option to fight as the boss, with all the skills the boss would possess so that now the ‘dragon’ or whatever has a chance for better intelligence over the standard AI. The only stipulation is that the controlling player has to be actively attacking, can’t leave or otherwise be booted from control. Anyway, I’m sure there are many other good ideas out there for adding new ways to balance or at least make WvW more interesting. New maps that rotate weekly would certainly be #1 for me.

As for map sizes, I’m sure that Anet has a good reason for not being able to have larger maps, but what they could do is like what they did with EoTM and have fewer wide open areas and more choke points which limit the mobility of the zergs. They could also have more and better/bigger NPC attacks on camps, keeps and towers requiring players to defend more. Right now, the mercenaries only will attack camps. Why not have them attempt to take other objectives, and geared primarily at the worlds in 1st/2nd depending on the current point total? NPC battles may not present a significant challenge to large zergs, but they would force the zergs to divide their attention more from their opponents, giving the trailing teams more opportunities to catch up. It also gives the zergs something to do when the opposing team isn’t making much of a ‘showing’ in the match.