With the current setup, the least populated server in a skirmish tends to get run over by the other two servers. It is simply easier to beat up “the little guy” and the rewards are easier to attain.
What if attacking the most populated server for a skirmish that has the highest score yielded substantially higher bonuses to the less populated servers? What if paper objectives rewards were cut in half and higher tier structure rewards were significantly higher?
I know it won’t solve the grossly lopsided fights but it might take some pressure off servers just trying to get by during that time.
I like this idea. Anet has tried to encourage it with skirmishes, but it’s status quo.
What would be the ideal motivator? Don’t say loot, that’s always just a short term fix and borks the game economy.
It would have to motivate roamers and zergs to target the bigger server. Maybe extra wxp from attacking the larger server or extra point per stomp against the larger server. The worst idea would be to add some type of pip reward for targeting the larger server. A-net could make a pip reward for flipping upgraded objectives with an extra pips for flipping the larger servers upgraded objective.
During the BG double team the main goal of that was to change the fix match. During the start of that tournament TC was going to get 2nd, BG 1st and JQ 3rd. That was just how the match-ups were decided at the start of the tournament. Because of BG overstacking some TC commanders decide to change that. 3rd match of the tournament that was when TC convinced enough JQ commanders to focus on BG. Dozen matches later, the final match was TC vs JQ for 1st or 2nd but TC could not overcome the SEA of JQ. The main motivation of the double team was to prevent BG from getting 1st.
I doubt any server would care that much about placement now. The new 1 up 1 down system will probably make wvw feel like it was at the start of GW2 with very random matches. With one server getting stomped or being bored.
(edited by Ulion.5476)
I wouldnt recommend even trying to imagine something like this. When it comes to WvW, every day is opposite day at the Anet office. Community want lower AC damage? Anet buffs AC damage. Community want to balance class X because its OP and class Y because its weak? Anet buffs class X and nerf class Y. Community want something usefull instead of Quaggans? Anet introduce bloodlust at so mindboggingly OP levels it leave people in chock – and then they repeat it with the laser on DBL. Community want more balanced scoring? Anet introduce tier based PPT that only empower the strong. Etc and so on.
This suggestion will probably only lead to score bonuses against the weakest server.
The “little guy” is probably getting the outmanned pip bonus way more than the “big guy”, fwiw. Maybe that’s reward enough?
Op isn’t specific enough to say yay or nay too tbh. Incentive to get the losing team to attack the first place team…..makes sense.
But you would also need to get the 2nd place team to attack the winning team as well.
And what are those incentives that you should use though? Should they be incentives to increase the PPT, or incentives to increase the loot? Or both? Becomes a case of whether people are playing the game for the game or the game for the looot….kinda sad we have come to that point.
We HAD a great system that promoted this. The 0-0-1 scoring was great (1-1-2 they promoted it as). You had enough of the heavy weight zergs not liking it though cause it made their primetime feel less special (ur primetime isn’t special now either u fools)…..and anet listens to their specific test zergs so that became that.
SOlution could be something simple like: killing players from the winning skirmish grants 3 x as many ppk, killing them from teh 2nd place doesn’t give extrapoints, and killing from teh last place doens’t give extra points. This would make people attack those from the winning server more than the last place one. Would enable the ganging effect and keep the game balanced. People would naturally ppt the winning server as well cause of the pip system….no reason this can’t be implemented into the game immediately for testing. Extra pips could be awarded as well for capping the winning teeams objectives in some circumstances (1 extra for yak/camp, 2 for tower, 3 for keep, 4 for smc or something….sentries arent an accomplishment so dont give me that)
(edited by Cerby.1069)
This thread is full of great suggestions to one of the oldest and most persistent problems to plague WvW (Here are some of my thoughts on the subject; 1 2 3).
It’s wonderful to see more players recognise it.
This would make people attack those from the winning server more than the last place one.
Would the last place server’s commander keep throwing his/her lootbags at the roflstomping server for the promise of points? In all likelihood they wouldn’t collect these points anyway because they wouldn’t be able to achieve their goal because the dominant side is … the dominant side.
This is why I have developed the opinion that dynamic handicapping is the only way to achieve a semblance of balance (see my previous posts labelled 1,2 and 3 above). But it would require measuring “who is leading/losing at any one time”.
Which brings me to the question of how do you propose they measure who is leading at any one time? They’ve been unwilling or unable to create this metric thus far.
What I would like to see is that the 2nd place server in a match has a significant reason to target the 1st place server rather than the 3rd place server.
Currently whoever the 1st place server targets frequently gets double teamed. This in turn causes said server’s players to get frustrated and often log out or just ignore any kind of defense.
If a server is winning and has the highest population during a skirmish, attacking them should pay big dividends since it isn’t easy to beat numbers. This might help make the game play a bit more dynamic. Currently it is just run over or get run over in most matches.
You could give the highest score server some kind of benefit that would convince the lower score server to target them to remove said benefit. Or you could give the lowest score some kind of benefit to make them more able to compete.
I sort of like the idea of making the winning server’s objectives worth more points to capture, as a small baby step.
I sort of like the idea of making the winning server’s objectives worth more points to capture, as a small baby step.
I agree that there needs to be incentive, but I would argue that points aren’t an incentive.
At this stage, however, I’m delighted with everything we get – whether it helps or not.
Two things that come into mind immediately:
1. Time spend on the top server’s BL adds a pip bonus to the other servers’ players.
2. Remove the pip bonus for the 2nd and 3rd place server. This will increase the incentive to attack the top server.
More reason to doubleteam the #1? Greaaat idea.
More reason to doubleteam the #1? Greaaat idea.
What? It’s the way the game is supposed to be played so there’s a rotation of the #1 spot, which engages the playerbase.
ill that ic is the top 2 servers ktrainning the smaller one… easy ktrain.
More reason to doubleteam the #1? Greaaat idea.
What? It’s the way the game is supposed to be played so there’s a rotation of the #1 spot, which engages the playerbase.
The game isnt supposed to be played to double team the number1 server all day,where do you even get that idea from ?
More reason to doubleteam the #1? Greaaat idea.
What? It’s the way the game is supposed to be played so there’s a rotation of the #1 spot, which engages the playerbase.
The game isnt supposed to be played to double team the number1 server all day,where do you even get that idea from ?
3 teams.. there’s always a double team going on, that’s the whole reason for 3 teams in the first place instead of 2. But the way it’s been implemented in gw2 was pretty stupid as all they did was made it easier for winning teams to stomp on lower teams, hi stacked server, and even encouraged 1st and 2nd to beat on 3rd for points.
You think top servers are suppose to have no pressure and just roll their opponents? well congratulations, that’s what’s happened in wvw from day one because there’s no reason for 2nd or 3rd to go after 1st, and population numbers and coverage imbalances made it worse. It’s like some of you just want 4 maps to ktrain to yourselves all day long.
More reason to doubleteam the #1? Greaaat idea.
What? It’s the way the game is supposed to be played so there’s a rotation of the #1 spot, which engages the playerbase.
The game isnt supposed to be played to double team the number1 server all day,where do you even get that idea from ?
If you’re the number one server, you earn it by fending off attacks from BOTH opponents; thereby cementing your dominance.
If you can’t fend off attacks by both your opponents, you fall in rank and it rotates up to the next server to try to fend of dual attacks.
As the fellow above me said: Do you expect people to just let you stay on top without earning it?
I absolutely agreee putting an incentive to attack the highest ranking server in the current skirmish (wxp, points to capture… as proposed earlier).
It would help correcting the imbalance / overpowerment that an underpopulated server has to face.
This is often a reason for players of said server to become frustrated, leaving the game mode, thus making it worse and harder for the remaining players. I also think that in the end it would make things for the higher ranked server more interesting as well. I find the game boring if you dont have enough people but as well if you just train and easily overroll anyone and everything.
Absolutely worth a try! I would be delighted
More reason to doubleteam the #1? Greaaat idea.
What? It’s the way the game is supposed to be played so there’s a rotation of the #1 spot, which engages the playerbase.
The game isnt supposed to be played to double team the number1 server all day,where do you even get that idea from ?
If you’re the number one server, you earn it by fending off attacks from BOTH opponents; thereby cementing your dominance.
If you can’t fend off attacks by both your opponents, you fall in rank and it rotates up to the next server to try to fend of dual attacks.
As the fellow above me said: Do you expect people to just let you stay on top without earning it?
I really like this explanation. I definitely support incentives for attacking (or even double teaming) the top server. Matchups should be close and 1st place ideally should shift throughout the week. This will help to make matchups more enjoyable.
I like this idea. Anet has tried to encourage it with skirmishes, but it’s status quo.
What would be the ideal motivator? Don’t say loot, that’s always just a short term fix and borks the game economy.
It feels a band aid in a system that gets broken to easy :\, since the core issues are still there.
I do like the idea as well, but that alone wont make wvw better :\, ANet already thinks that giving faster rewards for low pop servers is already an amazing thing :\
I think this might conflict in what ANet wants to rewards the players.
(edited by Aeolus.3615)
I never played DAoC, but it’s been mentioned countless times on these forums. From what I’ve been able to gather, the top server gained access to a dungeon that was the best farming spot for top tier mats. That’s what gave the other two servers the incentive to team up and target the top server. Something like that, that gave access to ascended mats, would help on multiple fronts. It would be the check and balance that’s been needed since launch, and would also bring a steady influx of new players in as well. It doesn’t need to necessarily be identical. Even if it’s just a merchant that sells ascended gear for half the normal prices, that’s pretty good incentive. Or, even, the top server could get a 50% discount from the skirmish vendor. I’d say to add a few more hoops to jump through for that, though.
Something like, top score in the skirmish, holds bloodlust on their home BL, and has their garrison t3 and holds SM to get the discount/special vendor. Just kinda spitballing jumping off points here, though.
(edited by Phantom.8130)
You should try ArchAge then Phantom. That’s what they did. I’m not sure how successful/not it was; I tried the game but it wasn’t for me, and left as they were introducing this bit.
I tried AA. The rampant botting pretty much killed any chance that game had. The labor points, grinding and P2W elements just sort of lit the corpse on fire. And nerfing the cannons on the ships, resulting in the fishing boats being the dominant PvP ship just sorta desecrated on the ashes.
The whole “Elven girls wear thongs” part was nice, though…..
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.