Guild Wars 2

Enough is enough, the player base has brought this to the attention of the developers thousands of times. It was hotly discussed in the collaborative development thread (which hasn’t gone anywhere) and it continues to be discussed, yet nothing’s been done, or even experimented with.

The current core mechanics in WvW repeatedly punish servers for lacking coverage.

It’s been said thousands of times. When can we expect some news? Some ideas? Some change?

Yes please quit posting the same subject with a different title. Nothing will be done. Go kill some upticks and have fun…

You really want to make a difference? Quit playing the tournament, go to EoTM and play it as intended and wreck the Ktrains. Quit buying Gems. If you continue to doing the same thing in WvW, everything will be Status Quo.

Loosmaster.8263:

Quit buying Gems.

This. A.net seems to be devoting the lion’s share of resources (made from gem purchases or otherwise) to the advancement of other formats anyway, so if you don’t like their priorities, vote with your wallet. As someone who has probably spent enough money in the gem store to buy the game six or seven times over, I for one have no intention of continuing to support their agenda. Incidentally, a.net’s unwillingness to deal with population imbalance in a meaningful way is a big part of the reason for that, but I don’t think it’s surprising given that the player base is obviously divided over the issue, as past debates have shown.

So sick of post’s about this i am from a server that a year ago had players 24/7 not all ways lots but still now we don’t and its not because they have left it’s because they have given up, WvW was a great place to level and loot so more people would be on all the time. Before the megaservers ( i hate them by the way) you would see 100’s of people running around Queensdale on my server just doing that dam Champ train that’s what has taken the balance out of WvW IMO.

Hence my recommendations. They put all effort into Pve. Support is a 2 way street. EoTM was supposed to be WvW but Pve’ers level and Ktrain. Take it back and derail the train and see how much screaming will go on. We need to be proactive if you want positive changes. Whinning here is fruitless!!!

Actually there’s a solution came out this season 2 to deal with insane coverage,
which is 2 v 1 the strongest server.
It proved to be worked in both Gold League and Silver League.
Only flaw is a bunch of whiners will start crying out loud for not getting their candies.

Which silver league servers did that?

Yak’s Bend and Ehmry Bay.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/matchups/Yaks-Bend-Stormbluff-Isle-Ehmry-Bay/first

I thought he’s referring to the current season. That was last season.

Some servers manage quite well with poor coverage. It is what you do with the people that you have that matters. So stop crying and get yourselves organised.

In the past SFR were no.1 as a medium populated server and was outnumbered on all but 2 maps. It still runs a lot of the time outnumbered and it is still no.1. Look at BB… they only have good coverage for a couple of hours per day and they have a good chance to win 2nd position in the tournament.

WvW scoring will be addressed after ANet removes Skyhammer from sPvP.

Dee Jay.2460:

WvW scoring will be addressed after ANet removes Skyhammer from sPvP.

Add a Skyhammer terminal to every keep and tower in WvW. If your team is Outnumbered, you can access it to hit nearby enemy siege for massive damaged. Let PvD’rs do PvD.

Note: I’m on a top tier server that usually wins due to coverage, so I’m not doing T7 QQ. I actually think an active solution is best, as opposed to passive changes like changing PPT rates that unfairly reward servers for not playing outside of “prime time”.

50% less points during night problem solved,karma train scrubs still get there karma but are not the only reason server wins.

Killface.1896:

50% less points during night problem solved,karma train scrubs still get there karma but are not the only reason server wins.

“Yeah curse those people who don’t live in America. Punish these heathens for playing during their own prime time. How dare they log in and play the 24/7 game while Americans sleep.

#MURICA"

/facepalm

thaooo.5320:

Killface.1896:

50% less points during night problem solved,karma train scrubs still get there karma but are not the only reason server wins.

“Yeah curse those people who don’t live in America. Punish these heathens for playing during their own prime time. How dare they log in and play the 24/7 game while Americans sleep.

#MURICA"

/facepalm

Lol, you should not post about things involving mathematics if you aren’t able to execute simple cross-multiplication

in prime-time we have a point/player ratio of 695/1200 (all maps on all server have queue)
in off-time it depends on the server and it’s rank, but I would be surprised to hear that any match has more player than 400 i.e. a 695/400 ratio.
if you cut points by half in off-time you reach
347.5/400 which is still much in favor of the off-time player than 695/1200 for prime-time player.

To summarize for you:
Cutting off-time points by half, reduces discrimination of prime-time player a bit, it’s still far away from discriminating off-time player

Dayra.7405:

thaooo.5320:

Killface.1896:

50% less points during night problem solved,karma train scrubs still get there karma but are not the only reason server wins.

“Yeah curse those people who don’t live in America. Punish these heathens for playing during their own prime time. How dare they log in and play the 24/7 game while Americans sleep.

#MURICA"

/facepalm

Lol, you should not post about things involving mathematics if you aren’t able to execute simple cross-multiplication

in prime-time we have a point/player ratio of 695/1200 (all maps on all server have queue)
in off-time it depends on the server and it’s rank, but I would be surprised to hear that any match has more player than 400 i.e. a 695/400 ratio.
if you cut points by half in off-time you reach
347.5/400 which is still much in favor of the off-time player than 695/1200 for prime-time player.

To summarize for you:
Cutting off-time points by half, reduces discrimination of prime-time player a bit, it’s still far away from discriminating off-time player

I don’t know where you are from but in NA ladder different servers peak at different times. One server may queue 4 maps during NA while another queues 4 maps during SEA, a difference of about half a day. Why should one of those servers be shafted because their player demographic happens to be a certain way?

Dayra.7405:

thaooo.5320:

Killface.1896:

50% less points during night problem solved,karma train scrubs still get there karma but are not the only reason server wins.

“Yeah curse those people who don’t live in America. Punish these heathens for playing during their own prime time. How dare they log in and play the 24/7 game while Americans sleep.

#MURICA"

/facepalm

Lol, you should not post about things involving mathematics if you aren’t able to execute simple cross-multiplication

in prime-time we have a point/player ratio of 695/1200 (all maps on all server have queue)
in off-time it depends on the server and it’s rank, but I would be surprised to hear that any match has more player than 400 i.e. a 695/400 ratio.
if you cut points by half in off-time you reach
347.5/400 which is still much in favor of the off-time player than 695/1200 for prime-time player.

To summarize for you:
Cutting off-time points by half, reduces discrimination of prime-time player a bit, it’s still far away from discriminating off-time player

well then. someone’s taking this a bit too seriously.

ykyk.2740:

Dayra.7405:

thaooo.5320:

Killface.1896:

50% less points during night problem solved,karma train scrubs still get there karma but are not the only reason server wins.

“Yeah curse those people who don’t live in America. Punish these heathens for playing during their own prime time. How dare they log in and play the 24/7 game while Americans sleep.

#MURICA"

/facepalm

Lol, you should not post about things involving mathematics if you aren’t able to execute simple cross-multiplication

in prime-time we have a point/player ratio of 695/1200 (all maps on all server have queue)
in off-time it depends on the server and it’s rank, but I would be surprised to hear that any match has more player than 400 i.e. a 695/400 ratio.
if you cut points by half in off-time you reach
347.5/400 which is still much in favor of the off-time player than 695/1200 for prime-time player.

To summarize for you:
Cutting off-time points by half, reduces discrimination of prime-time player a bit, it’s still far away from discriminating off-time player

I don’t know where you are from but in NA ladder different servers peak at different times. One server may queue 4 maps during NA while another queues 4 maps during SEA, a difference of about half a day. Why should one of those servers be shafted because their player demographic happens to be a certain way?

I am in EU-gold.

To make it true for everyone, everywhere at any time:
Prime-time is when there are more than 600 player in the match.
Off-time is when there are less than 600 player in the match.
Off-time score is multiplied by 0.5 for balance.

Maybe some NA-tiers do not have an off-time, if that is the case there is no multiplication by 0.5

Probably there are also several matches that never have a prime-time, but that’s a different problem.

Dayra.7405:

I am in EU-gold.

To make it true for everyone, everywhere at any time:
Prime-time is when there are more than 600 player in the match.
Off-time is when there are less than 600 player in the match.
Off-time score is multiplied by 0.5 for balance.

Maybe some NA-tiers do not have an off-time, if that is the case there is no multiplication by 0.5

Probably there are also several matches that never have a prime-time, but that’s a different problem.

Quit sleeping. It makes you weak, and it makes you lose WvW. Problem solved, and no silly math involved.

Bottom line, if there is a disparity in player numbers and this bothers you, PLAY MORE.

Dhampyr.2104:

Bottom line, if there is a disparity in player numbers and this bothers you, PLAY MORE.

This is a joke right? When your server went up against T2 servers, you just thought: ‘they should play more’? You didn’t think one second that your server might have 3x their population?

PPT might have many problems, but hard capping PPT gain is not the answer.

Reverence.6915:

Dhampyr.2104:

Bottom line, if there is a disparity in player numbers and this bothers you, PLAY MORE.

This is a joke right? When your server went up against T2 servers, you just thought: ‘they should play more’? You didn’t think one second that your server might have 3x their population?

PPT might have many problems, but hard capping PPT gain is not the answer.

Sorry, I thought the sarcasm was obvious. Yes, it’s a joke – just as much of a joke as whining about fairness in an inherently unfair game mode.

grifflyman.8102:

It’s been said thousands of times. When can we expect some news? Some ideas? Some change?

Tie the ticks score to the number of enemies (players in opposed servers) on the map.

Make it just right and coverage wouldn’t be a problem anymore since on enemy down time a server with 24/7 coverage wasn’t scoring that much.

I remember the days we fought vizuna every week, they’d have the whole maps most of the day, scoring ridiculous amount of points, even on our uptime they’d heavily outnumbered us but thankfully they were terrible on open field.
So for 4 hours a day we’d take everything from them, while the other 20 they’d be alone in the map getting points by the truck load. Skill…

See https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage
for a collection of proposals that have been made during the last 1.8 years (and some newer ones).

Unfortunately ANet still failed to make the scoring meaningful.

thaooo.5320:

Killface.1896:

50% less points during night problem solved,karma train scrubs still get there karma but are not the only reason server wins.

“Yeah curse those people who don’t live in America. Punish these heathens for playing during their own prime time. How dare they log in and play the 24/7 game while Americans sleep.

#MURICA"

/facepalm

Maybe take a walk and get some fresh air or something, I’m just trying to help you, OK

grifflyman.8102:

Enough is enough, the player base has brought this to the attention of the developers thousands of times. It was hotly discussed in the collaborative development thread (which hasn’t gone anywhere) and it continues to be discussed, yet nothing’s been done, or even experimented with.

The current core mechanics in WvW repeatedly punish servers for lacking coverage.

It’s been said thousands of times. When can we expect some news? Some ideas? Some change?

Let me get this straight. You some how suggesting that Anet is responsible for player choices?

What should Anet do about this issue. Not a darn thing. The only possible thing Anet can do, is to force players to move servers. Then what happens when a particular server has a dip in population for a few months? You expect them to force move others again?

The mechanics of WvW do not punish servers for a lack of coverage. The server community not showing up punishes its self.

This absurd idea that somehow Anet is at fault for the imbalance is absurd. Band wagoners and the fact that players have times that they do things like sleep or work is the problem.

If it is such an easy problem to solve, what do you recommend be implemented to aid the issue that doesn’t punish players?

Aomine.5012:

Actually there’s a solution came out this season 2 to deal with insane coverage,
which is 2 v 1 the strongest server.
It proved to be worked in both Gold League and Silver League.
Only flaw is a bunch of whiners will start crying out loud for not getting their candies.

This is exactly right.
Heaven forbid you ask someone to take responsibility for their own community and do something about it right?

The OP needs to stop blaming Anet and organize his community.

Killface.1896:

50% less points during night problem solved,karma train scrubs still get there karma but are not the only reason server wins.

You mean problem created.

As soon as you demand Anet gives 50% benefits during your prime playtime, I will agree with this.

What makes you so special that you feel those who do not live, work, and play are your schedule should be punished?

Dayra.7405:

in prime-time we have a point/player ratio of 695/1200 (all maps on all server have queue)
in off-time it depends on the server and it’s rank, but I would be surprised to hear that any match has more player than 400 i.e. a 695/400 ratio.
if you cut points by half in off-time you reach
347.5/400 which is still much in favor of the off-time player than 695/1200 for prime-time player.

To summarize for you:
Cutting off-time points by half, reduces discrimination of prime-time player a bit, it’s still far away from discriminating off-time player

This is absolute genius !!!

I agree. Lets show absolute bias and punish the players who are not you. /end sarcasm

By the way, perhaps you need to grab a dictionary and look up discrimination. Because you literally define a system that discriminates against other players just to follow it up with a declaration that it lacks discrimination.

This game mode is an all out territory war and is design specifically to be just that. Punishing those who take advantage of your lack of participation is unreasonable. All of these ideas to punish players who play at times that you do not, are fine example of your unwillingness to be reasonable. All that displays is that you are selfish, and want the game redesigned to suit your personal time frame. That is both unreasonable and irrational.

Rimmy.9217:

Yak’s Bend and Ehmry Bay.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/matchups/Yaks-Bend-Stormbluff-Isle-Ehmry-Bay/first

Reading those matchup threads makes me so sad. Those were good times. Way to kill your own game Anet!

coglin.1867:

If it is such an easy problem to solve, what do you recommend be implemented to aid the issue that doesn’t punish players?

You must be new here. Tons of suggestions have been made in the past months alone. There’s dozens topics about the issue.

yanniell.1236:

coglin.1867:

If it is such an easy problem to solve, what do you recommend be implemented to aid the issue that doesn’t punish players?

You must be new here. Tons of suggestions have been made in the past months alone. There’s dozens topics about the issue.

none of those suggestions were worthy of implementation. the status quo is here to stay (at least until the tournament is over).

coglin.1867:

Let me get this straight. You some how suggesting that Anet is responsible for player choices?

They are responsible for the problem and a game design that doesn’t mitigate against the problem. And in a lot of respects their decisions have made the problem worse, such as free transfers for so long after launch, free transfers just before seasons, the set up of the seasons themselves and the higher rewards for finishing first..

morrolan.9608:

coglin.1867:

Let me get this straight. You some how suggesting that Anet is responsible for player choices?

They are responsible for the problem and a game design that doesn’t mitigate against the problem. And in a lot of respects their decisions have made the problem worse, such as free transfers for so long after launch, free transfers just before seasons, the set up of the seasons themselves and the higher rewards for finishing first..

People continue to discuss this mythical “problem”. WvW was designed from the get go to be unfair. To rephrase – there is no balance, nor is there meant to be, and the devs have stated this from the very beginning.

Therefore, there is no problem here, and nothing that ANet has to “solve”.

Dhampyr.2104:

People continue to discuss this mythical “problem”. WvW was designed from the get go to be unfair. To rephrase – there is no balance, nor is there meant to be, and the devs have stated this from the very beginning.

Therefore, there is no problem here, and nothing that ANet has to “solve”.

“Thats just like your opinion man.” It does affect matchups and if others don’t like that effect then it is a problem for them. Plus when you try and have a comp between such unequal servers as if they are on equal footing with better prizes going to players on servers who finish higher then it is a problem to a large number of players.

morrolan.9608:

“Thats just like your opinion man.” It does affect matchups and if others don’t like that effect then it is a problem for them. Plus when you try and have a comp between such unequal servers as if they are on equal footing with better prizes going to players on servers who finish higher then it is a problem to a large number of players.

You’re absolutely right, definitely my opinion and I should rephrase regarding the “problem”… What I meant is that it’s not ArenaNet’s problem. WvW was designed to be unfair. Complaining about that unfairness is pointless imo – it’s working as intended.

Avigrus.2871:

Not sure if the double teaming is server wide,

Its not server wide, there is no alliance this week.

Dhampyr.2104:

morrolan.9608:

“Thats just like your opinion man.” It does affect matchups and if others don’t like that effect then it is a problem for them. Plus when you try and have a comp between such unequal servers as if they are on equal footing with better prizes going to players on servers who finish higher then it is a problem to a large number of players.

You’re absolutely right, definitely my opinion and I should rephrase regarding the “problem”… What I meant is that it’s not ArenaNet’s problem. WvW was designed to be unfair. Complaining about that unfairness is pointless imo – it’s working as intended.

WvW was not designed to be unfair, thats just a foolish statement.

And given the level of discontent about the population imbalance/coverage issue, it is Anets problem. They designed the game, they’re the only one’s that can correct it.

Johje Holan.4607:

Dhampyr.2104:

morrolan.9608:

“Thats just like your opinion man.” It does affect matchups and if others don’t like that effect then it is a problem for them. Plus when you try and have a comp between such unequal servers as if they are on equal footing with better prizes going to players on servers who finish higher then it is a problem to a large number of players.

You’re absolutely right, definitely my opinion and I should rephrase regarding the “problem”… What I meant is that it’s not ArenaNet’s problem. WvW was designed to be unfair. Complaining about that unfairness is pointless imo – it’s working as intended.

WvW was not designed to be unfair, thats just a foolish statement.

And given the level of discontent about the population imbalance/coverage issue, it is Anets problem. They designed the game, they’re the only one’s that can correct it.

Foolish? There are multiple dev post in which they specifically state “WvW is not designed to be fair”………………….Unless you have any evidence they have stated other wise, we will work of of established dev statements and not random statements okay?

morrolan.9608:

Avigrus.2871:

Not sure if the double teaming is server wide,

Its not server wide, there is no alliance this week.

Lol. Good joke.

Not being designed to be fair is not the same as being designed to be unfair.

A game where population matters can never be fundamentally and completely fair, but that doesn’t mean you can’t try to steer it in that direction through game mechanics.

Reverence.6915:

morrolan.9608:

Avigrus.2871:

Not sure if the double teaming is server wide,

Its not server wide, there is no alliance this week.

Lol. Good joke.

Perhaps I should change it to: There is no server wide 2v1 this week.

Johje Holan.4607:

WvW was not designed to be unfair, thats just a foolish statement.

And given the level of discontent about the population imbalance/coverage issue, it is Anets problem. They designed the game, they’re the only one’s that can correct it.

I swear, I’m going to cut and paste this into a Word doc, I end up posting it so dang much. Yes, WvW is designed to be unfair. From the DEVS:

“At no point did I, or would I have, said “Fair competition” WvW is not intended to be “fair”. There are servers with more people, there are servers with better organizations and that will always be the case. This competition will be about showing how your world can do over a defined period of time, against a variety of opponents. SPvP is the part of our game that aims for a completely level playing field. WvW would never be able to match that goal.”

Not really sure who looks foolish here, but I’m pretty sure it’s not me.

Dhampyr.2104:

morrolan.9608:

coglin.1867:

Let me get this straight. You some how suggesting that Anet is responsible for player choices?

They are responsible for the problem and a game design that doesn’t mitigate against the problem. And in a lot of respects their decisions have made the problem worse, such as free transfers for so long after launch, free transfers just before seasons, the set up of the seasons themselves and the higher rewards for finishing first..

People continue to discuss this mythical “problem”. WvW was designed from the get go to be unfair. To rephrase – there is no balance, nor is there meant to be, and the devs have stated this from the very beginning.

Therefore, there is no problem here, and nothing that ANet has to “solve”.

Then why did they remove PvE item kits, such as rocks, mines, environmental items, kits….

Because people were using them to great effect.

grifflyman.8102:

Dhampyr.2104:

morrolan.9608:

coglin.1867:

Let me get this straight. You some how suggesting that Anet is responsible for player choices?

They are responsible for the problem and a game design that doesn’t mitigate against the problem. And in a lot of respects their decisions have made the problem worse, such as free transfers for so long after launch, free transfers just before seasons, the set up of the seasons themselves and the higher rewards for finishing first..

People continue to discuss this mythical “problem”. WvW was designed from the get go to be unfair. To rephrase – there is no balance, nor is there meant to be, and the devs have stated this from the very beginning.

Therefore, there is no problem here, and nothing that ANet has to “solve”.

Then why did they remove PvE item kits, such as rocks, mines, environmental items, kits….

Because people were using them to great effect.

Are you really comparing server populations to PVE glitch items? Huh, interesting.

The effects of those items in WvW were unintended. The simple fact that WvW is unfair is intended and acceptable. Two different topics.

Dhampyr.2104:

Johje Holan.4607:

WvW was not designed to be unfair, thats just a foolish statement.

And given the level of discontent about the population imbalance/coverage issue, it is Anets problem. They designed the game, they’re the only one’s that can correct it.

I swear, I’m going to cut and paste this into a Word doc, I end up posting it so dang much. Yes, WvW is designed to be unfair. From the DEVS:

“At no point did I, or would I have, said “Fair competition” WvW is not intended to be “fair”. There are servers with more people, there are servers with better organizations and that will always be the case. This competition will be about showing how your world can do over a defined period of time, against a variety of opponents. SPvP is the part of our game that aims for a completely level playing field. WvW would never be able to match that goal.”

Not really sure who looks foolish here, but I’m pretty sure it’s not me.

Dev never said “WvW is designed to be unfair”. He said “WvW is not intended to be fair”.

Those are two completely different statements.

Dev was ridiculed for that statement too. Dev’s have since backed off that view as well. They recognize a match that is as balanced as possible is the best match, the most fun, and will attract the most customers.

WvW is inherintly unbalanced. They will never be able to make it completely fair. But they did not “design it to be unfair”.

(Also, look up at what ykyk said.)

Johje Holan.4607:

Dhampyr.2104:

Johje Holan.4607:

WvW was not designed to be unfair, thats just a foolish statement.

And given the level of discontent about the population imbalance/coverage issue, it is Anets problem. They designed the game, they’re the only one’s that can correct it.

I swear, I’m going to cut and paste this into a Word doc, I end up posting it so dang much. Yes, WvW is designed to be unfair. From the DEVS:

“At no point did I, or would I have, said “Fair competition” WvW is not intended to be “fair”. There are servers with more people, there are servers with better organizations and that will always be the case. This competition will be about showing how your world can do over a defined period of time, against a variety of opponents. SPvP is the part of our game that aims for a completely level playing field. WvW would never be able to match that goal.”

Not really sure who looks foolish here, but I’m pretty sure it’s not me.

Dev never said “WvW is designed to be unfair”. He said “WvW is not intended to be fair”.

Those are two completely different statements.

Dev was ridiculed for that statement too. Dev’s have since backed off that view as well. They recognize a match that is as balanced as possible is the best match, the most fun, and will attract the most customers.

WvW is inherintly unbalanced. They will never be able to make it completely fair. But they did not “design it to be unfair”.

(Also, look up at what ykyk said.)

And how it should be made “as fair as possible”? During many years of MMO gaming I probably encountered all modes of (mass)PvP.
In Warhammer (RiP) we had 2 realms with obvious differences between realms in terms of class balance. One side had it easier, always, still, it had the most fun, epic fights there.
In Aion (at least at time I played it) there were 2 realms again with 3rd AI realm to balance things out and as far as I remember it did not work out very well.
In Archlord there were no realms/races/sides/servers only guild and alliances and by far it was the most fun PvP mode I played tho it had obvious flaws.
SWTOR… meh, not worth mentioning but 2 sides again.

So, what PvP mode/mechanic would be more fair? As far as I remember in every MMO people cried on forums to bring 3rd side so no single side would dominate absolutely because other two could double team and even things out.
2 sided PvP will always (by accident or deliberately) favour one side. Guild alliances can grow to absurd size and will rolfstomp everyone, instanced/directed PvP is not an option either.

Then what? Any ideas?

Bartas.4908:

Johje Holan.4607:

Dhampyr.2104:

Johje Holan.4607:

WvW was not designed to be unfair, thats just a foolish statement.

And given the level of discontent about the population imbalance/coverage issue, it is Anets problem. They designed the game, they’re the only one’s that can correct it.

I swear, I’m going to cut and paste this into a Word doc, I end up posting it so dang much. Yes, WvW is designed to be unfair. From the DEVS:

“At no point did I, or would I have, said “Fair competition” WvW is not intended to be “fair”. There are servers with more people, there are servers with better organizations and that will always be the case. This competition will be about showing how your world can do over a defined period of time, against a variety of opponents. SPvP is the part of our game that aims for a completely level playing field. WvW would never be able to match that goal.”

Not really sure who looks foolish here, but I’m pretty sure it’s not me.

Dev never said “WvW is designed to be unfair”. He said “WvW is not intended to be fair”.

Those are two completely different statements.

Dev was ridiculed for that statement too. Dev’s have since backed off that view as well. They recognize a match that is as balanced as possible is the best match, the most fun, and will attract the most customers.

WvW is inherintly unbalanced. They will never be able to make it completely fair. But they did not “design it to be unfair”.

(Also, look up at what ykyk said.)

And how it should be made “as fair as possible”? During many years of MMO gaming I probably encountered all modes of (mass)PvP.
In Warhammer (RiP) we had 2 realms with obvious differences between realms in terms of class balance. One side had it easier, always, still, it had the most fun, epic fights there.
In Aion (at least at time I played it) there were 2 realms again with 3rd AI realm to balance things out and as far as I remember it did not work out very well.
In Archlord there were no realms/races/sides/servers only guild and alliances and by far it was the most fun PvP mode I played tho it had obvious flaws.
SWTOR… meh, not worth mentioning but 2 sides again.

So, what PvP mode/mechanic would be more fair? As far as I remember in every MMO people cried on forums to bring 3rd side so no single side would dominate absolutely because other two could double team and even things out.
2 sided PvP will always (by accident or deliberately) favour one side. Guild alliances can grow to absurd size and will rolfstomp everyone, instanced/directed PvP is not an option either.

Then what? Any ideas?

Definitely three sides is a good move. One thing I think that could improve it further is to incentivize attacking the stronger/leading server. Too often a match just degrades into attacking the easiest target.

I think most ideas fall into three categories:

1. Combining/merging servers
2. Scoring changes
3. Match duration changes – splitting the day into different time periods or shorter matches

There have been many threads about this subject and some very good and well thought out suggestions to help alleviate the coverage issue. This is one of the best:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage/page/7#post3953959

There are some great suggestions there – especially in the last few pages. Very detailed and well explained scoring change suggestions and match structure variations.

I would be happy if Anet would just experiment with some different ideas. On short timescales though – not 9 week long tournaments. Have “experimental weeks”. For example change the scoring one week and see what happens.

“Variety of opponents” I can see this was well before this new Swiss system in which you end up slamming your face in SFR for the entire span of the season.

Oh well, we’re certainly punching above our weight when it comes to population to league standing that’s for sure. A 20-30 man guild group can jump between any borderland without queues during prime time. Not bad.

Johje Holan.4607:

Dhampyr.2104:

Johje Holan.4607:

WvW was not designed to be unfair, thats just a foolish statement.

And given the level of discontent about the population imbalance/coverage issue, it is Anets problem. They designed the game, they’re the only one’s that can correct it.

I swear, I’m going to cut and paste this into a Word doc, I end up posting it so dang much. Yes, WvW is designed to be unfair. From the DEVS:

“At no point did I, or would I have, said “Fair competition” WvW is not intended to be “fair”. There are servers with more people, there are servers with better organizations and that will always be the case. This competition will be about showing how your world can do over a defined period of time, against a variety of opponents. SPvP is the part of our game that aims for a completely level playing field. WvW would never be able to match that goal.”

Not really sure who looks foolish here, but I’m pretty sure it’s not me.

Dev never said “WvW is designed to be unfair”. He said “WvW is not intended to be fair”.

Those are two completely different statements.

Dev was ridiculed for that statement too. Dev’s have since backed off that view as well. They recognize a match that is as balanced as possible is the best match, the most fun, and will attract the most customers.

WvW is inherintly unbalanced. They will never be able to make it completely fair. But they did not “design it to be unfair”.

(Also, look up at what ykyk said.)

I suppose we can argue the use of verbs, but that seems kinda silly to me. Intended, designed, potayto, potahto. Better yet, let’s get rid of those verbs altogether. WvW is unfair, and ANet made it/accepted it that way. From the beginning. You definitely have a right to complain about it – just seems like a bunch of pointless QQ to me is all.

And I just went back to the thread where he said it – while some didn’t like it, he was far from ridiculed for the comment. Matter of fact, most appreciated his honest statement.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Final-solution-for-league-and-transfers/first#post2747282