Guild Wars 2

What would you think of a system of dynamic handicapping?

It would work as follows:

• Arenanet develop the ability to measure who is first, who is second and who is third (at the moment) in the match.
• The team in third place gets more supply per dolyak or whatever, could be a buff, could be a siege-drop, could be a quicker keep upgrade, could be that third place gets reduced timers on tactivators. Whatever – once Anet know who is third, they can start giving them bonuses to help stay in the game.
• The team in second might warrant some (considerably smaller) bonuses, too.

That’s it. Thoughts?

The reason I think this would be a good idea is that nobody WANTS to be third and it would still not be worthwhile to engineer yourself into third to gain the bonuses.

Svarty.8019:

• Arenanet develop the ability to measure who is first, who is second and who is third (at the moment) in the match.

Requires too much complicated math, sorry.

no.. solution is just to nerf ppt all together so that its a not as huge of a factor and then they wouldn’t be losing as badly.

Supply isn’t really the problem when doing 50v5 keep defense

Dawdler.8521:

Svarty.8019:

• Arenanet develop the ability to measure who is first, who is second and who is third (at the moment) in the match.

Requires too much complicated math, sorry.

You know what? You’re probably right!

LetoII.3782:

Supply isn’t really the problem when doing 50v5 keep defense

Supply isn’t the only option, but it is a logical start point. It’s possible that other bonuses could be added to the third place side.

… and to be frank 50 should really win vs 5 anyway.

I’d rather see them figure out some way to incentivize the weaker servers to attack the stronger. Possibly by making the stronger servers assets worth more or something.

They are only weak cause people that have not buy gems to transfer That Anet way of Punishing People that do not want to transferring they want ever one to band wagon why else would they link severes

Svarty.8019:

Dawdler.8521:

Svarty.8019:

• Arenanet develop the ability to measure who is first, who is second and who is third (at the moment) in the match.

Requires too much complicated math, sorry.

You know what? You’re probably right!

LetoII.3782:

Supply isn’t really the problem when doing 50v5 keep defense

Supply isn’t the only option, but it is a logical start point. It’s possible that other bonuses could be added to the third place side.

… and to be frank 50 should really win vs 5 anyway.

You say that like they don’t.
More supply won’t help population imbalance

LetoII.3782:

Svarty.8019:

Dawdler.8521:

Svarty.8019:

• Arenanet develop the ability to measure who is first, who is second and who is third (at the moment) in the match.

Requires too much complicated math, sorry.

You know what? You’re probably right!

LetoII.3782:

Supply isn’t really the problem when doing 50v5 keep defense

Supply isn’t the only option, but it is a logical start point. It’s possible that other bonuses could be added to the third place side.

… and to be frank 50 should really win vs 5 anyway.

You say that like they don’t.
More supply won’t help population imbalance

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you.

I am of the opinion that although Siegeraiser was a well-intentioned effort, I’d like to see a LOT more of that sort of thing. The cheapest way of doing this is to measure the positions at a point in time and hand out bonuses to whoever is losing.

LetoII.3782:

Svarty.8019:

Dawdler.8521:

Svarty.8019:

• Arenanet develop the ability to measure who is first, who is second and who is third (at the moment) in the match.

Requires too much complicated math, sorry.

You know what? You’re probably right!

LetoII.3782:

Supply isn’t really the problem when doing 50v5 keep defense

Supply isn’t the only option, but it is a logical start point. It’s possible that other bonuses could be added to the third place side.

… and to be frank 50 should really win vs 5 anyway.

You say that like they don’t.
More supply won’t help population imbalance

I agree.

In a 5v50 situation, the side with only 5 players need significant combat bonuses to compete and have any gameplay at all.

In the current model, if you have 5 defenders vs 50 attackers, the outnumbered side can do nothing entertaining or interesting beyond deplolying a few supply traps. If the outnumbered group is caught, it will die to no effect.

Svarty.8019:

LetoII.3782:

Svarty.8019:

Dawdler.8521:

Svarty.8019:

• Arenanet develop the ability to measure who is first, who is second and who is third (at the moment) in the match.

Requires too much complicated math, sorry.

You know what? You’re probably right!

LetoII.3782:

Supply isn’t really the problem when doing 50v5 keep defense

Supply isn’t the only option, but it is a logical start point. It’s possible that other bonuses could be added to the third place side.

… and to be frank 50 should really win vs 5 anyway.

You say that like they don’t.
More supply won’t help population imbalance

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you.

I am of the opinion that although Siegeraiser was a well-intentioned effort, I’d like to see a LOT more of that sort of thing. The cheapest way of doing this is to measure the positions at a point in time and hand out bonuses to whoever is losing.

If handicaps are handed out, how do you adjust Glicko at the end? Surely the weak server doesn’t deserve all the warscore it got with the handicap.

I think handicaps are doing the balancing all backwards. First fix the population balance and everything else will fall into place effortlessly:

• With equal populations the servers will perform somewhat equal. Only skill, luck and politics decide the matchup winner.
• Then matchup winner can rewarded which brings out ebb and flow of 3-way warfare. Less lopsided, stagnant matchups.
• Instead of measuring coverage Glicko rating would measure skill (+luck+politics). The leaderboard would then be something to brag about.
• A server can be matched up against (almost) any other servers and still have a meaningful matchup. More variation.

How to fix the populations? I don’t have a clue. Forced migration is probably not going to be popular. I felt the server linking was a clever attempt but it fell short.

Korgov.7645:

First fix the population balance

Players determine population balance. As long as players can move and have motive to move, population balance is a lie.

Furthermore, who cares about the Glicko system for WvW? It’s a failure that makes boring yet stale matches.

Instead of basing it off the servers place they should give benefits when you have the outnumbered buff.

The benefits should be things that encourage small groups to go out and try things on their own instead of logging off because there isn’t a blob running.

A few examples of what I’m talking about are:
When outnumbered you can pick up an extra 5 supply, so if you are running on an enemy bl and claim a camp you can grab 25 supply.

When outnumbered you will not be marked by sentries, watch towers or when a keep flips.

When outnumbered it takes twice as long to trigger white swords.

Not only does this promote small group play, it forces the blob to split up or risk losing everything.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Instead of basing it off the servers place they should give benefits when you have the outnumbered buff.

The benefits should be things that encourage small groups to go out and try things on their own instead of logging off because there isn’t a blob running.

A few examples of what I’m talking about are:
When outnumbered you can pick up an extra 5 supply, so if you are running on an enemy bl and claim a camp you can grab 25 supply.

When outnumbered you will not be marked by sentries, watch towers or when a keep flips.

When outnumbered it takes twice as long to trigger white swords.

Not only does this promote small group play, it forces the blob to split up or risk losing everything.

All good suggestions

Nuzt.7894:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Instead of basing it off the servers place they should give benefits when you have the outnumbered buff.

The benefits should be things that encourage small groups to go out and try things on their own instead of logging off because there isn’t a blob running.

A few examples of what I’m talking about are:
When outnumbered you can pick up an extra 5 supply, so if you are running on an enemy bl and claim a camp you can grab 25 supply.

When outnumbered you will not be marked by sentries, watch towers or when a keep flips.

When outnumbered it takes twice as long to trigger white swords.

Not only does this promote small group play, it forces the blob to split up or risk losing everything.

All good suggestions

Indeed, these are good suggestions, but they rely on the unreliable outnumbered buff.

• I have been told by players (nobody in authority) that only one side can be Outnumbered.
• It has also been suggested that people would manipulate their map population in order to gain Outnumbered if there was anything decent attached to it. I’m not sure how true/feasible this would be.
• If a side were trying to manipulate the Outnumbered buff, it is possible that this could lead to arguments within their community if they were to lose it.

I would also like to suggest that if we use the “whoever is in 3rd place” metric, we could simply give that side speedy dolyaks on all camps until they are no longer in 3rd place (then whoever is 3rd place gets it).

• This should help because even a giant blob struggles to hold all the camps at a time.
• Having their objectives upgrade faster would be great for weaker sides.
• If they had Siegeraiser as well, this could really help them get a foothold.
• Further bonuses may be needed to get them back into the fight.