Guild Wars 2

Was reading the forums and someone made a comment about 1v1….. then it hit me…

KEEP IN MIND THIS IS A ROUGH IDEA

Eliminate 3 way battles completely. Make all the matches 1v1 !

Eliminate one of the borderlands ( So only 2 BL maps). Teams will start at the South and Rush north to cap garrison. In EB, the teams can start in red and green positions and blue side + SM will be neutral at start.

Advantages:

1) One less BL will introduce ridiculous qeues, much like early t1 wvw… this will result in guilds/players migrating down the tiers and spreading out amongst the various servers more evenly.

2) More map space for roaming and more territory to defend will result in less zerging allowing for more tactical group play.

The more I thought about 1v1 instead of 1v1v1 the more it makes sense….

Let me know what you guys think…

http://mos.millenium.org/na/matchups/history/73

From last week, check out results on the bottom, and pair them up in 1v1’s…. all of the matches seem relatively competitive.

Aurust.8961:

http://mos.millenium.org/na/matchups/history/73

From last week, check out results on the bottom, and pair them up in 1v1’s…. all of the matches seem relatively competitive.

All of those would be amazing matchups.

I’ve proposed this before but here goes again. Have both 2 server match ups and 3 server matchups such as the following:

Week 1:
1v2
3v4v5
6v7
8v9v10
and so on

Week 2:
1v2v3
4v5
6v7v8
9v10

That gets you dymanic matchups week to week without the random variable thrown in

style.6173:

I’ve proposed this before but here goes again. Have both 2 server match ups and 3 server matchups such as the following:

Week 1:
1v2
3v4v5
6v7
8v9v10
and so on

Week 2:
1v2v3
4v5
6v7v8
9v10

That gets you dymanic matchups week to week without the random variable thrown in

if this gets implented ill be playing alot more

The reason for having 3 servers is to prevent lopsided fights totally.

fade.8603:

The reason for having 3 servers is to prevent lopsided fights totally.

You mean total domination by server 1 over server 2. Yet right now we see this: total domination by server 1 over both server 2 and server 3. I think the actual solution lies in adding more servers to the match-ups, maybe 1v2v3v4, 5v6v7v8, 9v10v11v12, …

If one server totally dominates, then you have 3 servers to fight it, so basically more balance and also it will allow for more strategy. Right now either server 1 can attack server 2 or server 3, and the other way around. This doesn’t make for a lot of diversity.

The only way to fix WvWvW is to make each side only have the same number of people in a map at the same time. Then no more cries about coverage. Then no more cries about zerg. Then no more cries about oceanic having 90 more people on 4 maps. Same number of troops, plain and simple. Low and behold, the server with better orginization, makeup and tactics will win. Sounds unbelievable right?

You would think it would be a no brainer, maybe let each side only have 3-5 more then other till more join. Almost like FPS, Capture the flags, balancing like most Team Fortress 2 matches. LEGASP.

Now, you may begin your “No.” posts, or learn to recruit, or some crap that your super guild of 15 kittenes likes to fight 40 people. Frankly, this is the only way to truely balance it, let each side field same number of people. Im going to bet most of the band-wagon types will be totally against it, as well as anyone consistently zerging the pants off of servers.

Imagine the server who plays better actually winning instead of the server with more coverage?

fade.8603:

The reason for having 3 servers is to prevent lopsided fights totally.

It doesn’t work. One server becomes the weakest in the match and it’s easier for the two stronger servers to hit the weak server than it is for the two stronger servers to hit each other. The end result is either one server dominates or there is a 2 v 1. Very rarely does the three way match result in all three servers keeping each other in check.

Thanks but, suggested this months ago.

3 way has never worked in this game as intended as a balancer. In fact more often than not, its two winning teams ganging up on the easy prey to make it even more lopsided.

Or, a lot of the matches are 2 relatively even teams fighting either a team much stronger team than them, or much weaker, which throws the week, and would be much better just with the 2 even teams fighting. 3 way is a lazy, and in this case, failed, balancing mechanic.

The reason the three way war is not working so well in GW2 as a means of balance is simply human nature, we always tend to pick on the little guy and seek most efficient means to an end not to mention our general lack of far sightedness. It did not always work wonderfully well in DAoC either but the bonuses to 3-way battles much outweigh the downsides when implemented correctly.

3-ways add an element of random unexpected chaos that cannot be controlled which allows for amazing illogical but incredibly fun moments to happen that are otherwise impossible to achieve. Like when the 3rd team shows up at a hotly contested keep battle and despite being outnumbered can take out both opponents using the elements of surprise and distraction. Those are the kinds of fights that keep us playing for hours on end and prevent stagnation. The difference between two similar MMO’s like DAoC and WAR was pretty major and I think someone with more experience in the end game of the latter can do a much better job explaining why a third team makes a world of difference when it comes large scale PvP but I can simply say I played DAoC for 8 years and WAR for little more than a few months because it got boring to me so quickly.

There is not a whole lot ANET can do to combat lazy human habits of feeding off the weak and jumping ship or giving up when the going gets rough but maybe if there was a bit more incentive to win the week long war aside from ratings and PvE bonuses no one ever pays attention to and maybe if they find a way to bring back orbs in a non broken way or tweak the outmanned buff a little bit then we could all better see the bonuses of having a full out three way war. I think WvW is close to achieving that difficult balance but the devs might just need a bit more time to tinker with it so lets give them that before giving up on three ways all together. It is no easy task after all and I personally love have 2x more badies to fight.

Very similar

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/PvE-Maps-instead/first#post2070403

Not new idea. Alternating 1v1 with the normal 3-way every week, or a 1v1 every few weeks, would be a nice change. But 1v1 matches only might get bland after a while.

At the moment, capping red is just too tempting for any green or blue server to resist—why attack a guarded keep when you could take an empty one?

Anet could change rewards systems to discourage ganging up on the weakest server. Outmanned buff scales up to 400% WxP depending on how badly you’re outmanned. Introduce a coward debuff that scales down to 50% WxP depending on how badly you outman the enemy.

Of course, this

Bannok.3152:

The only way to fix WvWvW is to make each side only have the same number of people in a map at the same time. Then no more cries about coverage. Then no more cries about zerg. Then no more cries about oceanic having 90 more people on 4 maps. Same number of troops, plain and simple. Low and behold, the server with better orginization, makeup and tactics will win. Sounds unbelievable right?

You would think it would be a no brainer, maybe let each side only have 3-5 more then other till more join. Almost like FPS, Capture the flags, balancing like most Team Fortress 2 matches. LEGASP.

Now, you may begin your “No.” posts, or learn to recruit, or some crap that your super guild of 15 kittenes likes to fight 40 people. Frankly, this is the only way to truely balance it, let each side field same number of people. Im going to bet most of the band-wagon types will be totally against it, as well as anyone consistently zerging the pants off of servers.

Imagine the server who plays better actually winning instead of the server with more coverage?

…would be much better, if Anet could be convinced.

Bannok.3152:

The only way to fix WvWvW is to make each side only have the same number of people in a map at the same time. Then no more cries about coverage. Then no more cries about zerg. Then no more cries about oceanic having 90 more people on 4 maps. Same number of troops, plain and simple. Low and behold, the server with better orginization, makeup and tactics will win. Sounds unbelievable right?

You would think it would be a no brainer, maybe let each side only have 3-5 more then other till more join. Almost like FPS, Capture the flags, balancing like most Team Fortress 2 matches. LEGASP.

Now, you may begin your “No.” posts, or learn to recruit, or some crap that your super guild of 15 kittenes likes to fight 40 people. Frankly, this is the only way to truely balance it, let each side field same number of people. Im going to bet most of the band-wagon types will be totally against it, as well as anyone consistently zerging the pants off of servers.

Imagine the server who plays better actually winning instead of the server with more coverage?

On one hand I agree with the balance side of this method but there is another issue to consider.

If your server is NA heavy and your opponent is Sea heavy how to you get your community to play during their prime time?

As an example, if a map has 100 players from each side and a guild logs out, what do you do?

Do you kick an equal number of people out?

If you have only 10 people from the Sea server online, what do you tell the 90 NA players that can’t get to play for who knows how long?

This method works for small group sizes with plenty of population to go around, not large scale pvp with the ability to see hundreds of players on a map.

You can’t make each side have the same number of people, it just wouldn’t work. Ex. It’s night time and server a only has 5 people in EB, now servers b and c should be capped at 5 to 10 people?
That idea would also make queues terribad. Since at best, people can slowly enter wvw on all sides after an update or something, and at worst, be capped at a very low number.

At best you could try to simulate this by giving buffs or maybe strong follower npcs to the side that’s highly disadvantaged.

fade.8603:

The reason for having 3 servers is to prevent lopsided fights totally.

Nope, this is exactly what happens. Just go to Eredon Terrace.

Also, if two servers see that one server has points that are very easy to grab and hold, relative to points held by their main contestant, then it’s logical for them to grab points from the weaker server.