Guild Wars 2

This is really what t1 and t2 WvW feels like for the losing teams atm. The current t1 severs could probably fill 4 or 5 servers with the current server cap. The size difference between “full” servers is a major part of what causes tier locking, and it also makes guilds feel trapped with the only option for change being a very expensive one way steet.
Although giving people more ways to fight against larger groups will be beneficial, in the long run, the fullest server is going to win due to unmatched coverage. Currently, this issue can’t be fixed because no server can gain a large enough population to beat the biggest servers, and few want to leave those servers because winning is fun.
Thoughts?

P.S.
V soultion thread in the tag V

The most obvious solution, (and one that TylerB did ask us about once) is to make more servers, and split the population out among multiple servers, and reducing the pop cap on each server.

Example split BG into 5-6 smaller servers (random example, no metrics).

Then use the linking system to mash together 3-4 of the small servers together (based on secret ANet metrics) to create roughly similar size teams.

And if server populations would still grow/shrink to create full and empty worlds. They could just link them up differently, like 2 "full" vs 3 medium, and 4 small etc. Or mix them up even more. Unlike now where BG is probably enough for 2 full servers or something.

Tier 1 right now should be BG1 vs BG2 vs TC or something

---

Other options would resolve around ways to dynamically change and adjust the match-up. Like adjusting number of maps, map population, other stuff (dunno, the always unpopular buffing guards, gates, etc).

Things that in general would restrict someone from playing somewhere, if it is to serve any purpose at all. So not popular.

---

Honestly, if someone just came up with a way to remove the "Fair-weather-syndrome" I think that more than ANYTHING else would fix almost everything in WvW. If you actually could have fun outnumbered, feel that you stand a chance, that people don’t just log off or run off to some other game mode the moment their blob gets out-blobbed etc.

---

The more I look at this, the more I think the Borderland maps are designed entirely wrong (yes, both of them). And should be more linear, with increasingly handicaps the further back the home server gets pushed. So the outnumbered server can drop back one step at a time, until the have enough map handicaps to hold back against even vastly outnumbering enemies.

They would still lose massively in points, but it would create a gradually scaling system, that no matter how outnumbered you are (except 80vs0-1) you at least have something you can do, and that "last" objective on your Home BL could be defended successfully by 1-2 persons. And easily taken back.

It’s not about "Fair", it’s about having something to do that feels automatically valuable for the team. And it would funnel the activity to 1-2 objectives at a times.

*Brings out the popcorn, and waits for the Alpine/Desert Lovers/Haters to being the flame*

There is no way to remove fair-weather syndrome, it is part of the human mind, and a small unorganized group will always have a disadvantage against a large unorganized group (smaller blob vs bigger blob). WvW needs more dedicated commanders to rally and organize small groups and prevent this. This is why WvW oriented guilds are the heart of WvW. They are generally more steadfast than a group of strangers.

I absolutely agree that there is no way to remove Fair-Weather-Syndrome, we’re talking about human beings after all

But I do believe it could be combated, the above example of the linear/handicap borderland, so even if 5 players left vs 40 enemies, you could stand a chance and defend, at least once you’ve fallen back far enough. So even if the tower you’re defending is overrun you know you can spawn and run to the next tower/keep, and have a bigger handicap and can possibly hold them back.

Currently, when your blob gets out-blobbed most average players will just not play. And not everyone can or want to start roaming or running small groups to take things and back-cap etc. So they feel like there is nothing to do once their blob is gone, they need to be funneled into something they think "I can do this, I won’t just die, I have a chance to succeed."

Shallow perhaps, thems the breaks, the average player seems to love instant gratification.

Cecilia.5179:

Currently, this issue can’t be fixed because no server can gain a large enough population to beat the biggest servers, and few want to leave those servers because winning is fun.
Thoughts?

multiply the ppk by 10-20x and see what happens.

Dont think about it…dont rationalize why it might be bad for the smaller servers…just do it and seeee what happens, haters WILL be surprised by the change in points at the end of a week.

Cerby.1069:

Cecilia.5179:

Currently, this issue can’t be fixed because no server can gain a large enough population to beat the biggest servers, and few want to leave those servers because winning is fun.
Thoughts?

multiply the ppk by 10-20x and see what happens.

Dont think about it…dont rationalize why it might be bad for the smaller servers…just do it and seeee what happens, haters WILL be surprised by the change in points at the end of a week.

Blood-crazed frenzy to kill every individual for the glory of Balthazar.

Like I suggested before you can:
1) preserve current server communities &
2) solve WvW population and stale matchup issues

This is easily done by keeping current servers as PvE servers. Create Additional WvW servers that people join to play WvW in addition to the PvE server. The number of WvW servers created depends on WvW population. They can create less WvW servers as population decreases and more as population increases. New WvW servers are created /start over every 3 months and players have to choose another WvW server to go to. Current Server communities can all agree to go to the same server, keep their websites ect. Players should get one free transfer ever 3 months just in case the server they chose doesn’t work out for them.

This would allow them to mix it up every 3 months, only have the number of servers open to match the current population and destack current servers in the process. It also allows family and friends to play together and guarantees that if a server gains or loses population, it will only stay that way for 3 months before it can be corrected again.

Joneirikb “Tier 1 right now should be BG1 vs BG2 vs TC or something”

more like bg vs tc + db vs yb + jq – that “might” be close…..

joneirikb.7506:

The more I look at this, the more I think the Borderland maps are designed entirely wrong (yes, both of them). And should be more linear, with increasingly handicaps the further back the home server gets pushed. So the outnumbered server can drop back one step at a time, until the have enough map handicaps to hold back against even vastly outnumbering enemies.

They would still lose massively in points, but it would create a gradually scaling system, that no matter how outnumbered you are (except 80vs0-1) you at least have something you can do, and that “last” objective on your Home BL could be defended successfully by 1-2 persons. And easily taken back.

It’s not about “Fair”, it’s about having something to do that feels automatically valuable for the team. And it would funnel the activity to 1-2 objectives at a times.

Brings out the popcorn, and waits for the Alpine/Desert Lovers/Haters to being the flame

You are right.

It’s not about making it fair, it’s about making it fun for everyone. Give hope even to losing server and give challenge even to server overwhelmingly winning.

Your idea would do just that.

I shake my head every time I see a thread complaining about players that were forced to build “spawn” siege in order to have a chance to recap their very first tower in their home borderland and I think : “Those people complaining don’t understand wvw at all”. They are literally complaining that they can’t easily enough spawn camp players.