Guild Wars 2

This thinking is motivated by a couple of the current NA matchups, which we are NOT discussing here because this is NOT a matchup thread, but a proposal to address imbalanced/runaway matchups.

Problem statement:

When misalignment of servers occurs through the WvW matchmaking ‘system’, the resulting matchup becomes quickly imbalanced and no fun for anyone. The dominant server may choose to demoralize the other servers by running up points, and by occupation of key territory (as in total occupation of EBG), or a home BL keep, or may naturally run larger zergs which are unanswerable by the other servers in the matchup. This is tons of fun at first for those winning, but becomes boring when the occupied servers’ players decide to opt out of WvW for the rest of the week.

This is, however, often the outcome when the WvW matchmaking ‘system’ gets it terribly wrong – both sides have an awful week in WvW, or go do something else instead of playing there, so that by the end of the week, WvW is seeing very low activity.

This proposal seeks to address the situation in this way:

Once the difference between the top scoring server and 2nd place server is greater than XX score or XX Victory Points (or some number that spells ‘runaway matchup’), the other two servers are allied together. This takes effect at the beginning of the next skirmish period and persists until the score differential drops to within XX range of the top server.

During this ‘mandated alliance’, neither of the allied servers can kill each other, or capture anything belonging to the other. Their only opposition is the dominant top server.

Something like this could occur on a skirmish basis, so that when timezone imbalances create runaway timezones, the mandated alliance skirmish is proc’d for the next skirmish period.

Possible benefits:

• thwarts runaway matchups by aligning the two servers to consolidate manpower and is done automatically, rather than needing to wait an entire week for the hope of a better matchup.

• discourage servers from doing demoralizing point runups, or benefiting from a misalignment caused by the matchmaking ‘system’ for WvW. If it is argued that ‘skill’ is the gap creator, then this provides an answer to the skill gap by providing allied forces to better stand up to the supposed ‘better skilled’ server.

• allows for strategic choices – the dominant server may choose to avoid, or to act to initiate the mandated alliance skirmish, depending on their desire – to face a more difficult situation to test themselves and their skill, or to avoid losing the skirmish period, or a potential lowering of KDR. The dominant server could then be facing zergs of comparable size, as the two servers become one alliance in the field, and capable of joining squad together, or have the ability to spread out, creating a challenge for the dominant server to maintain one force in one place and not lose claimed territory.

• forces the focus onto the top server, rather than in capping the other, possibly ‘weaker’ populated server for PPT/VP during their low coverage times. Backcappers would not be able to undermine the alliance’s focus, as the only objectives to take will belong to the top scoring/dominant server.

• creates a reason to continue to play during an improperly balanced match-up – both for the winning server, which will continue to have opponents and stronger opposition, and for the losing servers which will have hope of the ability to compete against the dominant server.

The mandated alliance continues through each successive skirmish period until the score gap comes within [xx] points.

The mandated alliance varies depending on (if skirmishes are evaluated) the degree of timezone/skirmish imbalance, or the overall matchup imbalance.

Victory points from the alliance skirmish would be shared equally between the two allies based on their combined skirmish placements. Allocate each 50% of the total victory points earned by the two servers. In a 5-4-3 point system, if the alliance wins that skirmish, each would receive 4.5 VPs, [(5+4)/2] with the other receiving 3 VPs. If the alliance loses, each would receive 3.5 points, with the other receiving 5.

Cons:

• the obvious – getting this setup and working.

• in some imbalanced matchups, even with the allying of the two losing servers, the allied population during certain timezones may not be able to succeed in reducing the gap between them and the lead server.

• two servers could intentionally tank their score to proc the mandated alliance against a targeted server. This would take a lot of coordination to create enough of a point gap, through inactivity, that an alliance skirmish is proc’d.

Thoughts?

yeah might work, I expect there would be similar problems to the linked server but it could stop the week from getting dull.

The victory point thing, I’d almost just delete them or not make the information available to players. I mean who really cares about “winning” anymore? There is no rewards & it might reduce the fair weather factor if the score is unknown.

Scoring just seems to create forum threads that boil down to scoring should be changed because ____ aren’t playing the way I think they should play.

Pensadora.9478:

During this ‘mandated alliance’, neither of the allied servers can kill each other, or capture anything belonging to the other.

Let’s say Server A is dominating a matchup. Right before the mandated alliance takes effect, Server B k-trains most of Server C. Server C is now stuck with almost no buildings and very limited supply for who knows how long until the scores become closer.

If we’re theory crafting here… If both servers are allowed, all owned properties would need to be equal access.

Should it return to being a three way, give each allied server their third “home” keeps and towers back (assuming they are owned by the alliance) and rng assign the others equally by point value and tier level.

What? you want to form alliances to 2v1 the winning server?
THIS IS MADNESS! That is not how wvw works!

[5-4-3] 4 lyfe! play for second or go home!

P.S
On a more serious note, I’m all for putting pressure on the top server constantly. I suppose the only way to actually get a proper 2v1 in wvw (focus on the winning server not the losing one) is to force sides to be allies, since players are too lazy to do so on their own by reading the map and scores.

Essentially it comes down to making the third and second place servers “links” of each other every hour. Not sure if anet would be able to do that on the fly every hour, although I suppose they do something like this already with the taunt mechanics, so they can switch player friend/enemy status on the fly.

I would not give players access to either sides of structures though, because my friend for this hour could be my enemy the next hour, and imagine the trolling that will happen with supplies and siege.

Sarika.3756:

… If both servers are allowed, all owned properties would need to be equal access.

Should it return to being a three way, give each allied server their third “home” keeps and towers back (assuming they are owned by the alliance) and rng assign the others equally by point value and tier level.

Yep. The two allied servers would need to share everything – structures, points, VP’s so that, for the duration of the alliance, there is no advantage to either partner over the other.

Pensadora.9478:

Yep. The two allied servers would need to share everything – structures, points, VP’s so that, for the duration of the alliance, there is no advantage to either partner over the other.

There will be copious amounts of supply trolling. My 40-man zerg needs to resupply, let’s go to our ally’s garrison and take 25 supply each.

Furthermore, since you can reasonably predict when the alliance will end, what’s preventing one server from placing a havoc group in the lord’s room of each of their ally’s structures right before the alliance ends?

Nothing. I could see it like this… notification during a skirmish that the alliance will end at the start of the next one. When the alliance ends, all enemy players in no longer alliance objectives that just reverted to single ownership are ported outside the objective (or to spawn). If they want to start attacking each other at that point, in a match-up that is that unbalanced, well, there’s no accounting for poor strategic and tactical decisions.

Shining One.1635:

There will be copious amounts of supply trolling. My 40-man zerg needs to resupply, let’s go to our ally’s garrison and take 25 supply each.

Agreed. I see that as a potential drawback as well. But, does it have as large an impact as the underlying match up imbalance has? Is it a worse problem than the core issue I’m trying to address?

I would argue that it could actually be a result of the mandated alliance that both servers are capable of holding real estate and acquiring stores of supply. So is it so terrible in comparison with the alternative?

What are some workarounds?