Guild Wars 2

The idea is that if one of the three servers gets too dominant, the two weaker servers will join forces against them.

This does not work, obviously, as evidenced by the lopsided scores on display all up and down the tiers for the entirety of WuvWuv’s history.

I believe that due to game mechanics, it will never work.

The incentive is very much for the two weaker servers to go after each other.

1. issue is the points issue. When one server opens up a giant lead over the others (which is easy to do with the snowball orb mechanics and night capping) the other two servers realize they will never overtake that lead. So, the two of them are essentially fighting for second. Now, what is the most efficient way to do this? To take points from the leader or to take points from the other guy fighting for second?

Obviously the best choice is to take points from the other guy fighting for second. They are worth twice what the points you take from the leader are worth. If you’re in 3rd and trying to close the gap, you are going to be ferociously attacking the #2 player.

The #2 player will then be ferociously fighting back to keep in #2, while the #1 server sits back and laughs.

The next issue is the orbs: the two weaker servers have an incentive to fight each other as opposed to the server with all three orbs, just because they are on a more even fighting ground. Also, keeps and towers owned by the weaker servers are less likely to be upgraded. It is much much easier to take an upgraded keep from a non orb forcebelonging to the weaker server than it is to take an upgraded keep from an orb buffed zerg belonging to the stronger server.

And of course, since WuvWuv is entirely numbers/time zone based at the moment, the leading server is basically guaranteed to have more people, making them an even less attractive target.

This teaming up of the two weaker sides worked in DAOC, but only because they had no tiers and no server rotations. What you had in your matchup was it. If you wanted to break the dominance of another server, you had to team up and go after the big guy. Going after the little guy had no benefit to you whatsoever.

This isn’t the case in GW2 – you have everything to gain by viciously attacking the other weaker server in WuvWuv and completely ignoring the strong server.

How to fix this? I’m not sure. You would need to completely change the points incentives.

Something like…

If the lead server’s score surpasses the other two server’s combined score, both other servers get dropped down a tier

I’m not saying that will work necessarily, just that it would provide the incentives for BOTH weaker servers to attack the stronger server and not each other.

Right now the incentives all point towards the two weaker servers tearing into each other.

I don’t actually see that happening, despite having one-sided wvw match-ups a lot (and being on both the upper and lower side of it).

On the dominating team, roaming around looking for a fight, never have I found the two losing servers fighting over an objective. When we were the underdog, we just scrapped to take whatever we could, which invariably was the top-server’s stuff.

Cuz they’re the ones what own it, eh.

I personally do not see at all how this is game mechanics as if the 2nd and 3rd server somehow are forced by the game mechanics to fight for second.
If any server out there feel that second is what they want to achieve, they shouldn’t even be playing
Which leads to player/server/commanders issues as opposed to game mechanics

You state they have everything to gain by attacking each other, but really they dont. What exactly do they get? Neither server gains on the 1 server. In fact in the reference to the 3rd server they may in fact gain absolutely nothing. In fact that behavior could very well drop both servers down a tier which we have seen.

The other thing you say which still til this day boggles my mind if you think the system is supposed to work when the 2 “weaker” servers team up to knock out the stronger server. And that isn’t what is intended either
It is for each server to fight by themselves against both servers. That is WvWvW plain and simple.
It isnt W+W vs W or W1vW2vW3 while W2 thinks its (W1) W2vW3 and W3 vice versa

I just don’t understand why people dont get that

@mulch: if the lead server is the only one owning any objectives, the match is already effectively over, and the lead server will win with a huge lopsided advantage.

This comes into play when all three servers own some territory, but one server is in the lead and owns most of the territory.

@mangarrage You clearly don’t understand the designer’s intent behind the 3 way fight. Many other player’s don’t either. The reason it’s a 3 way fight instead of a 2 way or 4 way fight is specifically to allow the two weaker servers to ‘team up’ against the stronger server and impose a measure of self balance.

But that isn’t what happens, obviously, by looking at the score. I think every server in the game has been a victim of a blowout loss by this point, now that everyone has abandoned HoD.

Does that mean the ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE GAME should just stop playing, according to your idea?

OP is right. System is badly thought out and encourages 2nd and 3rd giving up on 1st and just fighting eachother for the scraps.

[quote=476947;Vorpal.4683
@mangarrage You clearly don’t understand the designer’s intent behind the 3 way fight. Many other player’s don’t either. The reason it’s a 3 way fight instead of a 2 way or 4 way fight is specifically to allow the two weaker servers to ‘team up’ against the stronger server and impose a measure of self balance.

But that isn’t what happens, obviously, by looking at the score. I think every server in the game has been a victim of a blowout loss by this point, now that everyone has abandoned HoD.

Does that mean the ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE GAME should just stop playing, according to your idea? [/quote]

No I completely understand it. And exactly what you stated is correct. 3 servers are there so that one server doesn’t run away with the match. That is absolutely correct.

But your OP doesn’t state that it states that the game mechanics are forcing the 2nd and 3rd server to fight each other, which is completely incorrect.
And with the way you just explained it I don’t know how you even made your original post.

The fact is that server 2 and server 3 should be trying to win regardless if that means attacking server 1, 2 or 3 and if they are not doing that, it is not a game mechanics issue it is a server/player/commander issue plain and simple

Players are giving up or conceding to the server that is winning and if they continue to have the attitude about playing for second instead of winning then yea they shouldnt be playing at all
The game isnt forcing anyone to play any specific way, server/players/commanders are playing a certain way. And the fact is most of them are playing wrong, but for the last time that isn’t a game mechanic failure

Vorpal.4683:

@mulch: if the lead server is the only one owning any objectives, the match is already effectively over, and the lead server will win with a huge lopsided advantage.

This comes into play when all three servers own some territory, but one server is in the lead and owns most of the territory.

That doesn’t match my experience at all.

We’ve woken up to find the map changed color overnight. So we took it back, and then had it taken from us again.

I’m talking about primetime, obviously. Not nightcapping shenanigans.

Taking undefended stuff is not really ‘fighting’ in any case.

mangarrage.1062:

The fact is that server 2 and server 3 should be trying to win regardless if that means attacking server 1, 2 or 3 and if they are not doing that, it is not a game mechanics issue it is a server/player/commander issue plain and simple

This is an absurd and irrational idea.

Human beings are rational creatures, so your idea is fundamentally flawed.

Everyone (except you, apparently) is capable of realizing when a match is a blowout and they are not going to retake first place. At a certain point it becomes a mathematical impossibility take take first place, even if the leader abandoned the field and let the second place realm take every objective until the match ended.

At that point the logical and rational choice is to fight for second. I mean, what are they supposed to do, just give up and go home? Nope. They will continue to fight and will direct their energies in an intelligent and rational manner – which means securing second so that the week isn’t a total loss.

The best way to secure second is not to attack the leader, but to attack your weaker rival who is also fighting for second. This is undeniable mathematical fact.

Your response is that no one should fight for second, which shows a sublime ignorance of human nature. Systems that do not take human nature into account are bad systems.