Guild Wars 2

211 is terrible. It should never have come in unannounced. Get rid of it.

TheHeretic.3529:

Play for the fights, nothing else. There are no server identities, just guilds.

I don’t give a toss about guilds or guild identity in this or any other MMO. Never have and probably never will. Server identity, however, is crucial. As for fights, they exist to serve matchplay, not as an end in themselves.

That’s my reality. Yours may differ.

Thea Cherry.6327:

Jeknar.6184:

Ben K.6238:

The nuances of the system are gone. It’s either win, or don’t.

And what’s exactly the problem in that?

Play against linked hype servers with an unlinked server and you see the problem.

Open BG, you know it makes sense.

Spurnshadow.3678:

Sigh, so many of you are totally lost on the concept of the ratio between points and how that affects peoples behavior.

I think you’re projecting if you think any more than a tiny % of players actually care about the nuances of PPT strategy that much any more.

Jeknar.6184:

And nothing kitten me off more than seeing that the other server rather just secure second place instead of trying for first. Now with 2-1-1, they either play for first or they lose just like the other server.

^^Agree on this.

ANet is making a huge step in the right direction from my viewpoint.

Encouraging a Classic King of the Hill fight cycle.

This breathes competition into the game mode…which is lacking due to the secure 2nd place (side effect of the 800-Pound Gorilla phenomenon) that happens often in the current Fixed 3 Way Fights & Locked Tiers.

It’s not the best solution, but it has the right intention…given the flawed base map mechanics that prevents a healthy competitive game mode…imho

ANet next has to figure out a way to make Score & Individual Effort/Recognition… Meaningful for both Host & Guest Servers.

Currently…it’s a farce…due to the manual Glicko manipulation they’ve been doing.

Also, Guest Servers with World Linking…are still being relegated the role of mercenary slaves…imho

if its not about yak no one cares?!??!?

Diku.2546:

For a Better Long Term Solution to WvW – Try a Google Search for – wvg world vs globes

Sorry I have to do this: For a better long term solution to WvW – Open BG.

#openBG

Open BG? lol?

Open bg so wvw can finally die. No one will be left to decap on other servers so bg will get a perfect score each week and Anet and say see wvw isn’t dieing look at bgs score.

2-1-1 is no good in my opinion.

If you REALLY wanted to make a statement and get the 2nd and 3rd off their behinds you would change to 1-0-0.

Yeah, that’s right. 2nd and 3rd get zip. The losing servers, if behind, would truly be incentivized to team up on 1st.

Although, yes, population problems are much bigger than scoring. Those should get priority.

JTGuevara.9018:

2-1-1 is no good in my opinion.

If you REALLY wanted to make a statement and get the 2nd and 3rd off their behinds you would change to 1-0-0.

2-1-1 and 1-0-0 have the same effects. Just as 3-2-2 or 100-99-99. You will always gain 1 point over the other two if you win.
The issue is that Glicko need to compare the points in the end of the week to give the rating and the chance of having a server scoring 0 can screw up comparission for ratings since the score will be infinite % higher than the one with 0.

JTGuevara.9018:

Yeah, that’s right. 2nd and 3rd get zip. The losing servers, if behind, would truly be incentivized to team up on 1st.

Why on earth should you ever team up on the 1st server with that kind of scoring?

You are two servers. One of you will get 0 points no matter how much you help each other. So helping them when they have a chance to get 1 point and you get 0 points is a loose-loose situation. You dont want them to get 1 point and you dont want to get 0 points.

Or what, do you think the two underdogs will place nice and lazily “trade” 1st place against a server that probably has twice the population and that they cant win over anyway? One of the servers just need to betray the other at the end, stop playing and get them roflstomped to win.

Your suggestion is absolutely laughable.

Jeknar.6184:

JTGuevara.9018:

2-1-1 is no good in my opinion.

If you REALLY wanted to make a statement and get the 2nd and 3rd off their behinds you would change to 1-0-0.

2-1-1 and 1-0-0 have the same effects. Just as 3-2-2 or 100-99-99. You will always gain 1 point over the other two if you win.
The issue is that Glicko need to compare the points in the end of the week to give the rating and the chance of having a server scoring 0 can screw up comparission for ratings since the score will be infinite % higher than the one with 0.

True. 3-2-1 works best then.

OK, so an update on the end of the week regarding some data.

In the past, the war score has typically gotten closer and closer together, meaning their difference in ratios gets smaller. This seems to generally be the case, but not in the degree that I was expecting. I think this might be due to the lower level of competition in this new system.

Also, some match-ups seem to be very lopsided when comparing activity to skirmish score. Most notably T2. T2 has closed the gap tremendously in war score, meaning there’s been much greater activity for the 2nd and 3rd place servers, but the skirmish score is nowhere near reflective of this activity.

Also of note is in T4. DB has actually surpassed NS in war score, yet they lag behind in skirmish score. This may simply be the skirmish system working to keep run-away matches from happening by incrementing the score to 2 hour time blocks, or maybe they’ve been pulling some overtime during the week, but been falling just a bit short. Dunno. I’m not paying close attention to T4.

I suspect that having efforts not rewarded with scoring will continue to erode the player base. On my server, BG, and the enemies I encounter, I’ve seen a large decrease in activity and population. I truly think this is due to our efforts not being rewarded. Yes, there’s other philosophies at play. As one example, there’s rivalries that we’d actually like to engage in, which requires us to fight TC. This means the 2nd and 3rd place servers are not engaging the first place server.

Another example: we do not have direct lines of communication with the players and commanders on the other servers. As such, we can’t co-ordinate 2v1s. All we can do is try to incentive’s 2v1s via our own behavior. However this doesn’t always work. So, instead of fighting a much greater population in the 1st place server, it’s more fun to engage in a more even fight with the 2nd/3rd place servers.

Without this 2v1, the whole 211 scoring system falls apart. WvW is a RvRvR. It is the core of what makes this game mode great and above all other games regarding large scale PvP. The only other exception is the fight mechanics. Please return us to this 3 way free-for-all.

I also find it amazing, and frankly insulting that we’ve gotten no response from any dev on this most fundamental and drastic change to WvW, and whether they think this is working, not working, or still to be determined. This lack of attention could also be affecting player attrition.

An additional thought on this. As a BG player, I also feel that we’ve lost a tremendous amount of control over our destiny. We’ve spent years creating a community. Whether it’s for better or worse, it is ours. We, as a collective, have been in control over our destiny, whether we push hard, or play casual. Trying to fill our gaps in coverage, trying to police ourselves with our behavior. Trying to get newer players in the loop, get them better, train them. What have you.

But with this 211 scoring system, we are no longer in control over our own destiny. If we win, it was because we had the co-operation of the 3rd place server. It was not due to our own efforts, and, for me, this feels like it’s cheating us, and also cheating the 3rd place server, as they will receive zero reward from this co-operation.

In the coming weeks, if Maguma looses their link, then maybe BG is the dominant server again in T1. These same issues will affect them and whover we’re matched with as well.

Of course, this is somewhat unique to the T1 servers, but it’s still noteworthy.

Spurnshadow.3678:

Yes, there’s other philosophies at play. As one example, there’s rivalries that we’d actually like to engage in, which requires us to fight TC. This means the 2nd and 3rd place servers are not engaging the first place server.

That was the basis of my point where fights guilds generally play based on what other guilds they can fight, not the placement of the server those guilds are on.

I think we can leave the scoring for now and move on to population imbalance.

;)

Svarty.8019:

I think we can leave the scoring for now and move on to population imbalance.

;)

This won’t matter. Even if you had perfect population balance among the 3 servers in a tier, all these issues with the 211 scoring system remain.

Spurnshadow.3678:

An additional thought on this. As a BG player, I also feel that we’ve lost a tremendous amount of control over our destiny. We’ve spent years creating a community. Whether it’s for better or worse, it is ours. We, as a collective, have been in control over our destiny, whether we push hard, or play casual. Trying to fill our gaps in coverage, trying to police ourselves with our behavior. Trying to get newer players in the loop, get them better, train them. What have you.

But with this 211 scoring system, we are no longer in control over our own destiny. If we win, it was because we had the co-operation of the 3rd place server. It was not due to our own efforts, and, for me, this feels like it’s cheating us, and also cheating the 3rd place server, as they will receive zero reward from this co-operation.

In the coming weeks, if Maguma looses their link, then maybe BG is the dominant server again in T1. These same issues will affect them and whover we’re matched with as well.

Of course, this is somewhat unique to the T1 servers, but it’s still noteworthy.

Translation: BG can no longer focus the third place server during their dead time zones for an easy win, please open BG.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Spurnshadow.3678:

An additional thought on this. As a BG player, I also feel that we’ve lost a tremendous amount of control over our destiny. We’ve spent years creating a community. Whether it’s for better or worse, it is ours. We, as a collective, have been in control over our destiny, whether we push hard, or play casual. Trying to fill our gaps in coverage, trying to police ourselves with our behavior. Trying to get newer players in the loop, get them better, train them. What have you.

But with this 211 scoring system, we are no longer in control over our own destiny. If we win, it was because we had the co-operation of the 3rd place server. It was not due to our own efforts, and, for me, this feels like it’s cheating us, and also cheating the 3rd place server, as they will receive zero reward from this co-operation.

In the coming weeks, if Maguma looses their link, then maybe BG is the dominant server again in T1. These same issues will affect them and whover we’re matched with as well.

Of course, this is somewhat unique to the T1 servers, but it’s still noteworthy.

Translation: BG can no longer focus the third place server during their dead time zones for an easy win, please open BG.

Translation: reading is hard. I’m just gonna insert some trollish thing.

Spurnshadow.3678:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Spurnshadow.3678:

An additional thought on this. As a BG player, I also feel that we’ve lost a tremendous amount of control over our destiny. We’ve spent years creating a community. Whether it’s for better or worse, it is ours. We, as a collective, have been in control over our destiny, whether we push hard, or play casual. Trying to fill our gaps in coverage, trying to police ourselves with our behavior. Trying to get newer players in the loop, get them better, train them. What have you.

But with this 211 scoring system, we are no longer in control over our own destiny. If we win, it was because we had the co-operation of the 3rd place server. It was not due to our own efforts, and, for me, this feels like it’s cheating us, and also cheating the 3rd place server, as they will receive zero reward from this co-operation.

In the coming weeks, if Maguma looses their link, then maybe BG is the dominant server again in T1. These same issues will affect them and whover we’re matched with as well.

Of course, this is somewhat unique to the T1 servers, but it’s still noteworthy.

Translation: BG can no longer focus the third place server during their dead time zones for an easy win, please open BG.

Translation: reading is hard. I’m just gonna insert some trollish thing.

O P E N B G W E A R E L O S I N G T O M A G

i think they should open BG and then turn it upside down and everyone falls out

this would be a positive change

back to 321 score pls.

About scoring, the extra PPT added recently lends to PPK needing adjustment up too. A World with a weak 0.6 KDR shouldn’t be winning. That means the are simply out populating, back capping empty maps, or sitting in upgraded keeps with siege.

DeWolfe.2174:

About scoring, the extra PPT added recently lends to PPK needing adjustment up too. A World with a weak 0.6 KDR shouldn’t be winning. That means the are simply out populating, back capping empty maps, or sitting in upgraded keeps with siege.

You won’t need adjustments to PPK. You need to do something about the population issue: If Jade Quarry had problems like not having enough players, their KD would drop to 0.6 or even lower too

DeWolfe.2174:

About scoring, the extra PPT added recently lends to PPK needing adjustment up too. A World with a weak 0.6 KDR shouldn’t be winning. That means the are simply out populating, back capping empty maps, or sitting in upgraded keeps with siege.

You won’t need adjustments to PPK. You need to do something about the population issue: If Jade Quarry had problems like not having enough players, their KDR would drop to 0.6 or even lower too

Spurnshadow.3678:

OK, so an update on the end of the week regarding some data.

In the past, the war score has typically gotten closer and closer together, meaning their difference in ratios gets smaller. This seems to generally be the case, but not in the degree that I was expecting. I think this might be due to the lower level of competition in this new system.

Also, some match-ups seem to be very lopsided when comparing activity to skirmish score. Most notably T2. T2 has closed the gap tremendously in war score, meaning there’s been much greater activity for the 2nd and 3rd place servers, but the skirmish score is nowhere near reflective of this activity.

Also of note is in T4. DB has actually surpassed NS in war score, yet they lag behind in skirmish score. This may simply be the skirmish system working to keep run-away matches from happening by incrementing the score to 2 hour time blocks, or maybe they’ve been pulling some overtime during the week, but been falling just a bit short. Dunno. I’m not paying close attention to T4.

I suspect that having efforts not rewarded with scoring will continue to erode the player base. On my server, BG, and the enemies I encounter, I’ve seen a large decrease in activity and population. I truly think this is due to our efforts not being rewarded. Yes, there’s other philosophies at play. As one example, there’s rivalries that we’d actually like to engage in, which requires us to fight TC. This means the 2nd and 3rd place servers are not engaging the first place server.

Another example: we do not have direct lines of communication with the players and commanders on the other servers. As such, we can’t co-ordinate 2v1s. All we can do is try to incentive’s 2v1s via our own behavior. However this doesn’t always work. So, instead of fighting a much greater population in the 1st place server, it’s more fun to engage in a more even fight with the 2nd/3rd place servers.

Without this 2v1, the whole 211 scoring system falls apart. WvW is a RvRvR. It is the core of what makes this game mode great and above all other games regarding large scale PvP. The only other exception is the fight mechanics. Please return us to this 3 way free-for-all.

I also find it amazing, and frankly insulting that we’ve gotten no response from any dev on this most fundamental and drastic change to WvW, and whether they think this is working, not working, or still to be determined. This lack of attention could also be affecting player attrition.

something is grossly wrong with that chart…. No c in Yacks Bend

Digikid.7230:

Taking a t3 keep or whatnot helps you in the next skirmish though….. Also don’t blame the scoring system for BG purposely tanking in order to get a server link, that’s why the score is so lopsided.

You’re gonna have to tank for 2 more months to have any hope of that.

The 2-1-1 system is really really wrong. In any competition second and third place show be reward differently.

Some people think that this will encourage the 2 lesser servers to team up, and for anyone paying attention to WvW in past years it is obvious it will not happen.

After all the 2 servers with lower points ALWAYS had option of double-teaming the leader – but it rarely happened. If it did – mostly because they had some sort of gurdge against it. The 2-1-1 changes nothing.

With 2-1-1 there is no reward for second place, and no “punishment” for third place. In many skirmishes one of the 3 servers falls behind enough that it’s not possible to catch up to leader.
Why would you care for helping current runner up to be winner ?

The people in the 3-rd one will tell you they don’t play for PPT but for fights, and anyway we will get the same points as server 2 (It’s funny though that when you lead in skirmish so many of those people sound really happy about winning those 2 points)

In fact this might have rather opposite effect. Let’s imagine you have 3 servers. One is leading in overall points but in current skirmish it’s 3-rd. One is runner up in overall points, and is also second in the current skirmish.
Obviously curreny skirmish leader is 3 overall.
As overall leader if you do nothing – then you still win in total score, as the difference between you and the runner up remains the same.

Do you guys not have enough metrics on this yet?

Spurnshadow.3678:

Do you guys not have enough metrics on this yet?

I doubt anyone will be able to analyze the impact of the scoring change until after Christmas and wintersday passes. We saw a ten percent drop in WvW activity during the Halloween content and we are seeing a similar (although slightly larger drop) for wintersday content.

DeWolfe.2174:

About scoring, the extra PPT added recently lends to PPK needing adjustment up too. A World with a weak 0.6 KDR shouldn’t be winning. That means the are simply out populating, back capping empty maps, or sitting in upgraded keeps with siege.

I wouldn’t want PPK adjusted with the way balance is at the moment. Increasing the impact of PPK will encourage conservative tactics too much, and that isn’t fun to play as or against. Nobody wants more servers like Mag who use “buddy” systems, run away from every fight the instant they start losing or flee when they don’t have the numbers.

Hubal.8571:

In any competition second and third place show be reward differently.

Most competitions don’t consist of only three players. I’m struggling to think of three-player games that treat the two losing players differently. The 3-2-1 system was essentially a participation award for the second place server. From a competitive standpoint, in a three player game the only position that matters is who comes first – either you win or you don’t.

I want PPK adjusted to give more points if the outmanned buff is up. PPT gets extra points from people who put in the effort to upgrade structures or take upgraded structures. PPK should get a similar treatment for people who put in the extra effort to get kills while outnumbered. Stop rewarding blobbers.

Tyrx.2471:

I wouldn’t want PPK adjusted with the way balance is at the moment. Increasing the impact of PPK will encourage conservative tactics too much, and that isn’t fun to play as or against. Nobody wants more servers like Mag who use “buddy” systems, run away from every fight the instant they start losing or flee when they don’t have the numbers.

Yeah, why should PPK focused play styles that actively encourage fighting be encouraged! We should all just sit in a t3 structure with siege all day and talk about how cute dolyaks are in the moonlight.

Can we all agree, that the new system is not rly working even when the intention might be good? Oh and btw. the scoring of 321 was never the issue.

It’s a.) the population imbalance combined with the very slow glicko

And b.) the fights are no fun, cause the meta is crap

OK, so I want to address a criticism that I’ve seen pop up here and on some other threads:

211 makes it easier for people to come back as the 3rd place server is not as far behind as they’d be under the 321 system. This is false.

First of all, if you’re a “third place server,” then you will most likely never place first in a skirmish. It might happen if the other two are asleep. At least in 321, you might place 2nd which is a win in of itself, and improves your glicko. That doesn’t happen under 211.

“It keeps the matches from being run-away for the 3rd place server”

Uh, yeah, but it’s totally made up. Sure, they’re in the same position as the stronger 2nd place server, but they’re still too weak to win. Why are we punishing the whole system in order to make the 3rd place server feel better? That’s irrational.

Yes, they are closer to the 2nd place server, but do you think the stronger 2nd place server will put up with that? No. They’ll just win a skirmish or two at some point throughout the week, in order to place 2nd. It’s total BS that the 3rd place server still gets nearly the same score and the same glicko adjustments.

If you think that it’s better because the 3rd place server is only 1/2 (50%) way behind now whereas before, they were 1/3 (33%) of the way behind, so what? If that was really a big deal for you, then there are other solutions, for example, a 543 scoring system. For those of you who find basic math difficult, that’s 60% behind first.

I never had too much of an issue with the 321 scoring system. My biggest criticism was that it was not that reflective of a servers efforts. I’ve always thought it should be 543 as that would closer reflect the efforts of a server’s war score.

Spurnshadow.3678:

First of all, if you’re a “third place server,” then you will most likely never place first in a skirmish. It might happen if the other two are asleep. At least in 321, you might place 2nd which is a win in of itself, and improves your glicko. That doesn’t happen under 211.

I find it difficult to agree with this. In the first week of 211, our server was 3rd all week and got an extra skirmish point on Friday morning (I think it was a nightcap) to come 2nd.

“It keeps the matches from being run-away for the 3rd place server”

Uh, yeah, but it’s totally made up. Sure, they’re in the same position as the stronger 2nd place server, but they’re still too weak to win. Why are we punishing the whole system in order to make the 3rd place server feel better? That’s irrational.

Again, referring to my experience as an example, it did seem slightly cheap to win 2nd place in that way. It did add an element of excitement to Thursday, however, knowing that at some point in the following day we could have grabbed 2nd spot.

Yes, they are closer to the 2nd place server, but do you think the stronger 2nd place server will put up with that? No. They’ll just win a skirmish or two at some point throughout the week, in order to place 2nd.

In my example this wasn’t the case. The 800lb gorilla utterly crushed both of the other servers during the daytime. Every. Single. Day.

Spurnshadow.3678:

I never had too much of an issue with the 321 scoring system. My biggest criticism was that it was not that reflective of a servers efforts. I’ve always thought it should be 543 as that would closer reflect the efforts of a server’s war score.

I get the impression that the numbers are largely irrelevant at the moment -

• first place is often determined before the game begins, or shortly afterwards,
• with 211, third place can come 2nd due to one lucky nightcap period,
• even if there were some way to stop one gorilla server winning nearly every skirmish and the other two fighting over 1 nightcap over the entire week, most players aren’t too fussed about winning or losing except that they don’t want to fall so far down “the ladder” that they become a gorilla server themselves – an occurrance that has disappeared into the mists of obscurity due to the “good fights” ideology behind the linking system.

Those are my thoughts. I hope they made sense.

Svarty.8019:

I get the impression that the numbers are largely irrelevant at the moment -

• first place is often determined before the game begins, or shortly afterwards,
• with 211, third place can come 2nd due to one lucky nightcap period,
• even if there were some way to stop one gorilla server winning nearly every skirmish and the other two fighting over 1 nightcap over the entire week, most players aren’t too fussed about winning or losing except that they don’t want to fall so far down “the ladder” that they become a gorilla server themselves – an occurrance that has disappeared into the mists of obscurity due to the “good fights” ideology behind the linking system.

Those are my thoughts. I hope they made sense.

The numbers are super relevant. First, and most importantly, they dictate strategy and overall psychology. Secondly, they are a better reflection of server strength. 3 servers in a match should have 3 different scores, not 2. The fact that you, and others are calling the current scoring system somewhat irrelevant is a huge problem. Third, it effects glicko.

Spurnshadow.3678:

The numbers are super relevant. First, and most importantly, they dictate strategy and overall psychology. Secondly, they are a better reflection of server strength. 3 servers in a match should have 3 different scores, not 2. The fact that you, and others are calling the current scoring system somewhat irrelevant is a huge problem. Third, it effects glicko.

The point I’ve tried to illustrate is that there are bigger problems in WvW that corrupt the scoring system and make it seem better/worse than it actually is. i.e. it’s difficult to judge the scoring because of population imbalance/single-server-dominance.

How is 5, 4, 3 any different from 3, 2, 1? In the end, the server in third place will be 2 points behind the server in first place, and 1 point behind the server in 2nd place for every skirmish in those positions. After 10 skirmishes with the same results, the third place server will still be 20 points behind the first place server.

How is this any better than 2, 1, 1?

It’s not any better, but if they used 3, 2, 1 that would mean they might have to acknowledge that the player base actually knows what their talking about. This way they can use 5, 4, 3 and say it was their idea, when they get a bad review they can say they came up with the idea of how to fix the problem and thus are paying attention to WvW.

It’s the enormous Anet Ego they can’t put aside for the betterment of the game and playerbase.

Wonder why there isn’t a poll for the different sets to get a general idea of what players prefer. Either way, we’ve had 321, it’s good to try out 211 and 543 just to see how it affects players, although as mentioned 543 isn’t much different than 321, just bigger numbers.

your right. there is only one difference between 3 2 1 and 5 4 3. The scores as a percent will be closer, but the winner will win by the same amount of points with either system. for example final score will be 398 to 390 to 370 vs the other way would be 198 to 190 to 170… so why? you could add other bonus scores maybe holding sm prime time gives a team +1 but i don’t know if thats what your going for.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The response to 2,1,1 is mixed

Hahahaha… I dont think you have been reading the same things we have. It’s disliked by almost everyone. That’s not exactly a mixed response.

5/4/3 over the normal 3/2/1 I fail to see the point of but literally anything is better than 2/1/1 so there’s always that.

We still need some sort of score bonus features for hitting servers that currently have more points while getting less score for hitting servers that has less points.

Also increase PPK or severly reduce the PPT tier bonuses as they have wrecked havoc on the score landscape. It’s waaaaaaaaay to easy to snowball points now for the top server due to heavily defended upgraded objectives the lesser servers simply cant take so easily.

The PPT scores was OK pre tier bonuses. Not perfect, but skirmishes reduced the impact of nightcapping and it was OK. Then it got ruined again :/

Well, let’s not mock the devs for saying ‘mixed’. They’re doing something we’re all wanting in some form or another in this thread — the dev messaging may not be perfect here, but the end goal is achieved.

And yes to a PPK increase.

OriOri.8724:

How is 5, 4, 3 any different from 3, 2, 1? In the end, the server in third place will be 2 points behind the server in first place, and 1 point behind the server in 2nd place for every skirmish in those positions. After 10 skirmishes with the same results, the third place server will still be 20 points behind the first place server.

How is this any better than 2, 1, 1?

The ratios between each world score will be different with the new 5,4,3 system which affects the Glicko-2 calculations for ranking at the end of each matchup. It looks to be an attempt to stop the large swings in ranking we’re getting now.

Dawdler.8521:

Hahahaha… I dont think you have been reading the same things we have. It’s disliked by almost everyone. That’s not exactly a mixed response.

Who is this “everyone”? Everyone who comes to complain to forums? Certainly not the players who are enjoying the game by actually playing it and seeing the merits of the system, namely closer and more interesting matchups that aren’t about ganging up on the weakest server.

5-4-3 is exactly the same as 3-2-1, only numbers are closer and thus more difficult to tell apart.

Nuzt.7894:

It’s not any better, but if they used 3, 2, 1 that would mean they might have to acknowledge that the player base actually knows what their talking about. This way they can use 5, 4, 3 and say it was their idea, when they get a bad review they can say they came up with the idea of how to fix the problem and thus are paying attention to WvW.

It’s the enormous Anet Ego they can’t put aside for the betterment of the game and playerbase.

How exactly is that confirming the player base knows what they’re talking about when anet the one that set it to 321 to begin with. 211 and 543 were the more popular numbers thrown around back in the skirmish feedback thread, they’re trying it out, not trying to save their egos.

For all we know the complainers about 211 are a bunch of players who like to play for second, or players for 321 are the ones dominating matches and just likes feeding off the weaker servers. Which would not exactly be the best group of “knowing what they talking about” to listen to.