Guild Wars 2

Mike Ferguson stated in a GW2 preview blog post how to solve the problems that many servers are facing in WvW…one server growing too powerful.

‘Including three forces in world vs. world acts as an excellent balancing factor, preventing one team from growing too powerful and ruining the competitive balance of the game. Two teams can gang up to counter a more dominant third team, a dynamic that simply isn’t possible with only two opposing factions.’
http://www.arena.net/blog/mike-ferguson-on-guild-wars-2-world-vs-world#more-7140

The problem is that the two servers that are being dominated have no efficient way to communicate with each other.

I propose to the WvW community…Server Peace Treaties! This is not an unofficial agreement between two servers to gang up on the other one. This is an in-game event.
Let’s say that Server A is dominating the matchup. This can be determined by point total, current population, or (my preference) current map control.

Server B and Server C now have an upgrade option in their home base to initiate a treaty. Server B buys this upgrade. It spawns an NPC Diplomat that will follow the purchaser of the upgrade. The purchaser also gets the option to pick where the “Negotiations” take place.

It also does a map-wide message to all three teams that a treaty has been initiated by Server B. Server C also receives a message that they need to purchase a Diplomat upgrade from their home base as well as where the Negotiation site is.

Server B and Server C escort their Diplomats to the site where they must be defended (for about the length of securing a structure – both Diplomats need to be in the circle). Server A can start scouting for the Negotiation site to try and assassinate the Diplomats.

If the Negotiations are successful, Server B and Server C now have a peace treaty. They cannot take each other’s structures or attack each other’s (I have no idea how to code this, I know nothing about coding). The Treaty can only last for a set period. Maybe until may control equalizes (plus bonus time for getting upgraded defenses started).

I think this would be cool as an event in WvW and would help to balance the matches more consistently. I do not know what the best thresholds would be for when it is active, cost of the Diplomats, recharge time for the event if they are assassinated, etc. What do you think?

I don’t know how feasible it sounds, but it does sound fun!

I brought this up earlier today, without direct communication with the other server you don’t have much of a chance to make allies.

Setch.2398:

I don’t know how feasible it sounds, but it does sound fun!

That is what I think too. I doubt its feasability, but it would add a unique dynamic that would be fun. It could be a great decoy too.

If the two teams with the treaty take a keep etc while working together, who gets the keep when the treaty runs out?

Sully.9453:

If the two teams with the treaty take a keep etc while working together, who gets the keep when the treaty runs out?

Whichever team I am on. Just kidding. I think it would make most sense that the team with more people in the capture circle would get the structure I guess. Good question.

That is definitely a mechanic that would have to be figured out. Do you have any suggestions on what would be best?

Awsome idea it seems as simple as unflaging the treaty team combine there map chat and put a 2 hour limit on it till it must be renewed. What kind of cost for a treaty 5g 10g? Good job kc

I am going to post a link to this on my wvwvw thread

So, basically you are saying that a few people would be able to dictate everything the server could do. Sorry but no thank you. Stick friendly fire on the diplomat for me so I can kill them myself!

I stick with the old saying “if its red, its dead”. The only good enemy is a dead one and I will select my targets to kill, not you or any other random that is scared of a tougher fight

Its all about ideas this is a good one yea as you said leaving things to be dictated by a few players is an issue but that is why its here help the man work though it

it would be a limited thing cause only one server can go to the next teir at a time so alliences would not be long standing apart from maybye the top tier but i would rather see random match ups instead of the constant cycle that goes on now.

Ganging up as two servers against one is definitely something I’d like to see more of. However, I think a treaty mechanic would only be a good idea if it’s not actually binding, and betrayals can occur at the drop of a hat.

Apparently “Kodash” and “Elona Reach” teamed up to eliminate “Seafarer’s Rest”. And I heard that some “Kodash” have temporarily moved to “Elona Reach”. Seafarer’s is nothing to be feared. We rock during prime time sure, but we have 0 night time organized resistance, right now “Elona Reach” currently own everything except a Garrison, a Tower and Supply Camp, generating 660p/15m.

Day 1 – Sea lead the score
Day 1 night – Kod flew ahead like 10k points and Sea and Elo were equal
Day 2 – By 11pm Sea closed the cap on Kod to 4k difference, Elo eating dust
Day 2 night – Kod again flew ahead like 15k points, Sea comfortably 2nd. Elo’s spawn has lovely green grass.
Day 3 – Same as day 2
Day 4 night – wtf Elo, where did you come from? Seafarer’s went into 3rd
Day 5 – Kod stagnate, I’m talking like 10p/15m. Sea rule the day, neither Kod or Elo are good enough to beat our prime
Day 5 night – Elo own the entire WvW, where is the mighty Kod that ruled the night the first 4 nights? rumours of Kod/Elo alliance, and Elo are now owning the night because it’s Kod players that transferred.

Basically by around Day 5 in any bracket it’s clear on what the final positions will be and people just stop caring about the impossible to win WvW, it’s happening this week and it happened last week against “Fort Ranik” and “Abbadon’s Mouth”, by Wednesday(Day 5) they just gave up because the scores were just to far apart, and it’s possible these matches will be 14 days in the future? this won’t give any more chance for servers to catch the leading server, it will just result in 8 days of crap WvW. Last week it was so bad the last 2 nights my guild stopped PvP because there was no one to fight.

Fine. If you want ideas that would make it acceptable to me. Fine.

1) It is a short time thing. 1-3hr max
2) Large gold cost (10g + as it affects so many people it would be a server combined effort. Value has scope to be increased as more money enter system)
3) 100 Badge of honour cost – means you wont have pve people going “but i need that vista/poi” etc .. they would need to be involved in wvw to be able to initialise
4) This merely stops you attacking their keeps, Players still can be killed if deemed a threat (Hello im spying on your situation whilst you cant attack me, and i bring a force to your weak point when it drops0

that will do for now, though sure more will come to mind

Great Idea. I’m in full support of this. Perhaps the idea of taking a keep/tower/camp, the camp is now NPC or neutral owned. No way of either team taking it.

If you want to see what even the rumor of a server alliance does in real life, look at the TC-Mag-EB thread.

Corran.4957:

Fine. If you want ideas that would make it acceptable to me. Fine.

1) It is a short time thing. 1-3hr max
2) Large gold cost (10g + as it affects so many people it would be a server combined effort. Value has scope to be increased as more money enter system)
3) 100 Badge of honour cost – means you wont have pve people going “but i need that vista/poi” etc .. they would need to be involved in wvw to be able to initialise
4) This merely stops you attacking their keeps, Players still can be killed if deemed a threat (Hello im spying on your situation whilst you cant attack me, and i bring a force to your weak point when it drops0

that will do for now, though sure more will come to mind

1. I agree with a short time limit. It should not last more than 3-4 hours tops. That is also why I think it should be based on map control per map. Not total score.
2. Again, I agree with a large gold investment.
3. I don’t know if I agree with a badge cost if there is a large gold investment. If you are being dominated, then badges are harder to come by.
4. I am not sure I agree with this. If two severs want to join up to take stonemist, as an example, then I don’t want my AoE to be hurting my allies. I do see the issues you raise of planning on deceit as soon as the treaty would be up. However, doesn’t that add another dynamic to the game?