Guild Wars 2

Preamble: Whenever I take the Bartle test (look it up if you don’t know!), I come out ESAK or SEAK. Simply, I’m not a Killer; I’m not much interested in fighting other players. Each to their own & all that. So I don’t take PvP at all seriously, and WvW not much more so. Don’t get me wrong, I’m competitive alright! Just not on the internet, where all too many people lack any sort of manners because they’re never going to get the smack in the mouth that their behaviour demands… Ahem!

I’ve had a lot of time on my hands recently & I’ve gone through another phase of running around in WvW a reasonable amount; for the dailies & for the fun of it. I’m nothing special, I don’t duel, I’ve no special build, I’m strictly casual, as often as not (but not always, I’ll follow the zerg. However, one thing recently struck me (and apologies if this has been suggested before)…

Obviously, a 3 server map is a lot more interesting than a 2 server map. However, what I’ve noticed in the last couple of months is that what often happens is the middle server just gets squeezed. This is natural. If 3rd is distant from 1st, then neither benefit from fighting each other – 3rd wants to overtake 2nd, 1st wants to make sure 2nd stays there. And, of course, if 2nd is getting pummelled from both sides, then 1st’s lead grows ever more secure…

With megaservers, and multi-server guilds, I am sure there are hundreds upon hundreds of players who know players from competing servers. A four-way map, surely, adds a strategic layer to the tactical gameplay. I’m sure you can all work out how. I’m not suggesting this has any sort of priority at all. There are many more important things that need working on in all aspects of the game. Probably, it’s something to think about for GW3 rather than for the current one, but I thought I’d throw it out there…

NB: Full disclosure – I’m on a Tier 2 server (Eur, Piken). If we get put up against T1, we get mashed because we don’t maintain the 24hr numbers that they do. If we get put up against T3 / T4 we mash them ditto. Not a complaint; it’s just the nature of things!

Well first off, servers can barely handle 3 servers on one map. Either we would need to take player spots from the three servers to give for the fourth or get used to even bigger problems with skill lag etc. Server wise, not gonna happen.

On your other point this wouldn’t really change much. 1st would still try to keep the 2nd in place. 4th would consentrate most on 3rd. And obviously on some matches 1st to 3rd would go take “easy points” from 4th which gets shanked on both sides at the same time while one dude keeps hitting him in the face.

Servers, currently we have 27 server in EU, which means we would need to either make one new server or disband three old servers. Doesn’t sound very thrilling. For NA this would be no problem as they have 24 servers so 4-way would go nicely there.

Oh and ANet would need to make new maps for the four way. That’s not gonna happen considering how long it takes for them to make new maps for three way fighting (ANet isn’t particulary slow but the maps take a lot of time to make and balance). Map making isn’t some magical paint brush you smash into GUI based map maker program.

Three-quarters nit-picking, I’m afraid, Paavotar. Technology changes & improves. So the maps are redesigned to be slightly smaller, under current technology, with the same number of players per map, but less players per server. Or, more likely, this happens in several years with GW3 (and I’m pretty sure that’s already on the drawing board; I’d be astonished if it wasn’t! ) when tech has improved & we have the same numbers of player per server. Or more. The world doesn’t stand still, whether it’s Tyria or the real one.

Server numbers – what’s that got to do with the concept? It’s a concept! So add another server, big deal. It’s only a bunch of rack space. Or more likely, merge servers – that’s what usually happens as games age & player numbers drop. Anet would need to make new maps. Well, duh! State the obvious, or what? Since you seem to have missed it, I’ll repeat it in bold – I’m not suggesting this has any sort of priority at all. There are many more important things that need working on in all aspects of the game. Probably, it’s something to think about for GW3 rather than for the current one, but I thought I’d throw it out there…

As for your second para… You’ve completely missed the implications of the idea and of my penultimate para. I did say " I’m sure you can all work out how." Obviously you haven’t; I’m sure others will. If no-one does, I’ll explain. For now I’ll say, no, you’re wrong. The scenario will stay the same some of the time. But it will also change a lot of the time. I know what people are like, and I know what gamers are like…

Or what about a 5 way fight? or 6? or 8?

Its all the same above 3, really. That is the lowest number you can have to create an unbalanced war scenario. So it wouldnt really change anything. At best, it spread out the ppt score (assuming same max ppt as now) but it offer no real solutions to ppt scoring, coverage most notably. 4 way battles would have the same exact issues if one server dominate low pop periods.

Many many people complain about lags that are even worse than anything they experienced in the past.

The other thing is, they would need to redesign every WvW-Map, even EOTM since there would be 4 colours instead of 3.

Even if this is a nice idea, this is not gonna happen.

If this happens, please make it EotM only. Please keep 4-server fights out of regular WvW.

Anything above 3 and you get alliances. 2 servers v. 2 servers. Which would be fun at some level. But the problem is that the stronger alliance wins.

The reason the 3 server system exists, and has worked this way in prior games as well, is so that does not become a direct heads up fight between two sides, in which the stronger side automatically prevails, and the weaker side has no reason to play. That third side, that wildcard, is important.

Ok @Raedwulf, lets forget about all the technical jumbowumbo and lets consentrate on the matter how this would affect how people would play.

It wouldn’t change that much.

Already 1st pokes 2nd as much as possible and gets extra points from 3rd, this is usually the case in matchups. 1st tries to hinder 2nd so that 3rd has easier time to raid 2nd. 3rd tries to concentrate more on the 2nd and avoid 1st to overcome the 2nd. 2nd tries to get as much points from 3rd, while tries to hold stuff against 1st.

That’s the usual way it goes regarding PPT game in WvW atm.

Now if there was four it would probally go like this.

1st pokes the 2nd as much as possible while gets extra points from 3rd and 4th. 1st main strategy is to hold high PPT with raiding 4th and 3rd to some extent while trying to degrade 2nd towers.

2nd tries to hold its own against 1st and 3rd while getting extra points from raiding 4th mostly and bit 3rd as well.

3rd tries to hold its own against 2nd mostly and from 1st as well while trying to raid some of the 4th if it has spare resources.

4th tries to hold against all the other 3 servers, probally failing hard. 4th will raid mostly 3rd, but others as well because it has nothing to lose really as it has no territory that isn’t constantly being raided.

In the end it’s the same as 3-way but there is just more servers on the food chain. I’ve played this mode for quite a long time and pretty much every matchup has been the same regarding how it goes for PPT. 1st bullies 2nd and gets points from 3rd. 2nd defends itself against 1st and uses spare resources to bully 3rd. 3rd defends and bullies 2nd.

it would take 3 years its anet where talking about here