(edited by Tricare.2946)
The reason for World vs World vs World
It might help if, instead of a red tag for any enemy, the color would be blue, green or red, according to their server’s position in the tier.
Why not create a neutral zone that you can only access via a way point, where players from any of the three competing servers might meet and talk? It could be made so that nobody can spend to much time in there: After 10 minutes you are kicked out of the neutral zone; you can’t return for another half hour. Whether for discussing a temporary alliance or to taunt the enemy, it could be fun!
By the way, I would like an option to set the color of dead enemies to something else, perhaps a darker color. Sometimes it isn’t obvious who is dead and who is not, when there is crowd and fighting isn’t over yet.
Rineh, a necromancer on Ruins of Surmia
(edited by iptah.6715)
Infrastructure issues. It’s difficult to team up in AoEvAoE when friendly fire is on and the one’s you’re trying to teaming up with are always marked as enemies. There’s also the prisoner’s dilemma to deal with. It may be beneficial for two losing worlds to team up, but there can only be one winner in the end, and the best way to get ahead involved being selfish in the end. The slow point trickle requires prolonged moments of ceasefire in order for the cooperation between two worlds to mean anything, making it even trickier. In this case it’s not healthy to blame the playerbase, but it may be more constructive to question the system itself and find ways to improve it.
(edited by TwoBit.5903)
I’m not talking of zerging together. Stay out of each others Borderlands, if you have to go to theirs only take what the winning server owns and when the home team comes out stay away from them. When attacking the bigger servers BL stay on your side. Make them have to split their forces.
Also you can invite people from the other server to your party. Find out who the commanders are and work together.
+1000 to the OP. This is the best way to correct imbalances (the only way imho).
In this case it’s not healthy to blame the playerbase, but it may be more constructive to question the system itself and find ways to improve it.
I could not disagree more. We, the players, can do nothing about the system. What we can do is control how we play the game. Anet may never be able to fix this.
Teaming up with another server does not mean being in the exact same location necessarily because yes, AoE becomes a problem and it would be much harder to control.
This is how it could work: Green is the dominant server obviously.
On EB: Easy. Blue and Red take their third and don’t attack each other along their common territorial border. Put all the pressure on Green from both sides. Make it a two front war for Green and a one front war for Blue and Red.
On Green BL: This is the key I think. Blue and Red each take their spawn tower and camp. Do not fight each other over the border or the south camp (or trade it back and forth). That means all Blue and Red forces can concentrate on one front. Green will be forced to fight on two fronts. It would also force Green players to come here from other maps to defend.
On Red and Blue BL: This is debatable. Initially it might seem like it would be best to stay out of each other’s BL entirely. But it might be better if Red and Blue would each take their respective spawn towers and camps to act as a buffer against Green.
I think most tiers who have this problem should try this out for one week and see how things change.
Not many people seem to understand why there are 3 (yes 3) servers fighting one another. Every week I see people complaining about one sever winning by a large amount. Why not team up with the other losing sever a take out that big bad sever. That’s the point of having 3 servers fighting.
The enemy of my enemy is my ally.
Often getting a fun fight is more important than a victory condition (in this case points). Would you rather skirmish with an equally sized group or get run over by a zerg? This is generally why two weaker servers go at each other as there is simply no real incentive in place to hit the “big guy” and actually several incentives to avoid the strong server.
IMO EB shouldn’t have been a triangle but actually a map where the two weaker servers get the high ground with the strongest server being put between them in the low ground.
If the bigger server is getting hit by both sides, they will have to zerg one side while they lose the other. The other thing they can do is split up, which then there will be even fights for both sides.
I think they should actually implement something to make it possible to contact the enemy and make an alliance, upon which players become “purple” names, or neutral for you: this means you won’t actually hit them, unless you specifically target them. This also means you can talk with them. I think these alliances shouldn’t be server-bound, but guild-bound.
Each server plays for and against points, you’re not only competing against the two servers in your match up, but also against servers in lower and higher tiers. Depending on your servers points, you not only move up or move down, but your servers point displacement sends waves that move other servers. That’s why you might see one server dominating and making itself a prime target for a double team, but that other weaker server will often play for second place or focus entirely on points per a tick, looking ahead a match or two rather then the match they’re currently in.
Kash
NSP
NSP
I’m not 100% sure, but double teaming 1 server would lower their points while raising your own.
While I do agree,
In theory only,
That the two losing servers should team up to overtake the winning one.
And if there was a way to make it work in practice, that would be fantastic.
But the REALITY is,
When you’re in wvw and you’re one of the two losing servers,
And you look at the map to figure out where you want to go.
MOST people will go attack the other losing server, because they are weaker and easier to take points from.
And thus, playing for Second Place begins.
Dragonbrand
While I do agree,
In theory only,
That the two losing servers should team up to overtake the winning one.
And if there was a way to make it work in practice, that would be fantastic.But the REALITY is,
When you’re in wvw and you’re one of the two losing servers,
And you look at the map to figure out where you want to go.
MOST people will go attack the other losing server, because they are weaker and easier to take points from.
And thus, playing for Second Place begins.
Haha yes DB did this all the time, we had a group of 5 that went into Hills that DB owned and was being taken by FA. We started attacking FA to help out. DB decided to attack us instead of help out and kill FA.
It wouldn’t be hard to have this work. I know there are commanders on every server that people listen to. Just have them talk to everyone and make it work.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
While I do agree,
In theory only,
That the two losing servers should team up to overtake the winning one.
And if there was a way to make it work in practice, that would be fantastic.But the REALITY is,
When you’re in wvw and you’re one of the two losing servers,
And you look at the map to figure out where you want to go.
MOST people will go attack the other losing server, because they are weaker and easier to take points from.
And thus, playing for Second Place begins.Haha yes DB did this all the time, we had a group of 5 that went into Hills that DB owned and was being taken by FA. We started attacking FA to help out. DB decided to attack us instead of help out and kill FA.
It wouldn’t be hard to have this work. I know there are commanders on every server that people listen to. Just have them talk to everyone and make it work.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Well, yeah ;P
I speak from experience, so DB absolutely does do this.
But I can also say there are a lot of PUG groups on DB,
And even the most influential guilds on a server can’t control everything.
Unless Anet puts in an actual system to make real alliances between the two losing servers, or some other solution that encourages servers to attack the leading team as opposed to each other, then Playing for Second is just what is going to continue happening.
I would love for these things to happen, don’t think I am disagreeing with anyone particularly. I’ve always been an advocate for servers to take more advantage of the social gameplay side of wvw, but with the way the game is set up right now, that is very difficult to accomplish (Nigh impossible) on player initiative alone.
Dragonbrand