Guild Wars 2

Greetings,
Been pondering some ideas to help improve the dynamic in WvW and help some of the servers that lack coverage and the ability to compete be able to stay in the game through the end of the match. Thus keeping the top dog busy and the battlefield active.

My proposal breaks apart matchups into different perks for each place.

Removing Cross Swords

• 1st place should have no swords
• 2nd place should have a 30 second delay on swords
• 3rd place should show swords instantly.

Build Timers

• 1st place Upgrades build 50% slower
• 2nd place Upgrades build at normal speed
• 3rd place Upgrades 50% faster

NPC’s

• 1st Place NPC’s have 25% less HP
• 2nd place NPC’s are normal
• 3rd Place NPC’s have 25% more HP

Siege

• 1st Place: Siege Weapons Cost 10 Supply More to Build
• 2nd Place: No Effect
• 3rd Place: Siege Weapons Cost 10 Supply Less to Build

By creating these tiered buffs you would make it so the underdog would have more of a shot of staying competitive to the end. I don’t know anyone that enjoys playing a blowout match. It would be better to keep things close.

So what if the outnumbered server pushes into first place with massive overtime, skilful fighting and commanders/scouts with good map awareness? Punishing first place isn’t the answer to ‘help the little guy’. I know my example is a bit of a reach, but it’s not like it hasn’t happened before (SoR and Mag come to mind). What should happen is more incentive for 2nd and 3rd place to attack 1st place rather than each other

If they push into first then they adopt the 1st place debuffs. The side with the lowest score would be able to counter assaults better and assault the 1st place team easier than they would the 2nd place team. This would be a dynamic system so if 3rd place replaces 1st place on wednesday they are now the 1st place and have those debuffs, while the new 3rd place gets the buffs.

What you mention “What should happen is more incentive for 2nd and 3rd place to attack 1st place rather than each other” is exactly what this is getting at. The top dog is weaker than the other two and thus more prone to attack. Also less prone to boredom.

It used to be “it’s perfectly normal to gang up on the 3rd place server” (usually us) now that we have finally had a chance to get ahead for once, someone wants to go and change the rules.
If I’m not mistaken for the past couple of days we have been the ones to sport the undermanned buff. It’s just that we are in our element this evening… 10 guys in two forts fighting off two servers and getting our keep back. Almost two years as the underdog and actually it’s pretty fun.
But “NO” there’s no reason to change any game mechanics just because a server can’t take any structures easily or hold their own even when they hold the manpower advantage.
“ET”

Every server have the population to fill places. Players just dont want to play. Give them a reason to come

Terrible idea.

For one, this actually encourages not winning. BG can stomp both JQ and TC easily when they try, but when we’re not in seasons, the winning server usually switches randomly, as most of us don’t really care as much about who places where. A server could easily tank one week and then roll over the other two the next week with the benefits third place would get.

For two, this doesn’t do anything to actually solve the issue. There’s a major population/coverage imbalance in many tiers, but crippling the most populated server in the tier isn’t a solution.

Honestly, I’d rather go up against BG in all their glory and lose while fighting, rather than winning just because they have some stupid debuffs from winning the previous week. That wouldn’t even be fun.

Also, your bit about the 2v1ing the top server – JQ and TC did that in Season 2, and it was the most boring kitten I’ve ever witnessed in GW2. Free-for-all fighting is so much better, win or lose. It would be a big mistake to encourage this behavior.

This would only work if it activate upon meeting some threshold (like 1st is 50k ahead of 2nd and 3rd is 50k behind of 2nd). Otherwise it would encourage the strongest server to tank to be 3rd all week while artifically keeping the score close and them make a push on the last day to secure the win.

Foghladha.2506:

Greetings,
Been pondering some ideas to help improve the dynamic in WvW and help some of the servers that lack coverage and the ability to compete be able to stay in the game through the end of the match. Thus keeping the top dog busy and the battlefield active.

My proposal breaks apart matchups into different perks for each place.

Removing Cross Swords

• 1st place should have no swords
• 2nd place should have a 30 second delay on swords
• 3rd place should show swords instantly.

Build Timers

• 1st place Upgrades build 50% slower
• 2nd place Upgrades build at normal speed
• 3rd place Upgrades 50% faster

NPC’s

• 1st Place NPC’s have 25% less HP
• 2nd place NPC’s are normal
• 3rd Place NPC’s have 25% more HP

Siege

• 1st Place: Siege Weapons Cost 10 Supply More to Build
• 2nd Place: No Effect
• 3rd Place: Siege Weapons Cost 10 Supply Less to Build

By creating these tiered buffs you would make it so the underdog would have more of a shot of staying competitive to the end. I don’t know anyone that enjoys playing a blowout match. It would be better to keep things close.

I’ve posted exactly such suggestions before myself, Ben, and thank you for presenting them in this more legible and comprehensible format.

Could you kindly clear up whether you mean that you determine who is in 1st, 2nd and 3rd places as the game progresses in real time, at a set interval or just at the end of the match, please?

storiessave.3807:

Terrible idea.

For one, this actually encourages not winning. BG can stomp both JQ and TC easily when they try, but when we’re not in seasons, the winning server usually switches randomly, as most of us don’t really care as much about who places where. A server could easily tank one week and then roll over the other two the next week with the benefits third place would get.

For two, this doesn’t do anything to actually solve the issue. There’s a major population/coverage imbalance in many tiers, but crippling the most populated server in the tier isn’t a solution.

Honestly, I’d rather go up against BG in all their glory and lose while fighting, rather than winning just because they have some stupid debuffs from winning the previous week. That wouldn’t even be fun.

Also, your bit about the 2v1ing the top server – JQ and TC did that in Season 2, and it was the most boring kitten I’ve ever witnessed in GW2. Free-for-all fighting is so much better, win or lose. It would be a big mistake to encourage this behavior.

I think the OP is suggesting the buff/debuff apply dynamically during the match. If a server is leading in points Saturday they get the first place debuff. If they get overtaken in points on Sunday they get the second place version.

Similarly there is a difference between 2v1 the whole week and 2v1 based off of who is leading in total points or ppt at a particular point in time.

Foghladha.2506:

If they push into first then they adopt the 1st place debuffs. The side with the lowest score would be able to counter assaults better and assault the 1st place team easier than they would the 2nd place team. This would be a dynamic system so if 3rd place replaces 1st place on wednesday they are now the 1st place and have those debuffs, while the new 3rd place gets the buffs.

What you mention “What should happen is more incentive for 2nd and 3rd place to attack 1st place rather than each other” is exactly what this is getting at. The top dog is weaker than the other two and thus more prone to attack. Also less prone to boredom.

No. All your suggestion does is artificially keep scores close, even though one server may not even be in the right matchup due to population changes, causing glicko to change even slower than it already does. Servers still need to stomp other servers when they are the biggest in their matchup to move up tiers, or drop tiers if they’re getting stomped. Just think about SoR’s implosion. You guys would’ve had a far worse time fighting silver league servers for far longer due to your suggestion

Reverence.6915:

All your suggestion does is artificially keep scores close,

I think that keeping the scores close is good for the game. It means that there is more opportunity for an upset later in the week.
It’s pretty boring when the first place server has won by Tuesday.

This said, I don’t see any magic bullet, one-shot solution. There will be more to do even if/when this is implemented.

I definitely like the crossed swords idea. I would add to it that the losing server(s) are immune to “taps” – white swords only show up with damage by siege or some minimum damage by players. Maybe the build timers idea.

But I also agree with what really needs to happen is to incentivize attacking the stronger/leading server. So that the 2v1 happens on #1 and not #3. There have been numerous suggestions on how to make this happen.

Reverence is correct about Glicko. If scores are artificially kept close, Anet would need to alter the matchmaking system so that it is not totally Glicko dependent.

Here’s something else they could implement on a test basis for a few weeks like they’re doing with white swords and ppk.