Guild Wars 2

I just started wvw 3 weeks ago. And for the longest time my server was constantly being 2v1ed. It gets old fast when we face zerg after zerg after zerg and there was very little we can do.

2 Scenarios:

1) Its just so easy for the two lesser teams to team up and fight the strongest team in their match up. 2&3 vs 1. The 2nd team and 3rd team realize that their only chance is to work together, and so they do.

2) There are also incentive for the 1st team and the 3rd team to go against the 2nd rated team. 1&3 vs 2. 1st rated team wants to keep on top, while the 3rd rate team wants to surpass the 2nd.

I think having 4 teams in wvw, instead of just 3, would solve all these problems. The advantages of teaming up won’t be as obvious.

Take the previous scenarios.

1) We would have 2&3&4 vs 1. But this would rarely happen. Firstly it is hard to get 3 teams working together. And secondly, teams 3&4 would also want to overtake team 2. We would end up having 3&4 vs 2 vs 1.

2) We would have 1&3&4 vs 2. But once again this would rarely happen. Team 4 would like to overtake team 3 at some point. So we would end up having 1&4 vs 3 vs 2.

All in all, make alliance incentives less obvious. Then it won’t happen all the time.

No, 3 teams is perfect exactly for the reason you mentioned.

2&3 vs 1 makes the whole thing fair.

Sadly this doesn’t happen in our matchups with 3 attacking 2 (us) instead

1 usually attacks both and doesn’t give a kitty because they’re stronger anyway.

lol WvW is nothing but a zergfest. Nothing really matters except how many players you have.

The real problem is that people care too much about moving down a tier so the 3 attacks the 2 to try to get into 2 so they don’t drop down. If we go 4 teams its likely that it’ll be 1,2,4 vs 3.

The idea of a 3 team fight is that when one team gets bigger and stronger, the weaker 2 would form an alliance to keep the big team in check. Even in history there were a few occasions like this. However, this is not the case in GW2 because you do not actually hold the territory like in real life, but for points and staying in tier. In real life, if the biggest team builds up the military to annihilate a weaker country, another weaker country would help the attacked country since if they fall the 2nd team is also in danger as well. However, in GW2 if the biggest team kills off the weakest team(or the one attacked by the biggest team), it means that you are not 3rd place and gonna stay in the tier. So it becomes easier to just 2v1 one team and fight the rest 1v1 with the other. So in theory the 3 team setup could have worked, thats probably why they chose to do it this way.

It’s not the amount of realms causing this issue. It’s the tiers and the way points count.

Nr 3 is always better off competing with nr 2, since those points count double (they get more, direct opponent less).

To fix this, taking things from nr 1 should give more points in some way. Either by a direct points bonus on capture, or more points a tick for an amount of time after capturing.

I agree with Beefcake.

3 is actually a good number, because in theory, 2nd and 3rd SHOULD be teaming up against 1st. That’s really the only way to make a balanced match up when servers are unbalanced population wise.

Sadly though it isn’t working here, with1st and 3rd teaming up against 2nd more often than not.

With that said, SOMETHING needs to be done, as the current set up is not working to create balanced fights.

I would suggest making 1st place more important in some way so that people activaly want it. As it stands many players don’t seem to care about getting first, since there’s really no point to it.

No should be uneven so 3 or 5, but damn it would be even more caotic with 5 servers all in SM

How about 2v2? That would be interesting.

Puz.8529:

To fix this, taking things from nr 1 should give more points in some way. Either by a direct points bonus on capture, or more points a tick for an amount of time after capturing.

This sounds like a good mechanic!

Another idea would be a major Debuff you get whenever you’re first or if you have more than a set winning margin over the second team. Another idea would be a debuff that increases over time. Another would be a debuff that increases proportionatly to the distance in points between #1 & #2.

Similarily you could have buff that increases over time/point distance for the third ranked, though whether these buffed 3rd players would be motivated to attack first through this mechanic is questionable.

Whatever the case it would be fun to see some more fluctuation in our Tier 3 also. We get a strong team from Tier 2 which dominates and a team of our level from Tier 4.

WvWvW fails to take into account one of the most basic concepts of war which is, don’t fight a war on two fronts. The top ranked team will always be best suited by determining which enemy team they can most effectively wipe off the map.

If they can smash this enemy team hard enough that they 1) have no assets, or even better, 2) are demoralised to the point of not logging in then they are left facing one enemy whom they know they can beat.

Sometimes this will be 1+3 vs 2 but more often than not its 1+2 vs 3. The hand-puppet team is usually happy to go along with this to avoid bringing the attention of the larger team. Either way the net result is that the intended path of 2+3 ganging up on 1 never happens.

Puz.8529:

It’s not the amount of realms causing this issue. It’s the tiers and the way points count.

Nr 3 is always better off competing with nr 2, since those points count double (they get more, direct opponent less).

To fix this, taking things from nr 1 should give more points in some way. Either by a direct points bonus on capture, or more points a tick for an amount of time after capturing.

More incentives if you cap things from the current leader? i like the idea. That way the losing team would be more encouraged to team up against the current leader, as intended by Anet. I think 2 v 2 is also not a bad idea.

Phoenixfudge.5290:

How about 2v2? That would be interesting.

I think it would be great, and actually easier to balance than 1v1 or 1v1v1 too.

You would also to get to both fight against, and with, all the other servers over time, greatly increasing variety, and preventing staleness setting in.

As servers get transfers or get stronger or weaker, sometimes you get imbalance in a team’s rating. But by having 2 teams on each side, this would diminish the effect of such changes to a matchup.

Why not just let all servers go free for all against eachother?

WvWvWvWvWvWvWvW or however many servers there are….

I think a major problem is that teams cannot communicate with each other and as a result there is no method for 2 and 3 to team up on 1 other than the forum, which completely away the plan to 1.

I think ArenaNet only intends it to be a free-for-all among 3 worlds, but 2 tags along with 1 so 1 doesn’t retaliate and completely eat them alive. Also, there is the problem of 2 and 3 having to fight for 1st place.

yongri.8702:

Why not just let all servers go free for all against eachother?

WvWvWvWvWvWvWvW or however many servers there are….

hey that could work if they split all the servers into 3 teams!

fivekiller.1432:

yongri.8702:

Why not just let all servers go free for all against eachother?

WvWvWvWvWvWvWvW or however many servers there are….

hey that could work if they split all the servers into 3 teams!

Invisible Wars 2: Culling Edition

Gladiat.6278:

fivekiller.1432:

yongri.8702:

Why not just let all servers go free for all against eachother?

WvWvWvWvWvWvWvW or however many servers there are….

hey that could work if they split all the servers into 3 teams!

Invisible Wars 2: Culling Edition

so i guess what you’re saying is.

it wouldn’t really be any different

and i think that is the heart of why 3 teams is already pushing it, and we probably won’t see 4 or 5 or 12 any time soon!

Gladiat.6278:

fivekiller.1432:

yongri.8702:

Why not just let all servers go free for all against eachother?

WvWvWvWvWvWvWvW or however many servers there are….

hey that could work if they split all the servers into 3 teams!

Invisible Wars 2: Culling Edition

I already feel like I’m playing this given how many thieves there are in WvW.

Take all the maps in the game, make a copy of them, and open them up as a giant PvP zone. WvWvW…vW

yongri.8702:

Why not just let all servers go free for all against eachother?

WvWvWvWvWvWvWvW or however many servers there are….

Ahhh. I wish I’d read the whole thread before posting.

I like this. Just use all the maps in teh game. A copy of the entire world and let the servers all roam at will.

I did a bunch thinking on the theory that 3 teams provides a balanced matchup, and that in reality for a ‘balaced’ pvp to exist you need a minimum of 4 teams, and a maximum of as many as possible.

The more factions that are in play, the harder it is for one faction to have a complete victory. While 3 teams setups can work, it often ends up creating a third wheel in a fight. if A+B are fighting each other, C can attack either A or B because… well they have nothing better to do. As it is a videogame, and people dont care primarily about holdings, attacking the weakest team is the better move to solitify second place. If team A is 50k points up on you, and a better team, and C is almost equal in points with you, its better for B to attack C, taking score away from C and gaining score at the expense of C. In this situation, A gets to play kingmaker, if A primarily attacks B then B will struggle to take points away from C, and C will probably win.

These scenarios are practically eliminated in a 4 way matchup. If A and B are fighting you have C and D that are looking for a fight. While C or D might attack A and B they are inviting an attack on themselves. Most likely you will have people trade off targets and generally people will gravitate to the one front wars. It also lessens the likelyhood of a server becoming completely dominate. Defeating 2 servers can be achieved right now, but its an order of a magnitude harder to defeat 3 servers at the same time, even if one server quits the matchup you still have two others to simultaniously defeat.

Even more ideal than 4, is PCF or player created factions. A faction system that allows a huge number of factions. In these scenarios, politics comes into play much more readily as players will form their own alliances. Downsides is the level of forum drama will be huge, but that can also be a plus. Look at Eve online, many people follow that game and its political drama even if they never played it. I mean the game itself is pretty bland in execution (the pew pew is in fact, quite boring at times), but brilliant in its sandbox nature.

Phoenixfudge.5290:

lol WvW is nothing but a zergfest. Nothing really matters except how many players you have.

You are a most enlightened individual. Any balance has to come in the form of numbers balance.

Draygo.9473:

Even more ideal than 4, is PCF or player created factions. A faction system that allows a huge number of factions. In these scenarios, politics comes into play much more readily as players will form their own alliances. Downsides is the level of forum drama will be huge, but that can also be a plus. Look at Eve online, many people follow that game and its political drama even if they never played it. I mean the game itself is pretty bland in execution (the pew pew is in fact, quite boring at times), but brilliant in its sandbox nature.

While PCFs are great in EVE, I don’t know how well they would work in a game like GW2, especially since a change on that scale would basically mean scrapping the entire WvW system as it stands now, which would further drive away more players. That’s a PvP system that pretty much has to be implemented on day 0, or implemented in a situation where there is no existing PvP system or it just creates a PR nightmare.

I think the biggest issue people have in WvW atm is the numbers…Why not have WvW have queues in each Map?…Before you can enter, people in the other servers have to enter. ie: There can’t be more of any one server in any map.(I’d be okay with a small variation…for example a difference of 1% or some-such. The only exception being on your “Home BL”, which should allow you to have as many players as you want.)

Were this implemented, I’d also want “Home BLs” to offer more points for taking than other BLs.(Example: Green’s BL is worth more points to take than Blue’s BL for Blue, or Green’s for Green, with perhaps a small “Buff” or Debuff based on “Place”. That way it punishes people for ganging up on the last place Server by providing less bang for the buck.)

Right, easy fix. Go full on DAoC style. No more short “matches”. 3 servers permanently grouped and never reset. Once they implement the rumored progression in WvW this would make for the best PvP.

Porky.5021:

yongri.8702:

Why not just let all servers go free for all against eachother?

WvWvWvWvWvWvWvW or however many servers there are….

Ahhh. I wish I’d read the whole thread before posting.

I like this. Just use all the maps in teh game. A copy of the entire world and let the servers all roam at will.

You must not be an EVE player XD

You’d have a “Goonswarm” situation where the large servers would choke the life out of the smaller servers. If you think this is a solution to imbalance, roam around in null-sec in EVE by yourself and you’ll find out how it would feel to be one of the smaller servers…

could u imagine 3 vs 1?

You’re an idiot >.>

Azaruil.3406:

Phoenixfudge.5290:

lol WvW is nothing but a zergfest. Nothing really matters except how many players you have.

You are a most enlightened individual. Any balance has to come in the form of numbers balance.

Almost correct… Balance has to come in the form of numbers balance in the same time zone. Else it would just be pvdoor.

have ladders separated not by region(lol?) but by time: 2 ladders 1 weekdays 1 weekends this would make 3.5 day resets and make wv3 much more interesting

on top of this i think they should have 2 servers fight together as 1 color and do this by assigning lowest rated server with highest and 2nd lowest with 2nd highest and so on… this would serve to balance server populations over time

lobo fett.4705:

could u imagine 3 vs 1?

Like I said this will be unlikely since team 4 would nearly always fight team 3, unless they don’t care about being slipped into a lesser league.

i think WvW should be 2 teams,only eternal battlegrounds map,and global rankings(not EU and NA).

Pendragon.8735:

Phoenixfudge.5290:

How about 2v2? That would be interesting.

I think it would be great, and actually easier to balance than 1v1 or 1v1v1 too.

Teaming a Euro server with an American one might be an option there. It would spread the numbers available during quiet time periods. You can balance them a little by limiting the overall number of people in WvW but also limiting the percentage from each world, so the most a world could supply is about 70% of maximum.

Unfortunately the maps would have to be changed too. perhaps to one 2X3 and three 2×2 ones? That would take time and I’m unsure if they are willing to put in the resources needed to do that at the moment. It would inevitably have to be a WvW expansion.

Serious.6940:

Pendragon.8735:

Phoenixfudge.5290:

How about 2v2? That would be interesting.

I think it would be great, and actually easier to balance than 1v1 or 1v1v1 too.

Teaming a Euro server with an American one might be an option there. It would spread the numbers available during quiet time periods. You can balance them a little by limiting the overall number of people in WvW but also limiting the percentage from each world, so the most a world could supply is about 70% of maximum.

Unfortunately the maps would have to be changed too. perhaps to one 2X3 and three 2×2 ones? That would take time and I’m unsure if they are willing to put in the resources needed to do that at the moment. It would inevitably have to be a WvW expansion.

Anet won’t do this. Otherwise, they could just merge one Euro/NA server together and have great 24hr coverage for everyone. But the server locations for Europe are in Europe and the NA ones in NA, and they don’t want people dealing with extra lag.

I explained this in another thread, so I’ll copy paste:

Let’s use A, B, and C to represent servers.

If server A seems weak, server B and server C can both mutually benefit by attacking server A. Why would server B attack server C when they can gain more PPT by attacking server A? The same can be asked for server C.

If server B is attacking server A, server C has three options.

1.) Fortify
2.) Attack server B
3.) Attack server A

If you fortify, you’ll get to a point where you’ll have to pick 2 or 3, or until you yourself are attacked.

If you choose to attack, you want to pick the server that won’t be able to defend as easily. Server A is ideal. Server A won’t be able to retaliate as they are already stuck fighting server B. Server A will also have to split their forces in defending on two fronts.

So I hope you understand by now. A 2v1 is not an alliance. A 2v1 is entirely selfish. It’s simply each server doing what benefits them the most.

Phoenixfudge.5290:

lol WvW is nothing but a zergfest. Nothing really matters except how many players you have.

Try coordination or using your brain instead of facerolling your keyboard.

Go to t1 and go 100v30 against any skilled guild while facerolling and see if you win.

A 1v1v1 is not the most balanced way of doing things because servers will 1v2 the 1st place server. A 1v1v1 is the most balanced way of doing things because it limits temporary population advantages and naturally forces a 2v1 *DUE TO MAP CONTROL, not point totals.*

For example, lets look at a 1v1 scenario where server A and server B are fighting, and server A has a massive population advantage in NA morning. In this case, server B would lose everything, 0 PPT, because every battle is overly advantageous for server A. Now, look at the same scenario with server C involved.

Assume server C has low population as well. In this case, server A would already have large map control, so server C and server B would have no choice but to fight server A. This means server A’s population advantage is cut entirely in half.

Assume server C also has a high population in NA morning like server A. In this case, server C and server A would likely have a similar control of the map, but collectively more like 80% while server B has 20%. You could say this is just as bad as the 1v1, but you’re overlooking a large factor. In a 1v1, server A would have about 700 PPT in the morning. In this 1v1v1 scenario, server A would instead have only 350ish PPT because their map control is split with server C. Having a 1v1v1 means you only need to regain half the points you normally would to catch up.

That is the reality of the 3-way battle, and that is why a 3-way battle is the best possible option for balance.

Except thats not true. 3 way battles are not the best possible option for balance.

There is nothing in your post that would suggest that a 3 way battle is superior to a 4 way battle. lets look at it logically here.

If you say that a 3 way limits a single servers population advantage by forcing them to fight on two fronts is a good thing. Lets take it a step further, why is it no longer a better thing if they have to fight 3 servers, and at this point I would say its more likely even with smaller populations that servers C B and D might have more total combined population than server A thus preventing server A from taking the entirty of the map overnight.

In addition with more servers in the mix it is more likely an opponents server will have a ‘night crew’ (i put it in quotes because often the ‘night crew’ is just another timezones primetime crew) further preventing a single server from getting a runaway advantage when other servers dont have populations.

And lets move down the list, so in a 4 server system server A’s population is cut thrice, not just in half.

With a 4 way split you will only have to regain 1/3rd of the points you would normally would have to to catch up.

So why is a 3 way best when using your logic you are using determines that 4 is better than 3. And you can stretch it out to 5 is better than 4 etc.

Also consider the fact in a 3 way matchup it is more likely to have a dead server in that matchup cause one server to completely explode in points as the matchup becomes 1 on 1, meaning even a minor population advantage on one servers side can cause the point totals to heavily favor one side. In a 4 way system if one server doesnt show up in a meaningful way you fall back to a 1v1v1 where you can get some pushback on population imbalances because of the double front war.

From a pure game design scenerio i find 4 way matchups more fun. No server becomes a third wheel in a fight, and its harder for kingmaker scenerios to occur.

@Alarox “If you choose to attack, you want to pick the server that won’t be able to defend as easily. Server A is ideal.”

I don’t know about you but that NEVER happens in any of the lower tiers our server has played in. Server B is more ideal because they have less people than Server A, and by attacking them, they are similarly engaged at two fronts. They will be even less likely to retaliate because they will be inferior to Server A (numerically or otherwise). Situation two as described by OP is always what results.

I agree a 1v1v1v1 battle will definitely make things a LOT more dynamic and interesting, but its probably pushing the technical side of things a bit seeing how 1v1v1 already has severe culling and lagging issues.

A 2v2 match, where a server from a high tier will be allied with a corresponding server on a lower tier will also make things so much more balanced and interesting. Every pairing from this system will result in a battle that is roughly balanced, and will involve a LOT more strategic intrigue in order to cooridinate teams from both servers.

1v1v1 matches right now just feel so stale and samey, it’s getting boring.

@Draygo

By that logic, why not do 1v1v1v1v1v1? Or why not 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1?

Here’s why: the more parties involved, the less effect each party has on the outcome, and the less it is about you actually fighting each and every other server.

If I’m in a match with 16 servers, what does server 15 have to do with me when I’m server 3? What influence can I have over server 15? None. It’s entirely out of my control. All I can do is have relatively meaningless fights againsts the servers I just happen to be next to.

If you have a 1v1v1v1, it’s more like 2 1v1s for each server, rather than a real 1v1v1v1. If I’m on a map and I control 25%, then I’m next to two servers that control 25%, while the last 25% is separated from me. Trying to stretch for that 4th server is basically suicide as you put yourself surrounded by 3 enemy servers. Basically, you’re overly balanced.

In addition, you’re out of control of much of the battle. In a 1v1v1, you are a crucial player in every single battle. In enemy 1v1s, you can come in and change the entire dynamic. In a 1v1v1v1, you can’t gain control over the situation. You can’t gain dominance. In a 1v1v1, you can come in and start a 2v1. You can wipe one force out, and claim something for yourself. You can take advantage of the 1v1 and fortify. You can try to bait your enemies into a 1v1 and sit on a higher PPT. What do you do tactically in a 1v1v1v1? You attack to the left when it seems best, or you attack to the right when it seems best.

When you get to a 1v1v1v1, you no longer have a say in everything that happens. In a 1v1 or a 1v1v1, you can influence every single event. IT IS FAIR. Fair in the sense that you earn the win or loss. The moment you reach 1v1v1v1 there are things out of your control.

Take everything I said above together, and you’ll see why I believe 1v1v1 is plainly superior.

Opc.4718:

@Alarox “If you choose to attack, you want to pick the server that won’t be able to defend as easily. Server A is ideal.”

I don’t know about you but that NEVER happens in any of the lower tiers our server has played in. Server B is more ideal because they have less people than Server A, and by attacking them, they are similarly engaged at two fronts. They will be even less likely to retaliate because they will be inferior to Server A (numerically or otherwise). Situation two as described by OP is always what results.

We’re describing the same thing. One server is the weakest, so the two servers attack it. You want to not be double teamed in a given situation? Make it hell for enemies to attack you. Hard target protocol. Make it so that attacking you is frustrating, and call everyone on the map to defend. You only have 1 tower? Fill it with 5 catapults behind the gate, 20 arrow carts on the walls, and 10 counter trebs ready.

An enemy zerg rolls up. Your entire force on the map is in that tower. It’s the most fortified structure they’ve ever seen. “kitten this”, they go off to do something else. People are impatient, they won’t stand there and do nothing, but they also don’t want to get wiped by zerging your tower. They’ll attack the other server.

A smart server can actually flip this to their advantage. There’s a guide on Guru about it.

Note: Unless you’re already in the lowest tier, maybe your server is just in the wrong tier? If you always have a population disadvantage, then you’re in the wrong tier. If you’re already in the lowest tier, then it’s not WvW that needs to change, it’s the interest in WvW on your server.

@Alarox, oh I see. I was assuming Server A, B and C represents the corresponding positions of the server, with A being the strongest.

Our tier is currently right, we’re coming second or third with very tight points between 2nd and 3rd (within a few hundred points), while top server rolls us over with a large margin but never large enough xD It looks like that will change next matchup so that’s cool. But in any case, no matter who we play against, the situation is always the same and it gets stale.

Opc.4718:

But in any case, no matter who we play against, the situation is always the same and it gets stale.

That’s why the ranking system needs to change, not WvW itself.

It’s too hard for servers that are better or simply have a much larger population to rise in rank and tier. The current system also means you’ll fight the same opponents again, and again, and again.

Even after 4months, ppl. keep following the zerg. Press B, enter EB and ask where the zerg is… is pretty much what the majority of the players are doing. The problem right now, and probably a serious issue for the Future of Wv3, is the timer. (me thinks)

Without a timer, or just one that is hidden, the “raid for just the tick” mentality would finally stop, since we actually have to raid enemy towers for the points and more importantly defend them for a full reward that a an enemy tower yields.

1. Remove the timer from the Wv3 or hide it
2. Raiding a T1 tower yields pointsas usual
3. Raiding a T2 tower or one that is fully upgraded (T3) should grant more points
4. Defending a recently captured enemy tower for the next 5min grants an extra incentive/reward…..
5. Losing a recently captured enemy tower for the next 10min will reduce the total “winnings” and of course the enemy gets a boni for capturing one of its lost towers
6. Successfully defending a recently captured enemy tower for the next 15min will grant extra points.
7. Of course everything gets a muliplier for T1(1x), T2(2.5x) or Tier 3(4x) Status

(just an example)

I think, this could potentially encourage a zerg of 50 or more to split up and actually raid or defend on few points on the map at the same time, instead of zerging 1x tower, then next one and so on… (of course, some servers might never attempt this due low Wv3 activity).

jmc
(sfme)

Removing a timer is useless, people would time it manually.

Make the times random, so each hour you make something like 12 min- 17 min- 13 min -18min, and changing each hour. Instead of 15-15-15-15.

Anyways i think the “pick points on timer” is some kind of smart gaming which i like.

Kyma Grey.9410:

1. Remove the timer from the Wv3 or hide it

Making mechanics invisible will just mean players will track them with their own tools and valuable combat information will only be available to those with the tools. Hiding information that can be easily derived is silly.

Now, if points were fractioned down and given out every 1 minute or something so there was no more “right-before-the-tick” play then the timer would cease to matter, but something might be lost in complexity.

Kyma Grey.9410:

By removing or updating the score per hour instead every 15min, im sure its nearly impossible for one the time it manually and predict how many points the enemy server has within the next 3hours.

Players would totally do it manually or in their heads. There definitely would not be a web-based calculator up within 24 hours of this change, nobody would want the ad revenue from a bunch of people hitting their site to check the score ticks.

But how would they do that, if they have no clue when the timer begins ;)

At reset? 3h 33 min into a fight after a reset? or 3 days later… and what if there was like a General per server, handing over tasks to the commanders, like a Dungeon Master (could be a Devs. doing this for fun).

Add a form of resource-management, with a visual indicator on top of the screen (full bar), the more you waste on siege weapon, the more resources you need or you run out of materials.

This could encourage some ppl. maybe to gather nodes for siege or even materials that drop from boss-mobs that a required to upgrade a tower (mystically-forged) ;)=

Have Doylaks just for the first 2 tiers of an upgrade, but for a Tier 3 upgrade you have to raid the “raid-type-boss /overgrown grub” in every lowlands for a “mystical” component required for the tier 3 upgrade.

Further incentivizing upgrading by making upgrades challenging and worthwhile sounds like a great idea until you realize the major issue people have with upgrades as-is is that they’re completely nullified by whichever server owns the PvDoor off-hours. Persistent server upgrades over the course of the match might work better, but who would determine what upgrades to pursue?

If we had a EU/US Matchup and 1x Oceanic Server, the PvD-issue would be more or less be addressed/fixed, but think that is too late now, as we have a nice “mix” of ppl. on from every continent on every server.

Another possibility is, give those underdogs additional “breakout” events for the night, that don´t require player interaction. Acquire the service of an army of npc (20+) that attacks or defends randomly for ingame money (10g or 250 BoH), with some add. night-players this could help out those that suffer from the “PvD symptoms”.

I bet Anet has already some ideas for February Wv3 Update, we just have to be patient and have fun playing the game.