Guild Wars 2

WvW should be 1 server vs 1 server because as it stands its stupid to even make ranking boards when 2 servers can team up against one

well that helps servers with lower scores catch up with the winning server you’d say
and
that would be agreeable if it wasnt for the fact there are servers working together at all times wich leaves the last server being nothing but loot bags to be collected

i ve seen certain servers working together for about 2-3 months already with no reason to do it as even on their own they already had score advantage yet they wont even tickle each other’s towers Unless the bullied server takes a tower then the take it from the bullied server and leave

No, 3 teams is a better system, always has been, always will be. What happens when your in a lopsided matchup against only 1 other server ? You get beat down for 7 days straight with no hope of getting out of the spawn because they have no one else to focus on.

No thanks, I play this game because of the tri battle setup, I could go play any number of other games if I wanted a two way battle.

We’ll wvw is war…so In my opinion it shouldn’t be fair or balanced…even in losing it’s possible to have lot’s of fun, defending a keep in a alamo kind of way, running from zerg patrols on your home map, doing guerrila tactics…etc…etc…

The more “sides” are thrown in, the fairer it gets. You’ll have weak ones, you’ll have strong ones. The weak ones will be with more and can subdue strong ones better.

best would probably be 1v1v1v1v1

Nuzt.7894:

No, 3 teams is a better system, always has been, always will be. What happens when your in a lopsided matchup against only 1 other server ? You get beat down for 7 days straight with no hope of getting out of the spawn because they have no one else to focus on.

No thanks, I play this game because of the tri battle setup, I could go play any number of other games if I wanted a two way battle.

how is it better than a already lopsided match up with two severs destroying your server ?

Talyn Sneider.1825:

We’ll wvw is war…so In my opinion it shouldn’t be fair or balanced…even in losing it’s possible to have lot’s of fun, defending a keep in a alamo kind of way, running from zerg patrols on your home map, doing guerrila tactics…etc…etc…

how fun would it be if yellow server was always attacked by green and red all year long?

either a server has to go or an extra server has to be added

Sustained 2v1 matchups rarely last long. It’s boring for all sides involved. Get a commander that knows how to turn the 2v1 on another server.

Class balance? Asking too much.
Class worth? Asking too much.
Population? Asking too much.
Coverage? Asking too much.

WvW will never be completely balanced, but it’s miles away from where it should be.

Atherakhia.4086:

Class balance? Asking too much.
Class worth? Asking too much.
Population? Asking too much.
Coverage? Asking too much.

WvW will never be completely balanced, but it’s miles away from where it should be.

No MMO that I have every played has achieved this. If it was easy, someone surely would have created a system that worked beyond simplfying combat into an FPS shooter.

Straegen.2938:

Atherakhia.4086:

Class balance? Asking too much.
Class worth? Asking too much.
Population? Asking too much.
Coverage? Asking too much.

WvW will never be completely balanced, but it’s miles away from where it should be.

No MMO that I have every played has achieved this. If it was easy, someone surely would have created a system that worked beyond simplifying combat into an FPS shooter.

Population and coverage balance can easily be achieved via 3-faction instanced matches with equal caps. If you’ve never played an MMO that has achieved that, you’ve apparently never played Rift. In spite of all of its several incomprehensibly stupid faults, Conquest in Rift at least was able to most of the time provide balanced matches. WvW in GW2 could do the same, but for some reason ANet can’t seem to abandon the server-vs-server-vs-server concept in spite of the fact that almost nobody cares about server “loyalty” (witness the rampant server hopping when transfers were free) and in spite of the fact that ANet doesn’t user fixed servers anyway … they lease server capacity in bulk from Akamai (!).

Population balance and even coverage is fixable … ANet simply isn’t willing to do it.

Straegen.2938:

Atherakhia.4086:

Class balance? Asking too much.
Class worth? Asking too much.
Population? Asking too much.
Coverage? Asking too much.

WvW will never be completely balanced, but it’s miles away from where it should be.

No MMO that I have every played has achieved this. If it was easy, someone surely would have created a system that worked beyond simplfying combat into an FPS shooter.

Even if it can’t be achieved there’s at least evidence that change was attempted. But class balance? Shadowbane had far more diverse classes and managed to be pretty well balanced overall. Was on a much larger scale than this as well.

Cactus.2710:

Straegen.2938:

Atherakhia.4086:

Class balance? Asking too much.
Class worth? Asking too much.
Population? Asking too much.
Coverage? Asking too much.

WvW will never be completely balanced, but it’s miles away from where it should be.

No MMO that I have every played has achieved this. If it was easy, someone surely would have created a system that worked beyond simplifying combat into an FPS shooter.

Population and coverage balance can easily be achieved via 3-faction instanced matches with equal caps. If you’ve never played an MMO that has achieved that, you’ve apparently never played Rift. In spite of all of its several incomprehensibly stupid faults, Conquest in Rift at least was able to most of the time provide balanced matches. WvW in GW2 could do the same, but for some reason ANet can’t seem to abandon the server-vs-server-vs-server concept in spite of the fact that almost nobody cares about server “loyalty” (witness the rampant server hopping when transfers were free) and in spite of the fact that ANet doesn’t user fixed servers anyway … they lease server capacity in bulk from Akamai (!).

Population balance and even coverage is fixable … ANet simply isn’t willing to do it.

I’ve been thinking and may be reconsidering my position on 3-faction alliances being the answer. This is because what happens when one alliance is the weaker one? It is basically doomed to failure forever. It is going to lose people only compounding the issue.

At least with server v. server v. server, there is somewhere else to go – another server. With 3-faction alliances there’s no where to go – except to one of the other alliances but that doesn’t solve the issue, it just makes it worse actually.

Atherakhia.4086:

Even if it can’t be achieved there’s at least evidence that change was attempted. But class balance? Shadowbane had far more diverse classes and managed to be pretty well balanced overall. Was on a much larger scale than this as well.

Wow someone mentioned Shadowbane. I did like my Centaur Crusader. I’m not sure the classes were as balanced as you think. At lest in the beginning it was a rock/paper/scissors as race had specific vulnerabilities and a class could exploit that, if my memory servers me.

Last thing I remember before I quit, were hackers spawned Dragons and destroyed our city one of the last 2 on the map.

Johje Holan.4607:

Cactus.2710:

Straegen.2938:

Atherakhia.4086:

Class balance? Asking too much.
Class worth? Asking too much.
Population? Asking too much.
Coverage? Asking too much.

WvW will never be completely balanced, but it’s miles away from where it should be.

No MMO that I have every played has achieved this. If it was easy, someone surely would have created a system that worked beyond simplifying combat into an FPS shooter.

Population and coverage balance can easily be achieved via 3-faction instanced matches with equal caps. If you’ve never played an MMO that has achieved that, you’ve apparently never played Rift. In spite of all of its several incomprehensibly stupid faults, Conquest in Rift at least was able to most of the time provide balanced matches. WvW in GW2 could do the same, but for some reason ANet can’t seem to abandon the server-vs-server-vs-server concept in spite of the fact that almost nobody cares about server “loyalty” (witness the rampant server hopping when transfers were free) and in spite of the fact that ANet doesn’t user fixed servers anyway … they lease server capacity in bulk from Akamai (!).

Population balance and even coverage is fixable … ANet simply isn’t willing to do it.

I’ve been thinking and may be reconsidering my position on 3-faction alliances being the answer. This is because what happens when one alliance is the weaker one? It is basically doomed to failure forever. It is going to lose people only compounding the issue.

At least with server v. server v. server, there is somewhere else to go – another server. With 3-faction alliances there’s no where to go – except to one of the other alliances but that doesn’t solve the issue, it just makes it worse actually.

Uhh … how did you miss the part about equal population caps?

Besides, if matches were instanced and drew from ALL “servers” (no such thing, really), there’d be no problem in having sides with the same populations. Lots of players to draw from, and when one match gets full another one pops in parallel.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend? And it doesn’t even require any more server capacity than the current system.

1v1 is a bad system, 1v1v1 works but you need to give a good reason to attank the leader and right now wvw lacks that. Hopefully that’s on anets radar

Arnon.1563:

Atherakhia.4086:

Even if it can’t be achieved there’s at least evidence that change was attempted. But class balance? Shadowbane had far more diverse classes and managed to be pretty well balanced overall. Was on a much larger scale than this as well.

Wow someone mentioned Shadowbane. I did like my Centaur Crusader. I’m not sure the classes were as balanced as you think. At lest in the beginning it was a rock/paper/scissors as race had specific vulnerabilities and a class could exploit that, if my memory servers me.

Last thing I remember before I quit, were hackers spawned Dragons and destroyed our city one of the last 2 on the map.

I miss Shadowbane. That was real politics and losing meant something in it.

WvW should be fair

Why? PvP is fair and players have voted with there feet preferring the inbalance but more interesting WvW…

Samhayn.2385:

1v1 is a bad system, 1v1v1 works but you need to give a good reason to attank the leader and right now wvw lacks that. Hopefully that’s on anets radar

this is pretty much what i meant currently 2 servers can simply start farming another server and wont even touch each other’s towers

Meglobob.8620:

WvW should be fair

Why? PvP is fair and players have voted with there feet preferring the inbalance but more interesting WvW…

I believe that’s due to the fact that WvWvW is as close to open world PvP and even outright griefing as GW2 is going to get. The people who often complain about imbalances are the people trying to play the game for points. Those complaints are totally legitimate.

Scoring four maps on a global game 24/7 was a real bad idea.

Cactus.2710:

Johje Holan.4607:

Cactus.2710:

Straegen.2938:

Atherakhia.4086:

Class balance? Asking too much.
Class worth? Asking too much.
Population? Asking too much.
Coverage? Asking too much.

WvW will never be completely balanced, but it’s miles away from where it should be.

No MMO that I have every played has achieved this. If it was easy, someone surely would have created a system that worked beyond simplifying combat into an FPS shooter.

Population and coverage balance can easily be achieved via 3-faction instanced matches with equal caps. If you’ve never played an MMO that has achieved that, you’ve apparently never played Rift. In spite of all of its several incomprehensibly stupid faults, Conquest in Rift at least was able to most of the time provide balanced matches. WvW in GW2 could do the same, but for some reason ANet can’t seem to abandon the server-vs-server-vs-server concept in spite of the fact that almost nobody cares about server “loyalty” (witness the rampant server hopping when transfers were free) and in spite of the fact that ANet doesn’t user fixed servers anyway … they lease server capacity in bulk from Akamai (!).

Population balance and even coverage is fixable … ANet simply isn’t willing to do it.

I’ve been thinking and may be reconsidering my position on 3-faction alliances being the answer. This is because what happens when one alliance is the weaker one? It is basically doomed to failure forever. It is going to lose people only compounding the issue.

At least with server v. server v. server, there is somewhere else to go – another server. With 3-faction alliances there’s no where to go – except to one of the other alliances but that doesn’t solve the issue, it just makes it worse actually.

Uhh … how did you miss the part about equal population caps?

Besides, if matches were instanced and drew from ALL “servers” (no such thing, really), there’d be no problem in having sides with the same populations. Lots of players to draw from, and when one match gets full another one pops in parallel.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend? And it doesn’t even require any more server capacity than the current system.

So you’re saying you have 3 factions. Multiple instanced matches.

What are the win conditions? Is each instance calculated seperately? So you have Match 1 won by Faction A. Match 2 could be won by Faction C? Or are all scores calculated and then added together?

Is it done dynamically at every instant? So during NA prime time you may have 5 matches going on. But at Sea you may only have 2 matches going on? And the last instance would almost certainly be unbalanced so that instance may not count towards score, just be like an overflow.

That might work. At least you’d have all but one instance being even. But like I said, I’m not sure.

Johje Holan.4607:

Cactus.2710:

Johje Holan.4607:

Cactus.2710:

Straegen.2938:

Atherakhia.4086:

Class balance? Asking too much.
Class worth? Asking too much.
Population? Asking too much.
Coverage? Asking too much.

WvW will never be completely balanced, but it’s miles away from where it should be.

No MMO that I have every played has achieved this. If it was easy, someone surely would have created a system that worked beyond simplifying combat into an FPS shooter.

Population and coverage balance can easily be achieved via 3-faction instanced matches with equal caps. If you’ve never played an MMO that has achieved that, you’ve apparently never played Rift. In spite of all of its several incomprehensibly stupid faults, Conquest in Rift at least was able to most of the time provide balanced matches. WvW in GW2 could do the same, but for some reason ANet can’t seem to abandon the server-vs-server-vs-server concept in spite of the fact that almost nobody cares about server “loyalty” (witness the rampant server hopping when transfers were free) and in spite of the fact that ANet doesn’t user fixed servers anyway … they lease server capacity in bulk from Akamai (!).

Population balance and even coverage is fixable … ANet simply isn’t willing to do it.

I’ve been thinking and may be reconsidering my position on 3-faction alliances being the answer. This is because what happens when one alliance is the weaker one? It is basically doomed to failure forever. It is going to lose people only compounding the issue.

At least with server v. server v. server, there is somewhere else to go – another server. With 3-faction alliances there’s no where to go – except to one of the other alliances but that doesn’t solve the issue, it just makes it worse actually.

Uhh … how did you miss the part about equal population caps?

Besides, if matches were instanced and drew from ALL “servers” (no such thing, really), there’d be no problem in having sides with the same populations. Lots of players to draw from, and when one match gets full another one pops in parallel.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend? And it doesn’t even require any more server capacity than the current system.

So you’re saying you have 3 factions. Multiple instanced matches.

What are the win conditions? Is each instance calculated seperately? So you have Match 1 won by Faction A. Match 2 could be won by Faction C? Or are all scores calculated and then added together?

Is it done dynamically at every instant? So during NA prime time you may have 5 matches going on. But at Sea you may only have 2 matches going on? And the last instance would almost certainly be unbalanced so that instance may not count towards score, just be like an overflow.

That might work. At least you’d have all but one instance being even. But like I said, I’m not sure.

The way it worked in Rift was that each instance was treated separately, and each player earned currency as a function of how their faction placed. Scores from multiple instances would not be summed. Nobody gives a kitten about servers anyway, other than what affect it has on them personally (if they did we wouldn’t have so many people griping about rewards), so I don’t see any problem here.

And yes, the number of simultaneous instances in play would be a function of the number players trying to player, so off-prime times would have fewer instances going. Again, I don’t see the problem with this … it’s no different than EOTM is going to work.

And that last bit is exactly why I think this should be a no-brainer. Pretty much all ANet would need to do is convert is convert all WvW maps to the same system they plan to use for EOTM, except probably with goals that take longer to achieve for the win.