Guild Wars 2

Please address this proposal:

1) Anet makes 3 WVWVW mega servers (fill each mega server with one team from each tier). They do it for EOTM…

2) Change who is on which mega server after 6 months (example: after a major tournament (wvw tourney))

3) Have DBL, ABL, EBG maps (1 each, that’s it) – 3 maps, no more….

4) Have the map open ONLY when a MAP population queue (queued from the wvw mega servers) meets the thresh hold (example: When @ 75% fill of map capacity, for all three teams, the map opens and stays open until close)

5) Have the map close (with 30 minute warning) when the MAP pop decreases (example: When @ 40% of a team’s map capacity (e.g. map holds 80, but only 30 people are on the map now), the map closes).

INSTANT Balance – addressing the biggest problem: the Blob rule of 50 v 10… in the case above there may still be blobs but you can just leave map and queue for another overflow of the same map because your team is full of quitters and carry-me players.

CONCLUSION: Its just EOTM matching only with map open and close added to address this idiotic 1:5 ratio on the bl’s.

Indeed, deleting all servers is the only sure way to distribute populations equally and ensure competitive environment. However, anet continue to be reluctant to do that, not even start a poll about it, continue their way of linking which they think it works when in reality they don’t work as good. Unless dev have played not few but couple thousands of hours in wvw, otherwise, they should listen to players who have played that much.

Still, doing it in eotm style may not have that much motivation from people.

Agreed.. I’m looking for a new game because of no world pvp and wvw being what it is.

Eotm doesn’t have balance issues? Hmm coulda swore green was rampaging through there for a few months.

3) I’m confused, you say 3 maps no more, 1 of each that’s it, but then you will be going eotm way and spawning more if there’s a queue no? If you meant no 4th map, then well no point in saying 1 each… You’re going to have multiple instances of each one because wvw population size is still pretty big when you combine the servers.

You allow map hopping thus enabling teams to leave and creating unbalanced maps. Are you going to allow server/team switching too so that sides can be bandwagoned?

I assume no longer has weekly matches, cut down map times so people not going to care to defend much, you know, like eotm. Especially when a map will decide to close with as many as 30/80 still in there.

Not exactly addressing balance, you’re just giving maps a bigger pool of players to access it, instead of one server trying to fill 4 maps at a time. But having maps which may or may not close at whatever time depending on who’s left instead of the standard 4 hr eotm timer, will annoy players if the map shuffling becomes excessive.

This eotm idea has been brought up more than a dozen times already, a lot don’t want it. It could work if done properly, but not strictly the eotm way.

EOTM balance issues are because of no map open and close rules… ANET has no team/map population rule to close a map. Anet only opens another overflow when one team has too many on a map… ANET does not address the low pop team, only the high pop team and in the end now you have 2 overflows with one team being giant and of the same server group). Without the map close focus on low pop there is nothing in the game that prevents the 50 man from rampaging all over a 10 man team that can’t even get their keep back.

To your other point @Xenesis, the 24 hour coverage and incentive to defend are two 4 year old problems unaddressed by ANET over thousands of wvw posts. The map open close kills the 24 hour coverage issue where SEA players dominate NA players and all because of some idiotic 24 hour map coverage issue… if a particular map is good, why close it but if its grossly imbalanced, well, my point in leading post.

To the point of incentive to defend: that’s something for another post.. I’ve seen thousands of brilliant and stupid posts on the the incentive issue and defending issue… that is something ANET will have to grow into since their model seems to be: Here is what we are doing… tell us how we did… sucks to be you if you didn’t like it.