Wvw Alliances
They already have alliances, server pairings.
From May of last year.
The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote”, the final results are:
82.7% – Yes
17.3% – No
This mean that World Linking is now officially a Guild Wars 2 Feature. Thank you to everyone who voted!
From June of last year.
The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:
38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!
New Main- 80 Thief – P/P- Vault Spam Pro
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
As I watched our server taking a CD tower this evening I saw FA come running in and CD sit outside while first FA attacked and then only come in after us when FA failed against us. Although questionable to me it was a smart move on CD’s part. Which got me thinking. For lower population servers wouldn’t it be great to allow them to become allied for wvw In that way even the lowest population servers could have enough heft to fight the larger servers. Essentially it would be akin to guesting of a sort. So when a matchup is made where BG is involved for example if an auto-alliance was assigned to have a combination of other servers that combined matched the populace of BG seems to me it would be fun to allow them to battle them. Basically giving more options for servers to play other servers rather than the same old matchups. Just an idea thought Id suggest.
Ok… another: variable matchup thread… so, when Anet introduced cvariability so that the NA servers started to have matchups like EU, people expressed significant rage at how a t1 server had to fight a t4… the matchups aren’t stale. Secondly, with the change to one up, one down that starts this coming week, there will not be a matchup that is the same week to week.
This can already be done informally.. and to me makes total sense. Why the 2 lower servers don’t team up against the bigger server is beyond me: More WxP, more Pips, more loot, more even fights.
In the case of the OP’s example of Mag, FA, and CD, why CD and FA don’t team up against Mag is beyond me. They are only shooting themselves in the foot if they don’t.
This can already be done informally.. and to me makes total sense. Why the 2 lower servers don’t team up against the bigger server is beyond me: More WxP, more Pips, more loot, more even fights.
In the case of the OP’s example of Mag, FA, and CD, why CD and FA don’t team up against Mag is beyond me. They are only shooting themselves in the foot if they don’t.
A(greed). Both words match this well. It’s a great idea, and it won’t happen because greed for bags. The jam is real. Of course, if they jammed the bigger server, they would help themselves both ways.