Guild Wars 2

Having WvWvW doesn’t balance anything. It is based on the concept that the 2 weaker servers will team up on the stronger server but that is never the case. The reality is that because of the ladder it is actually important who comes in second.

As such the best move once one team and pushed far into the lead is for the other two servers to focus exclusively on each other to attempt to solidify second place. This makes it easier for the winning server to simply keep winning.

This also dilutes the validity of the ladder in making balanced fights because every match is in effect almost random with the exception of super large power differences such as HoD vs anyone.

Disagree. Two “faction” systems have NEVER worked.

Scalyon.7028:

Disagree. Two “faction” systems have NEVER worked.

I disagree with this logic. Just because 2 faction has its issues doesn’t make 3 faction actually work.

The issue here is this: 3 faction isn’t working, period. We see it, it is in the here and now.

It has worked in some games like Planetside because there is no score. The goal there is the fight. You don’t have currency and keep claiming and upgrading, you just fight. That isn’t the case here, here there are scores, ladders, new matches, rankings, currency, upgrades, etc.

It is time to look at this and admit that 3 faction isn’t working either…

As such it becomes clear that the issue is something else (and probably was with 2 faction too). Having 3 factions just makes it harder to determine what that something else is.

The current scoring system is borked due to the many issues already detailed in these forums: 1) Night Crews capping undefended keeps; 2) Population imbalances; 3) Free transfers allowing server hopping; 4) etc…

A simple “two-faction” system does not solve these underlying problems either…

Scalyon.7028:

A simple “two-faction” system does not solve these underlying problems either…

Quoted in agreement

Cayden.4587:

Scalyon.7028:

Disagree. Two “faction” systems have NEVER worked.

I disagree with this logic. Just because 2 faction has its issues doesn’t make 3 faction actually work.

The issue here is this: 3 faction isn’t working, period. We see it, it is in the here and now. It works in some games like Planetside because there is no score. The goal is the fight you don’t have currency and keep claiming and upgrading you just fight. That isn’t the case here, here there are scores, ladders, new matches, rankings, currency, upgrades, etc.

It is time to look at this and admit that 3 faction isn’t working either. As such it is clear that the issue is something else. Having 3 factions just makes it harder to determine what that something else is.

3 factions is perfectly fine the way it is. It worked for DAoC PvP for quite a while, and 2 faction worked not at all in any game I’ve played that has attempted it.

I think the problem is that the matchups aren’t long enough for people to really bother with alliances. Unless the need is identified early on, generally by the time a problem arises the servers are rematched shortly thereafter.

What we DO get out of this system now is 2 losing sides are basically splitting the efforts of the bigger side… while not an alliance per se, it still helps each side have a more balanced fight. Kinda goes off the rails if the little guys start fighting each other, but that’s how it works.

On Yak’s bend we’re currently in second place (behind first by quite a bit) and almost tied with 3rd place. I do WvW nightly, and we’re almost exclusively attacking the big guy. Since the other side is doing just as well as we are, and I’m not seeing them very often, I can only assume they’re doing the same.

3 sides provides more challenge for an otherwise overpowering server, and splits their forces so the less active servers have a chance. Otherwise you have 1000 on team A, and an ever shrinking number on team B as they’re just pounded into dust, until eventually they stop showing.

Cayden.4587:

Scalyon.7028:

Disagree. Two “faction” systems have NEVER worked.

I disagree with this logic. Just because 2 faction has its issues doesn’t make 3 faction actually work.

The issue here is this: 3 faction isn’t working, period. We see it, it is in the here and now.

It has worked in some games like Planetside because there is no score. The goal there is the fight. You don’t have currency and keep claiming and upgrading, you just fight. That isn’t the case here, here there are scores, ladders, new matches, rankings, currency, upgrades, etc.

It is time to look at this and admit that 3 faction isn’t working either…

As such it becomes clear that the issue is something else (and probably was with 2 faction too). Having 3 factions just makes it harder to determine what that something else is.

what you say may be true. However the question is: Is two way fight better than a three way fight? I would argue that a three way fight is inherently more balanced then a two way fight.

I would argue that most of the “problems” come from a lack of knowledge and data. as we become more knowledgeable, and as the system gets better data, things should improve.

bluescape.9176:

Scalyon.7028:

A simple “two-faction” system does not solve these underlying problems either…

Quoted in agreement

I agree with this too. However the point I am trying to make is that the 3 faction introduces another imbalance. If they switched to 2 realm until they work out the rest then it may be an easier and better balancing process. Then once they work out the nightcapping and all that they can look at what happens if they add a third server.

Also If you split the 500 per map into 2 teams each team gets 250 which is about 80 slots more than they get now = reduced queue times.

kitanas.3596:

I would argue that a three way fight is inherently more balanced then a two way fight.

I disagree with this and went over the reason why in the original post. To recap though, once a team pulls ahead due to the ladder system and scoring the best move that the second place team can do is attack only the third place team in an attempt to retain second. This means the person that actually gets teamed on is the person in last. It is something that is happening right now on basically every WvWvW match.

I completely agree with attempts at reducing queue times and fair match-making. Let’s just make sure Anet implements GW v2.1 right this time!

Cayden.4587:

kitanas.3596:

I would argue that a three way fight is inherently more balanced then a two way fight.

I disagree with this and went over the reason why in the original post. To recap though, once a team pulls ahead due to the ladder system and scoring the best move that the second place team can do is attack only the third place team in an attempt to retain second. This means the person that actually gets teamed on is the person in last. It is something that is happening right now on basically every WvWvW match.

in theory, yes. however, there are counterarguments to that idea.
- if team green (1rst place) completely dominates teams red and blue teams(2nd and 3rd, respectively) then it turns into a 2v1 by default, as only green targets to attack.
- if red team completely pushes blue team off the map, then green team has only one target to attack, them.
-on 3 of the 4 maps, red and blue start very far from one another. why should you go halfway across the map to attack blue structures, rather then the green?
-green has more stuff then blue, so they are, on average, less well defended then blues (after all, blue has been holding off the might of green) so it may be more advantageous to attack green then blue (i.e. taking a keep from green puts you in a better position relative to blue then taking a tower from blue)
-what incentive does green have to attack blue? would they not be more inclined to attack red, both because of the above point and the fact that red is the bigger threat to their position?

What you may be seeing is a situation where two servers have specifically ganged up on your server, which would create the results you have stated

Atleast 2 servers can team up to fight the strong one so that they can try to be equals as 2v1.

What do you think would happen if it was 1v1 , strong vs weak?

In 3 way fights , atleast weaks have opportunity to be strong by making alliance.

I agree with OP. If they make WvW more combackable then yes it would work. Right now there is one server whose in first and and nobody really messes with and the two lower servers try to fight each other. But if we do WvW then one team could dominate and the other just lose and quit instead of fighting with the other loser.

Quentin Fields.1295:

Atleast 2 servers can team up to fight the strong one so that they can try to be equals as 2v1.

What do you think would happen if it was 1v1 , strong vs weak?

In 3 way fights , atleast weaks have opportunity to be strong by making alliance.

It’s pretty hard to make an alliance when you can’t talk. I guess we can use emotes as sign language -.-

With 3 factions, the bottom 2 will fight, because the top faction is too powerful. This makes the top faction even more powerful, and the next thing you know the top faction controls 3/4 of the map.

Can’t talk? That’s why we have this forum mate.Gunnar’s Hold and Augry just had a topic for making alliance against us Desolation.

And they managed to work that out on 2 borders.

Ppl will still complain about hod when they put 2 factions

Cayden.4587:

Having WvWvW doesn’t balance anything. It is based on the concept that the 2 weaker servers will team up on the stronger server but that is never the case. The reality is that because of the ladder it is actually important who comes in second.

As such the best move once one team and pushed far into the lead is for the other two servers to focus exclusively on each other to attempt to solidify second place. This makes it easier for the winning server to simply keep winning.

This also dilutes the validity of the ladder in making balanced fights because every match is in effect almost random with the exception of super large power differences such as HoD vs anyone.

That is why there should be some more incentives to go for the leading server. Maybe something like a increase in xp/karma/gold rewards based on the ratio of your score and theirs (of course not penalizing the winning server) so that it’s more attractive to hit on the server with the highest amount of points.

If you want a good example of how “2 factions” can work.. just look what happening in Warhammer Online…..

the 2 weaker servers going against the dominant 1 rarely happens well from my experience. We are dead last this week and the dominant server and 2nd server constantly sandwich us it gets old fast

I’d actually like to see 4 factions to be honest.
That and the ability to make treaties for 24 hours between worlds based on majority of a vote based system in WvW.

Now that’s not going to happen. But it’d be nice =)

4 factions would be sick…

You ever play Planetside? Their are many parallels between it and GW2 WvW. It would have been ALLOT less fun if it was just 2 factions… 3 factions is what made it one of the only successful FPSMMO’s ever. The battles were utterly massive and if you were organized you could make a huge impact on the field, and the threat that you could possibly be out flanked by another force all together gave you chills.
Taking that concept and integrating it into a fantasy MMORPG was a great move. Although their are still some bugs and quarks I would like to see ironed out I still really like the way they designed WvW.

It should be between 5 worlds.
Way more epic.

So you’re suggesting ANet to remove all WvWvW maps and trash all that work they made to make it work and start from scratch?