I have long argued fervently against double-teaming in WvW. But with the combination of the wildly imbalanced server match ups and the dreadful bloodlust buff, it seems that Anet has left no support or recourse for the bottom server. It’s almost like Anet WANTS us to double team. If so, why not make it legit? Add an “Ambassador” NPC like siege crusher that players from the 3rd and 2nd server can “vote” with to initiate a proposed alliance with another server. It would take something big, like 100 votes or 150 votes over the course of a 24 hour period and at least 5 commander votes to trigger the ambassador. Then, the server you were requesting an alliance with would hear an announcement that your server wanted an alliance with them. That server could then vote on that with their ambassador NPC. Or maybe your ambassador would appear in their keep and make a short speech arguing for an alliance. Again, this option would NOT be available to the top server, the only alliance that could happen would be between the 2nd and 3rd server. If the alliance went through, then the 2nd and 3rd server would no longer see red when they saw eachother and would be unable to attack eachother. They would see another color instead, indicating an ally. Towers held by allies could not be attacked and supply camps would be available to both allied servers. The truce could be broken at any time by another big vote to the ambassador, or if one of the allied servers slipped into first place. And maybe the alliance option would only become available when the score points between servers became wide enough to merit it. Allied server commanders would be able to communicate through a special chat window:
This would solve a number of issues. It would give greater challenges to the top server, it would balence the match, it would negate the importance of the bloodlust buff, I think it would do a lot of good. Okay, responses. protects face from incoming hail of refuse
And in the case that the allied servers both capped SM or another tower simultaneously, another color would be put on the map at those location. Or a half red half blue circle indicating a shared ownership. Points divided to each server.
And in the case that the allied servers both capped SM or another tower simultaneously, another color would be put on the map at those location. Or a half red half blue circle indicating a shared ownership. Points divided to each server.
Not sure why you would have ever been against double teaming. The whole point of three way battles is to have impromptu and planned double teaming, it helps balance.
The stigma against double teaming is counter productive and a lot of matches would be a lot more interesting if folks accepted this. No extra infrastructure needed, just need players to grow a clue.
Not sure why you would have ever been against double teaming. The whole point of three way battles is to have impromptu and planned double teaming, it helps balance.
The stigma against double teaming is counter productive and a lot of matches would be a lot more interesting if folks accepted this. No extra infrastructure needed, just need players to grow a clue.
My problem with double teaming was that the alliance often formed was between the 1st server and the 2nd server in order to crush the 3rd server off the map. An in-game infrastructure for alliances would prevent that.
I don’t think it could or would ever make it so you cannot attack the allied team players.
Instead maybe whenever the top server has a 25k+ lead the other 2 servers are unable to cap each other’s stuff, making it pointless to do anything except double-team the top server. Once (if) the top server is back under 25k lead it goes away.
I It would take something big, like 100 votes or 150 votes over the course of a 24 hour period and at least 5 commander votes to trigger the ambassador.
Small problem:
I don’t think our server has 100 people nor 5 commander in WvW over a 24 hour period
The stigma against double teaming is counter productive and a lot of matches would be a lot more interesting if folks accepted this. No extra infrastructure needed, just need players to grow a clue.
It is always more rewarding(loot wise) and easier for the 2nd server to hit the 3rd server. The weaker server have the weakest defend, paper keep and tower.
And most of the time, the number in the 1st server is so huge that it outnumber 2nd and 3rd server added together. The only way to win is to hit top server TOGETHER.
Not sure why you would have ever been against double teaming. The whole point of three way battles is to have impromptu and planned double teaming, it helps balance.
The stigma against double teaming is counter productive and a lot of matches would be a lot more interesting if folks accepted this. No extra infrastructure needed, just need players to grow a clue.
My problem with double teaming was that the alliance often formed was between the 1st server and the 2nd server in order to crush the 3rd server off the map. An in-game infrastructure for alliances would prevent that.
I doubt that even happened, let alone would be the norm. Most of the people that cry double team are clueless folks with tunnel vision, entirely ignoring what is happening on other maps. I remember once watching a huge battle between two enemy servers while my server was QQing in team chat about being double teamed.
Folks go for the third server because it is easy points, not because there is a double team and the reason that happens is because of the stigma folks like yourself put on legitimate double teaming.
Not sure why you would have ever been against double teaming. The whole point of three way battles is to have impromptu and planned double teaming, it helps balance.
The stigma against double teaming is counter productive and a lot of matches would be a lot more interesting if folks accepted this. No extra infrastructure needed, just need players to grow a clue.
My problem with double teaming was that the alliance often formed was between the 1st server and the 2nd server in order to crush the 3rd server off the map. An in-game infrastructure for alliances would prevent that.
Could make commanders become treaty holders or make it so an NPC is a treaty holder. Once killed the 1 server who is getting double teamed must destroy the treaty(could make it so they have to destroy both sides treaties as well) thus ending the alliance and forcing these two servers back into a brawl and turning their split captures into free game for anybody to recap. Then make it so once a server enters an alliance and it gets broken it cannot be submitted again for another day or two.
They designed the 1v1v1 so if a server is just dominating 2 could join forces and help each other push back this dominating force but they produced no systems to allow this to be done in-game so the entire server may participate.
I It would take something big, like 100 votes or 150 votes over the course of a 24 hour period and at least 5 commander votes to trigger the ambassador.
Small problem:
I don’t think our server has 100 people nor 5 commander in WvW over a 24 hour period
The stigma against double teaming is counter productive and a lot of matches would be a lot more interesting if folks accepted this. No extra infrastructure needed, just need players to grow a clue.
It is always more rewarding(loot wise) and easier for the 2nd server to hit the 3rd server. The weaker server have the weakest defend, paper keep and tower.
And most of the time, the number in the 1st server is so huge that it outnumber 2nd and 3rd server added together. The only way to win is to hit top server TOGETHER.
The vote number needed could easily be lowered. Maybe 50 and 3 commanders would be enough. Or 100 over a 3 day period. And as to your second point, keep in mind that this alliance would only happen if BOTH servers agreed. If the 2nd server wanted to keep the 3rd server open for farming in order to make a play for number 1, all they would have to do is vote down the alliance request from the 3rd server. And remember, either server could vote to end the alliance at any time.
This is pretty brilliant. Alliances happen all the times in war. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I see no reason why we shouldn’t be allowed to team up to take on a greater threat.
But because of the fact this does make sense is why I can never see it happening. Watch Devon come in here and give some BS excuse like, “it doesn’t fit in the lore!” “our system can’t handle that sort of thing!” “it’s meant to be unbalanced!”.
I would love to be able to team up with Gandara, AG and Gandara are really similar servers, I would love to fight alongside them.
The feelings are returned Much respect for Aurora Glade.
See, this is exactly why my idea would be awesome. Alliances would introduce a whole new, positive element to WvW. Rivalries would increase, but so would comrodery and cross server loyalty. Grateful underdog servers would unite against the tyranny of the power hungry 1st server. It’s the plot of every great fantasy novel. It’s more “living story” than any of the recent PVE content.
