Guild Wars 2

So I’ve been thinking about WvW. Aside from all that has happened. I’ve been thinking about the core mechanics of the game and started thinking about the three server dynamics. Usually what I find in most three player games is that the two sides that are losing usually gang up on the winning side. I figure that’s kind of how they want to make it with WvW, three servers to self regulate any side that is taking over in a complete shut out.

So I thought “how would anet implement something to auto balance WvW with numbers.” I hear people talking about limiting player counts in the battle grounds, but we all know that opens up all kind of problems and limitations to what the game is designed around. I also hear about people trying to go on the forums and team speak and broker alliances between the two losing sides, but we all know that’s a minority between guilds.

Where this got me thinking was, why not have the two loosing sides deal less damage to one another making it less advantageous to attack one another. Of course there would have to be some kind of threshold limit, like if one side controls 60% of the points or something. Also say if the three sides duke it out over SM the two loosing sides may deal less dmg to each other. I think mathematically it would work itself out.

Maybe have some kind of way to signify that two losing sides are kind of at a semi diplomatic truce. Have their names in yellow text when seeing them and when in a three way battle hitting TAB first checks for the nearest non-ally.

What I hope would happen is that that two loosing sides would focus less on trying to steal from each other and focus their efforts on a common enemy until the points start to equal out. This way there is no “their side has a greater buff and can do more dmg” or any other gripe, just it’s not advantageous to attack your fellow struggling server and attack the server that is doing better. Cuz when I see red, I attack first then think later.

Plus with the current blood lust added to WvW I know they can implement this and it wouldn’t be something outside of what they already can do. And newbs would automatically get a hint and realize that it’s a little easier fighting some people rather than others.

But who knows, maybe WvW is kind of lost. I think my server has been on vacation from it for the past two weeks.

I have no doubt that is what they hoped would happen, the 2 weaker sides team up vs the wining side. It really hasn’t happened at all in my experience anyway. The reason is imo because the match up changes too fast and the reward/incentive of wining is no existent. So really 1 there isn’t enough time for the 2 losing sides to come to some kind of battle field agreement. 2 people simply don’t care about wining a match up enough to work together.

What I do see more often than not is the 2’nd place world pick on the last place team for easy wxp and avoid the 1’st place zerg. When you think about it , it make sense. Why would you fight a zerg knowing you’ll lose 9/10 times and get no wxp when you can pick on the weaker one and get reward 9/10 times.

One last pt, with the way rally works, it would be rather impossible for 2 worlds to team up and beat the third side even if they wanted to .

One could make the argument that increasing the value of the winning team objectives and decreasing the losing teams would make for a better match overall.

I would argue that the system itself is fundamentally flawed and most changes at this point are cosmetic.

I dont like this idea but if I did here’s how it would go. There are 695 possible PPT right? subtract SMC and thats 660 which is 220 per server.

Add a +/- stat buff based on PPT. calculation? 220 minus current PPT = buff to all stats.

If you have 500 PPT you have -280 to all stats. If you have 50 PPT you have +170 to all stats.

Half the problem is that all enemies look the same (same color tags). You need to read the text within their tag to see which server they’re on – bit how often do you get to do that?

Seems to me, the simple solution is to make the tags of the two enemy servers different colors. Then in the heat of battle you would be able to distinguish enemies from potential allies. (Maybe someone could post that over in the suggestion forums.)

Solstice.1097:

I dont like this idea but if I did here’s how it would go. There are 695 possible PPT right? subtract SMC and thats 660 which is 220 per server.

Add a +/- stat buff based on PPT. calculation? 220 minus current PPT = buff to all stats.

If you have 500 PPT you have -280 to all stats. If you have 50 PPT you have +170 to all stats.

I think you miss interpenetrated what I meant. Say if one side had 400PTs so they are just rolling over the other two servers. The “losing two” would get defensive bonuses against one another. The reason is that there would be less reason to attack one another because it leads to stale mates, which means they need to go after the winning side. Also what would be nice if it got to that point then the “two losing” sides would see each other in yellow, which means guards and such aren’t inherently attacking each other/disruption supplies. So it would be easier for them to strengthen and bulk up against the winning side. This also means a fellow losing side and run past centuries and guards on their way to fight the main target.

Of course people can be trolls, but with the increased defensive buff it makes it harder and less advantageous to attack the loosing side.

Zenguy.6421:

Half the problem is that all enemies look the same (same color tags). You need to read the text within their tag to see which server they’re on – bit how often do you get to do that?

Seems to me, the simple solution is to make the tags of the two enemy servers different colors. Then in the heat of battle you would be able to distinguish enemies from potential allies. (Maybe someone could post that over in the suggestion forums.)

That’s why I thought that the two loosing sides would see each other in Yellow and NPCs wouldn’t inherently attack each other or the dolyacks. But of course not grant access to other servers controlled keeps.

Mogar.9216:

I have no doubt that is what they hoped would happen, the 2 weaker sides team up vs the wining side. It really hasn’t happened at all in my experience anyway. The reason is imo because the match up changes too fast and the reward/incentive of wining is no existent. So really 1 there isn’t enough time for the 2 losing sides to come to some kind of battle field agreement. 2 people simply don’t care about wining a match up enough to work together.

What I do see more often than not is the 2’nd place world pick on the last place team for easy wxp and avoid the 1’st place zerg. When you think about it , it make sense. Why would you fight a zerg knowing you’ll lose 9/10 times and get no wxp when you can pick on the weaker one and get reward 9/10 times.

One last pt, with the way rally works, it would be rather impossible for 2 worlds to team up and beat the third side even if they wanted to .

Those reasons alone make sense why the two losing sides should have extra defensive buffs against each other and see each other in yellow.

I like this idea, plus it’s not hugely complicated so it would be possible to implement.

Question though, is it applied to all maps at the same time, or does it depend/change on the status of each WvW zone?

spRonin.7128:

I like this idea, plus it’s not hugely complicated so it would be possible to implement.

Question though, is it applied to all maps at the same time, or does it depend/change on the status of each WvW zone?

I would imagine it would need to be applied to WvW as a whole to keep it simple and since it’s about scores overall, plus the blood lust that is transferable all over. If the “two losing” sides are fighting each other on their borderlands I’d imagine it would be counter intuitive to the situation.