Showing Posts For Maverick Hunter.8946:
This thread is too long to read. Honestly, I’m happy with the way all classes are laid out at least in WvW. I never really find myself frustrated, only when I can’t catch a thief, lol. But a thief running away isn’t one that is hurting me. It’s their trade off for not being durable in battle. It’s called variety XD
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.
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.
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.
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.
It will really depend on how it hurts anet’s pocket. Like Blizzard is removing the auction house because they know it’s ruining Diablo, BUT and this is a big BUT they are only removing it because they are releasing expansion packs and will charge some 30~40 bucks for it. So they want to make sure people buy the expansion and continue buying the expansions.
If the frustration makes people not want to play to the point where it hurts their wallet, they’ll figure out a way to fix it, but until then they’ll continue what they are doing. Since I’m sure most new players don’t play WvW and spend a lot of money somewhere in their lvl 60’s. If that’s the case they want to make more things that make you have to spend more time and money to be competitive in the top tier. It’s one of the down sides of not having a monthly fee.
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.
That’s nonsense. People jump ship when the going gets tough, because that is who they are.
You can say that, but say 15% of your server leaves because of the unbalance, what about the 85% of us who just got smaller? Who are staying? Will Anet help us? So we should just sit quite while we get out numbered?
It has been happening since WvW began. Also this is not a broken idea, you and many others in this forum have been running wild with speculation. Speculation, that so far has not been backed by the data. On ET, we are doing just as well as we were before this update. IoJ (the dominant world) has not become some indestructible force and they certainly have not been able to maintain all three buffs (at least not for long).
True time will only tell, but if no one says anything are we to expect Anet to want to make things better?
WvW is simulated warfare; advantages are a natural aspect. There will always be factors like migration, activity levels, moral, etc. If anyone does not like the unbalanced nature of WvW, then they really should not be playing it. Activities like crabtoss would be more appropriate, as everyone is on an equal playing field.
Yea… WvW is still a game, if people play it and it feels unfair, then yea people will complain and if nothing changes then I would assume people will go to a server that they can actually win or have a fighting chance… or… they will just stop playing. It’s just a “natural aspect.”
At first I thought this only helped you out if you were on your own borderland, but I see now that it helps you where ever you are. I’m having a tough time trying to utilize the ruins because after a large server gets them all they need is one havoc team (only 5 people) to run around killing anyone who tries to take the ruins, which means the loosing server with less people have to split up their zerg, groups, etc and spread thin. So… you get a win more situation. It just makes it easier for the larger servers to fully lock it in. I almost feel like if there is a shut out like this the two loosing servers should get a truce or something cuz currently on DB and TC is just running over both FA and us…. and after the demoralizing defeats no one seems to want to stay on WvW, seems so dead now. If things continue like this, not sure I’ll stay on GWs, WvW was kind of the end game thing for me, but if I have to move to another server that has more people I don’t really want to spend another 20 bucks… and convincing your guild to jump servers… better luck finding hen’s teeth…