- The last thing we want to do is discourage people from doing WvW. If you too harshly disadvantage the winning server, you run the risk of them logging in less. If you fail to give the losing server a proper “handicap”, you run the same risk. But there are ways to give the losing server a bit of an advantage without over penalizing the winning one. One of the problems is this: more people = more money and resources. More money and resources = easier to wage war. In addition to lowering the amount of supply-per-siege-item for outmanned servers and making siege refreshment more responsive to numbers, it might be a good idea to look at how much it costs to set traps. 50 people can set more traps and a lower cost-per-person than 10 people can. The game of golf recognizes things like this, too. Men can strike the ball harder and hit it further… so women get a headstart. It’s not sexist or unfair. It’s realistic – and the point is to balance challenge with benefit to encourage people to play. Maybe servers given the outmanned buff should also receive a reduced price for traps?
- OR be given access to traps that are not available when the buff does not apply. For example: “Zergbuster Trap” – lasts 5 minutes, each enemy that walks over the trap adds 0.5% incoming damage (stacking) to allies within 900 (max 20 stacks). I know ANET has new traps planned, but it might be a good idea to consider not just what the trap does, but how it can be used to equalize the playing field, rather than just cause mayhem. Another example: “Clumsy Trap” (again, can only be purchased when you have the outmanned buff) – when triggered, enemies within range of the trap are effected with siege clumsiness, all siege skills recharge 50% slower for 5 minutes (obviously, you’d have to be realistic with the range).
Just some ideas off the top of my head that I believe would change the dynamics of WvW drastically and for the better, if thought through. Zergs of 50+ would be wise to slow down a bit – send scouts in to trigger traps and find ways around them. This would give defenders time to situate themselves for the best defense they can provide and make the whole experience, win or lose, more gratifying.
Finally – and this has been mentioned more than a few times – additional world XP is a good thing, but it really comes down to the points you’re ticking. When a hero does a little in the face of overwhelming odds, she is seen as a champion. Her name goes down in history. She is rewarded for her courage. It should be the same in GW2. Somehow, ANET has to figure out a way to reconfigure how points are ticked in situations like this. It cannot only be about how many camps and towers are being flipped before the timer resets – it has to also be about how well you do considering your circumstances. The individual battles between the ticks matter and the points should reflect that somehow. I’m not getting paid to think about these things too much, but I’m positively sure that it cannot be too daunting a task to award more or fewer points (not too drastically) to effectively reflect the courage and heroics of the disadvantaged server.
And keep in mind: every server will, at some point, be on the losing side. Those of you who are winning right now – consider how you will feel about these ideas next week when you’re in the ring with a server that vastly outnumbers you and has 25 hour coverage.
I’m gonna play WvW either way. I love it, just like a golfer loves golf. And even the most disadvantaged golfer still gets up, gathers his clubs, puts on his shoes and his ugly polo shirt, and heads onto the course. But at least he knows that, with a little luck AND a handicap, he can end the day with a score that accurately reflects not only how well he played the game according to the rules, but how well he played the game considering his opponent.
