Guild Wars 2

Here is the map I would like in WvW. It’s a combination of Eternal Battleground and Borderland map. The Stonemist Castle has been replaced by the ruin in Borderland and when you control the ruin you gain 35 PPT and access to a waypoint in middle of the map.

What would be your dream wvw map?

I created this thread to share information about things that work and doesn’t work when fighting the wurm.

Just did 1 fight yet. The one with the antitoxin (is it Crimson?).

Question : Can you use mesmer portal while you have the antitoxin on you?

It seems that would be the key to gather antitoxin fast enough.

I just thought about it but… Even if there is no official PPT for EotM, the map will probably be supported by the GW2 API.

This means that a fansite could run an unofficial ranking for Edge of the Mist!

Considering that all the servers will form only 3 teams based on their color for EotM, it might be a very good change of pace if you are bored of population/coverage imbalance.

Thoughts?

These objectives look very interesting to take and defend. I wish they add this as a new map to WvW and simply remove the borderland maps

Can you build siege on top of the towers? I can totally see myself building a trebuchet there to hit the nearby keep.

It’s true that if you remove the waypoints, it might become at lot harder to hold all your home BL. But, it will become a lot easier to hold the keep closest to your spawn waypoint in other BL.

Removing the waypoint might change the meta to : hold 1 keep in each BL instead of hold home bl and eternal corner.

But, to go back to the new upgrade replacing the waypoints :

What do you think about a buff to help the defender? I was thinking something like constant stability when you are in or around the keep. Unremovable. Having stability helps a lot in battle. Also, you would be able to stand on wall without being pull off. Having that buff on as an upgrade would greatly help the defending side without making it impossible to capture the keep.

Straegen.2938:

Few would give a crap about hills, bay or garri if they did this. The only reason they are strategically important is the waypoints. Holding them for points is secondary to that. A lot of servers wouldn’t even bother trying to hold their BL since the run to the bottom half would be mostly pointless since they could lock down their entry points on BLs easier.

The idea to remove the waypoint upgrade from the keeps has been toss around many times and the developer even acknowledged it. So, it’s something that will probably happen at some point.

The main reason for removing the waypoint is to split the zerg. If you remove the waypoints the zerg can’t cover every places with only 1 group so it has to either split or to lose everything. Waypoint are what make it possible for 1 big zerg to cover all the maps. But let’s not discuss the waypoints.

What I wonder is :

When we remove the waypoint upgrade, what should be put as a new upgrade to replace it?

What is the 1 thing driving people to play? No it’s not fun. It’s reward!

Currently, WvW have a population/coverage/imbalance problem. Let me fix all that for you in 1 go. Here it is :

When you flip an objective held by the currently winning server in a match up, you get double reward.

What will that do?

1. It will make the 2 losing servers attacking the winning server, effectively making match up more balance.
2. It will make everyone want to be on losing server to get more reward.
3. If everyone move to losing server for more reward this server will no longer be losing, so no more double reward.

The population can only balanced itself with that.

And for the winning server?

I was thinking about a crappy reward chest as a consolation prize for being a stacked server. Something that send the message : “Sorry but no double reward for you… You are stacked.”

Nice video! Really like it

But… you should spread… Half of your wvw guilds would still be 2 times more than our number of wvw guilds and we are middle silver…

If you liked this match up, don’t forget to join For Balanced Match up

Johje Holan.4607:

kitten this is a great idea! If Anet can’t give us good matches, we need to do it ourselves.

^

Exactly what I think too.

By the way, for all those that think that alliance can’t work check out this match up.
YB – EB – SBI

[FBM] was created for this match up initially. But we love it so much that we want to extend it to every server.

No more karma train and good fight 24/7 in all match up.

What else can you ask for?

Btw… If you are still wondering about the “Alliance”

[FBM] has influenced this match up.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/recruitment/FBM-For-Balanced-Matchup/first#post3260148

[FBM] is a cross server commander guild which aim to make match up more balanced.

I’m still looking for members from SBI. It might be a good idea for you and DB to join force against FA or it might be a boring week…

[FBM] is a cross server commander guild which aim to make match up more interesting, challenging and of course balanced.

The guild is open to every commander and is community managed; meaning that everyone got invite right. There is only one rule :

- Focus the strongest server

This rule is more of a guideline. There are no strict rules in the guild and no formal alliance. Everything depends on the commanders that are part of it. The guild provide you a list of commanders that like the idea of forming temporary alliance in order to have a fighting chance in a bad match up.

The commanders are organized per server. So, when you are leading and want to form an temporary alliance because the enemy severely outnumber you, you got a list of commanders from the other server and you can see which one are online.

We are looking for commanders from every servers to join our ranks. You can apply directly in this thread or send me a private message.

Thank you

Thank you for the support

The whole point of the guild [FBM] and this idea is to make match up more balanced and make WvW a better place.

I encourage all commanders that like the idea to join the guild. Being in the guild does not mean that you have to form an alliance in any way. The guild is simply there to make communication easier between commanders of different servers in the case they want to make an alliance for a short time because they have a common objective. For example, flipping a fully fortified SM.

As I said before there is one rule to the guild : focus the server which has the highest score in the match up.

This mean that if one of the allied server is pulling ahead in the score, the alliance end.

I just started a guild [FBM] (For Balanced Matchup)

[FBM] is a cross server commander guild for forming alliance in bad match up.

1 rule : Focus the server with the highest score.

The guild is community managed, everyone got invite right. The guild primary function is to facilitate the communication between the different servers and make the formation of alliance easier.

Every commander playing in WvW is welcome!

N.B. Just say you want an invite and you will get one.

Let’s say a group of commanders coming from every server would get together and form a cross server commander guild with the obvious goal of forming alliances and facilitating communication for strategies.

Would it be a problem?

There would be only 1 rule :

Attack the server which has currently the highest score in the match up.

majos.8503:

Well i get your point, but i don’t agree with it…

This MU for us: Elona vs Baruch vs Vizunah

Yesterday i went to sleep at 2am, we where wining by 200-300 points. I just woke up and we are loosing by 12.150 points. Of course this just show the population imbalance and we can’t do anything against that. But well, Vizunah did a hard work organizing their people during nights and maybe talking to lot of people to cover this hours. They deserve that this work can be shown on points.

Also if we had this cap, mosts of MU would be deciced on monday, so now, there are lots of servers like Riverside or Elona that on weekends are very strong, and during week they become weaker, or Baruch or Piken that on weekends is a weak server and becomes strong during week, so if we had this cap, maybe some server could manage enough points during weekends against us, and would be imposible to comeback from servers like Baruch or Piken, the same on the other hand, there are servers like Elona and Riverside that have a really great performance on weekends, and they maybe would win MU in 2 days, when their performance during the week is not as good as the other servers.

So it would make another population imbalance… Weekend servers against Week servers… I don’t know if you understand what i mean (i know my english is not the best)

I understand your point too but I can’t agree with it either

Don’t you find it a bit a unfair that Vizunah can gain a lead of 12k over you while you sleep when you were winning before that? I understand that Vizunah deserve to have the lead because of their hard work at night and even with a cap they would still have the lead because since they tick so high it means that you tick very low, so they get more points than you. But, isn’t 12k a bit too much in only 1 night? At this point the match is pretty much already decided. Vizunah will win and you will fight with the other server for 2nd place.

Now what would happen with a PPT cap is that when you woke up Vizunah would still have the lead, but they would only have a lead of 4k for example instead of 12,5k. This make it much easier for you to come back into the match up and you still got a shot at second.

You can get a lot of points by killing dolyaks, sentries, controlling bloodlust, escorting your dolyak. Since the score are closer, all the work your roamer and small group does is a lot more important. Zerg would no longer be the only thing that make you win. If you have great roamer that kill every single dolyak and control all bloodlust, you could win a match up in which you are outnumbered. You now have the possibility to outplay your opponent in WvW to win.

Btw, English is not my first language either

majos.8503:

We don’t need a ppt cap… WvW is a 24/7 fight, just a few servers can manage that and they’re on top of the leaderboard of course.

But the WvW leaderboard doesn’t mean which server is better, this leaderboard just show who have more coverage and matchup against servers with a similiar coverage, and is the way how they have to do it…

For example, i’m from Baruch here we have population until about 4am, if we play on gold league (high tiers) we have people to fight against, when we were on lower tiers (now silver league) was just PvD during nights and mornings, maybe some servers have more skills than some t1 servers, i don’t doubt about that, but there are more players who want to have fun on WvW outside prime time…

So WvW leaderboard have to show the servers with more cover to matchup this servers against them, and the low pop servers against them, to be more fair and fun for everyone.

If for example just count the points on prime time, almost all servers would be near on points, this means that maybe Vizunah maybe could Matchup against one silver server who don’t have too much coverage, and this would mean that Vizunah players would be almost all day bored doing PvD.

I hope you get what i mean

Good post and I agree with you on many points but I have to disagree on others.

One thing I disagree on is that you consider that this change would not make the stronger server win, which is not the case. A gold league server will still beat a silver tier server if there was a PPT cap because only the gold tier server will be able to reduce it’s opponent PPT below the cap in order to gain the lead.

We all want to make WvW more fair and fun for everyone. I’m well aware that there is currently a huge population imbalance problem that is plaguing WvW and that this problem is making many match up not only unfair but also not very fun for many.

I didn’t suggest this change to fix this population problem but rather to help fix a few problems with the current scoring system. These are 2 different problems that need different solution.

One of the problem that bother me very much with the current scoring system is that there is no come back in match up because the stronger server get huge lead very fast. So in 1 or 2 days, or even just a few hours, it’s already clear who is the winner and there is nothing you can do to change it.

I propose this change to make the score of all servers closer together. The stronger server will still win (I’m almost 100% sure that they will still win), but at least they won’t win by over 100k points. Even if it’s just for psychological factor it’s already a great help to WvW players.

But the benefits don’t stop there. Since the score are closer together it opens the opportunity to strategic play by the weaker server to get a chance to win anyway. Sentry are worth 1 point, dolyak killing 3 points, dolyak that reach a keep 3 points, stomping players 1 point when you have bloodlust. With the current score system all these doesn’t matter since the score are so different, but if the score are all closer together, all these little tasks can become very important and a server that diligently kill all dolyak even if it can’t hold structure against much bigger zerg than theirs, might have a shot at winning the match.

It also helps with the whole PvDooring thing in off hours like I mention before.

Bringing a PPT cap would definitively help the scoring in WvW and it’s a simple change to implement.

Player Character.9467:

He’s saying that in a balanced match you should fight to lower your enemy ppt instead of raising yours, to prevent 1 server from ticking 600+ at night and not having to care about pushing over 100 during the day. That way the worst they can do is make you tick 0 but they still tick some capped value.

Thank you very much for understanding the idea. It’s refreshing

What you say is absolutely true and it’s the goal behind my suggestion. I think it could help to balance the score between all the servers in a match up.

Ruin.3461:

Max ppt: 695
230 * 3 = 690
wow such math

And your point is? 230 is just a number. It can be anything you want it to be between 0 and 695.

Talk about the concept!

Would it helps to make the score of all server in a match up closer?

Title says it all.

You know what the big problem about scoring is? It’s some random server ticking at 600 PPT while you sleep gaining so much points that there is no way you can come back even if you play all day long.

Limit PPT to 230 max per server and problem solve.

If you want to win a match up, you have to put constant effort. Not just PvDooring while everyone is asleep.

azizul.8469:

anyway, lower the map cap please…… the rest will take care on its own….

Creating long queue is always a bad idea and surely the best way to drive people off the game. Did you ever enjoy spending time in queue? I didn’t and don’t think anyone ever had.

Adding a new map for people in queue is a great idea by Anet.

This is NOT a solution to population imbalance.

Visiroth.5914:

Relying on players to destack themselves is a losing proposition. What incentive is there for someone to leave their current server for a lower tier server. And if it happens how do we ensure that the population doesn’t try to stack on a single lower tier server, which has happened many times.

You got the wrong question… The real question is : What incentive is there for someone to leave their current server. It doesn’t matter if they want to leave for a lower or a higher server. Why do they want to leave their server?

If a server start getting a lot of transfer, it will go up in ranking and the transfer will stop. Problem solved. Tier 1 server are staying tier 1 because they get a constant influx of transfer. It’s not skill, it’s transfer.

Currently it’s : Pay to win.

But restricting transfer to higher server would make it : Play to win

Restricting can come in many forms like :

- Making server transfer cost increase the higher the server is ranked
- Making server transfer cost the double if you transfer to a server higher ranked than yours.

Also, making guild and community stay on their server is very important and should be prioritize even over transferring to a lower ranked server. So, even the last tier should not be free. Make it cost less, but not free.

I know that you don’t want to release official number for many good reasons.

BUT

Would it be possible to answer a few questions and give comparison numbers instead of raw numbers?

So here are the list of things that would be useful to know :

1. Do you monitor WvW population on each server at specific time of the day and overall participation during the week for each server?

2. If yes, would it be possible to have some percentage about these statistics? For example for WvW participation of the servers over the week :

For each server, give a percentage of the number of hours spent in WvW for each server compared to the number of hours spent by the whole GW2 population.

That way, we have no idea how many players are playing the game or how much time people are passing in the game but we can at least understand the problem about population imbalance.

3. Do you have statistics about where people are transferring to and from?

4. Is there more people transferring to a higher ranked server or more people transferring to a lower ranked server. Could we get the percentage for that information?

5. Over a set period of time, let’s say 1 week or 1 month, would it be possible to get some percentage of how many people transfer to each server compared to the total number of transfer and how many people transfer from each server compared to the total number of transfer

We just need some information to be able to make comparison. We don’t need the total number of players online at specific time of the day or things like that, just some percentage is all we need.

Thank you

N.B. If I forgot anything important tell me and I will add it to the list.

Cynz.9437:

Gudradain.3892:

Here how to fix the problem about tier 1 and balance the servers population :

You can’t transfer to a server ranked higher than yours.

So BG would not get any transfer until it go down in ranking. Eventually every server will get at chance at #1.

that won’t happen

That should happen.

WvW will be a better place and T1 won’t be able to bully and destroy community anymore.

You want a shot at #1? Build a stable community and get some playing skill.

Want to solve the problem about stacked server and buying guild to win?

Do the following :

- You can’t transfer to a server ranked higher than yours

All population imbalance solved with a simple change.

The game will now be :

Play to win instead of pay to win.

Here how to fix the problem about tier 1 and balance the servers population :

You can’t transfer to a server ranked higher than yours.

So BG would not get any transfer until it go down in ranking. Eventually every server will get at chance at #1.

Andrew Clear.1750:

I really think that limiting people’s freedom of movement isn’t going to solve the WvW issues. What we really need is what golf, and bowling have. We need handicaps.

The problem is, how could you implement an effective handicap, that would not be exploitable? Also, the handicap needs to not be a means to punish the server with more population, but just to help even the playing field for the servers with less population.

Maybe scale the strength of guards based on the population within the zone. So say, server A has 30 people running in the zone, and server B has 5 (and it is server B’s home bl). Now, as it stands now, server A is gonna take the whole BL, and tick like crazy all night, leaving server B in a whole they can’t get out of.

So, with this kind of a disparity, strengthen the guards so server A just can’t easily PvD their way to victory. Add some extra guards in the towers and keep, and if server A had built some siege before they logged, then allow these guards to use the siege. Make it harder for server A to take the BL, while server B is sleeping.

Maybe, make an npc squad that could automatically trigger (like siegemaster), that could go out and take back towers and keeps that the enemy have left unattended in Server B’s bl.

Sure, that is a lot of pve to add to wvw, but, when there is an absence of players, npcs would be better than nothing.

Something really needs done to the scoring, to make the matches competitve, no matter the population imbalance. This would benefit WvW for the near and long term, as the game ages and less people play.

I agree that there need to be some sort of handicap or buff.

But it should not be based on population

Why?

Simple… If you put it on population it can easily be abused even by the winning server. If all the player on the winning server left the map they will get the bonus too? Also, a server with a strong SEA presence and no NA presence will get the buff up at all time during NA. Do we really need to help a server that PvDoor you all night and is already winning?

Scoring and population are 2 different issues

1. Population problem : If you outnumber your opponent 2 to 1 you should and will win the fight. Problem is that if you always outnumber your opponent 2 to 1 you will win every fight and it’s no fun for everyone.

2. Score problem : The match are decided in the first few hours and there is no turning back. We already know the winner and the loser.

If you want to solve the population problem you need to do something like :

- You can’t transfer to a server ranked higher than yours

If you want to solve the scoring problem you need to do something like :

- Give buff or handicap to server based on their current score. The goal is to keep the score close all week long so that every week is a thrilling photo finish.

No transfer to a server ranked higher than yours.

All server will have balanced population in a few months and it will stay balanced.

It’s a long term viable solution.

And it’s ultra simple.

A player can’t transfer to a server ranked higher than his current server

Exception : Last tier can transfer between last tier

Gudradain.3892:

Make waypoint available only when the keep is contested. If the keep is not contested then the waypoint is not available

Am I the only one to see wisdom in that suggestion?

Here is a troll change for waypoint :

Make waypoint available only when the keep is contested. If the keep is not contested then the waypoint is not available

DevonCarver.5370:

I think there is something to the idea of PPT being higher during certain times of day, but it has sort of the opposite problem. That’s the balance we haven’t yet struck, in my opinion.

If you want to go this route it’s very simple. You changed the score at each tally based on the time passed by each server in WvW during the last 15 minutes (1 tally duration)

Between each tally you could do the following :

scoreA = the score server A made between that time
scoreB = the score server B made between that time
scoreC = the score server C made between that time

timeA = sum of the minutes passed in WvW for all players on server A
timeB = sum of the minutes passed in WvW for all players on server B
timeC = sum of the minutes passed in WvW for all players on server C
timeTotal = timeA + timeB + timeC

finalScoreA = scoreA * timeTotal / timeA
finalScoreB = scoreB * timeTotal / timeB
finalScoreC = scoreC * timeTotal / timeC

If you do it like that everything should be totally fair but I don’t think the score follow the population at all.

I really believe that sometimes just having 25% more population in general can make a server having 2 times the score of the other server for example.

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d be more curious to know what people think is the reason behind the fact that score is so directly related to the number of people on a server 24/7 and how WvW could be designed differently to address that moving forward. My personal observation is that the momentum you gain from even a small period of having more people online is so large that it can’t be overcome. Which makes me think we need to be doing more to slow that momentum.

Everything is related to upgrade.

The winning side is winning because they are better or have more number (mostly the later one). They win the majority of the fights in open field. If you try to attack one of their upgraded towers they will just come with a huge zerg and destroy your attack.

That they win most of the fights I’m fine with it and I don’t care much. If they are better or have more numbers in a battle they should win it.

The problem is that because they win mostly every fights they can easily upgrade their stuff while the two losing servers will struggle a lot. And with upgrade come the real problem.

When you see the winning server with T3 towers and T3 keeps all full on supply and a huge zerg running around that will wipe you if you try to take one objective, do you still want to attack them?

Even while there are empty paper towers from the other losing team that have no siege up to counter your ram, no player to defend them and give the same personal reward as the fully upgraded tower from the winning team?

Most players don’t and I agree with them. Why take 2 hours to get 1 tower, wiping several times, filling the bags of the winning server with awesome loots while you can cap 50 camps and towers in that same time by attacking the other losing server…

That’s the reason behind my suggestion. Give a bonus to the losing servers based on score difference with the score of the winning server

+ health to gate/wall
+ supply from dolyak
+ stats to NPC
+ damage on siege

This is making it harder to attack the losing servers for the winning server giving them a chance to defend and upgrade
Second it’s making it easier for the losing servers to attack the winning server (with the bonus to siege damage).

The losing servers will still lose every open field battle but they will have a chance to play smart and keep up in score.

I don’t think you can solve the problem of population imbalance.

Without making it possible for the server with a smaller population to win the match up anyway. The big problem is that match are decided in the first day or two usually. If you make the score difference smaller all week long it will still be possible for the smaller server to win.

Here is my suggestion :

1. Give a boost to the losing servers based on score difference with the winning server in match-up

+ health on wall/gate
+ supply from dolyak caravan
+ stats to NPC
+ damage from siege

This will make the score closer and will stop complete rip off and karma train from the server with the higher population.

2. Make the final PPT matter.

- Add the final PPT when the week end multiplied by 100 to the final score.

This will make it possible for the losing server to close a cap of 20000k in an instant.

Combine the 2 suggestions and you get thrilling match all week long where nothing is decided until the end.

Menaka.5092:

This is a good counter argument, but I don’t think the OP meant for the winning servers to be placed together in the same “team” the next week, so it would be harder /impossible to create a “stacked color”

Here is something that OP wrote :

So how would your World still matter? Server bonuses would now be win based instead of point based. Each week your server helps your world (color) win, your bonus accumulates. WvWvW would have seasons, so at the end of the season, the world bonuses reset (along with a personal wvw point refund for strategy changeups). This also means that wins matter more as they would be something that affects your server for the whole season

By that I guess he wants the RGB matchup to last for a whole season (so 7 weeks), so for 7 weeks you could get bad match up without any change.

Another problem, how do you determinate server strength after the first RGB season since every server are together? You can’t correctly kitten the strength of a server anymore if they are not fighting separately.

What that means? They won’t be able to make a good match up for next RGB season since they have no idea which server to put together. This means that we will get horrible match up again and there won’t even be the chance to get a good one since there is only 3 mega servers that are always match together.

This change has so many flaws I don’t even get why you are all putting +vote on the OP post.

It’s basically the same as saying :

Everyone transfer to the top 3 servers then we will ask Anet to create overflow map so we don’t wait in queue.

OK, seems everyone love that suggestion, but I will take the time to critic it…

So, you basically replace 24 worlds in NA and 29 worlds in EU by 3 in NA and 3 in EU. Everything seems fantastic in your post but…

What happen when 1 color get stacked and win all the time?

You don’t fix the problem you just move it around. For some odd reason, RBG seems to be the new thing but as for 1Up-1Down match making system, where when you win you move up and when you lose you move down, everyone say it’s fantastic without even taking the time to think about it. 1Up-1Down is an horrible system and so is random match up. RGB would be in that category too.

Here is my own suggestion to fix population imbalance : https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/How-to-Fix-Population-Imbalance/first#post3015734

I don’t want an half think change to ruin WvW like random match up did.

The Situation

Currently…

- 1/3 of the match up are decided as soon as we see who will be facing
- The next 1/3 is set in stone by the end of the weekend
- The final 1/3 is decided by Wednesday or Thursday and from that point the servers just karma train
- Some rare exception are not decided until the last minute but these are really just exception

The Problem

This is boring. You want to play to win but most of the time it doesn’t even matter since everything is already decided. You already know that you will win the match up or that you will lose it, days before the end of it. It’s just not fun and need to change.

A Good Solution

Make it possible to win until the last moment, even if you are behind by a lot

My Solution

On reset night, just before the reset of the match up :

- Take the final PPT we end up with, multiply it by 100 (=25hours) and add it to our server score.

Example :

Server A score when it resets: 250 000 points
Server B score when it resets: 240 000 points

Server A PPT when it resets : 150 points
Server B PPT when it resets : 300 points

Server A final score : 250 000 + 150 * 100 = 265 000 points
Server B final score : 240 000 + 300 * 100 = 270 000 points

Server B wins the match up!!!!! (Now, that would be a fun reset night for me)

Problems that need to be fix before that work

The scores between the different servers need to be closer together. So, we have to fix population imbalance first.

See my suggestion here : https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/How-to-Fix-Population-Imbalance/first#post3015734

style.6173:

I think the one thing that everyone knows (with maybe the exception of ANET) is that they can’t just run leagues with the existing scoring.

The only way to make this league somewhat exciting is to implement your idea or some other idea. There needs to be a change though.

See my suggestion here : https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/How-to-Fix-Population-Imbalance/first#post3015734

It could be done in 1 week and fix 90% of the population imbalance problem.

Plains of Ashes.5941:

For the moment it looks like Kains tanking ability is greater than someone’s match-rigging ability. We’ll see what the week holds.

Haha that comment made me laugh.

How practical that NSP got matched with #23 AND #24 on the most decisive week, just when Kaineng was getting a bit close to them in rating…

Population imbalance is a big problem and make a lot of match up very boring.

Non solution

Many people want to make the population on each server equal. Unfortunately, the number of players that decide to play on 1 specific server can’t really be controlled and hence the solution to fix this important problem has to be somewhere else.

Another popular suggestion is to give stat boost to the players on the losing side, but I would not go this way for many reasons. I consider that huge stats boost to players make every fight unfair and it’s not fun (on that topic I would prefer if bloodlust would give +1 for stomping and +50 PPT).

A Good Solution

A good solution has to make the score of every server closer together no matter what is the match and make it possible to play the game we are playing. This game is WvW and like it or not it revolves around holding structure and capping them.

My Solution

Give an advantage to the losing side based on their WvW score.

For every, 1000 points that your server score is below the winning server score in your match up, you get :

(1) + 1 to tower and 2 to keep for the supply carried by dolyak (2/4 if the camp has dolyak upgrade)
(2) + 1% health to wall and gate
(3) + 1% all stats of your NPC
(4) + 1% to your siege damage

Effects of this suggestion

(1) will greatly help to upgrade our keeps and tower. We all know how hard it can be to upgrade your structure when you are outnumbered.

(2), (3) and (4) should greatly help to defend your structure

(4) should help you to take enemy structure since all your siege do more damage

You will still probably lose every open field fight if you are fighting a server with a much higher population than you but at least with these change you can be pretty close in score if you play smart.

So which league do you think will be the best/more fun one to play in?

Gold : (1st to 6th)
Silver : (7th to 15th)
Bronze : (16th to 24th)

Second question : Which league will be the most balanced?

As it doesn’t matter, when you are the losing server, if you upgrade something or not since the winning server will simply bring a zerg 4x time bigger than your total number of players on the map with 10 omega golems and flip everything to paper once again…

In the hope to have more balanced WvW matches since upgrading only favor the winning server…

And for all those that waste their entire day to upgrade something that get flip back again 1 hour after they log out to go to bed…

Could we get rid of the structural upgrade and get fair match in WvW.

No walls upgrade, no gates upgrade, no waypoint… Just adjust the health of gates and walls to something between wood and fortified and be done with this non-sense.

I want some fairness in WvW and you, Anet, can do things for that…

This is just one of the topic that need addressing…

For those that don’t understand or don’t want to understand the performance issue…

Keep in mind that all the skills are balanced to have an AOE cap of 5 players. Meaning that if there wasn’t the cap of 5 players, all your AOE skills would do a LOT less damage per player.

Clear enough?

Just wanted to thx the dev for this awesome map design. It’s really refreshing to have it inplace of the boring huge lake.

The map is very well done and it’s complex enough that you have a lot of options to escape. I was able to use the terrain to my advantage many time to escape against higher number. You just need some jumping skills and quick thinking. Something that you can’t do if you are in the vast area of the map. If you find someone or a group, stronger than you and that can run faster than you then you are dead. In these ruins you still have a chance to survive and it’s pretty cool!

I can’t say I agree with the buff, mostly because I didn’t make my mind yet, but the map is awesome.

Thank You.

Siege griefing is not a problem. It’s a feature!

And also the best way to help your server in WvW and really make a difference. Everyone should have 2 accounts : 1 on your server and 1 for griefing your current matchup

Nikkinella.8254:

Well said bro. I think most of us feel this way. the current random matchup system is terrible. Beyond terrible, it’s rage inducing. So many people have quit because of it.

It’s true many people quit because of it. This new matchup system was basically the nail in the coffin for all those that care a little bit about PPT and defending. After getting bad matchup every week you just stop caring and just log on from time to time to karma train…

To the ones that would like to say that caring about PPT is stupid, I will say : The final nail in the coffin is coming for you too —> orb buff lol

Way to kill the 2 groups that cared about WvW…

Jayne.9251:

The old complaints were about stale predictable matches, or no way to move up because of server stacking (that hasn’t changed and I suspect is about to get worse with the leagues).

No no, you get that part all wrong… I said it before many time and I will repeat it :

The only wrong thing with the old system was : the difference between the average of the scores of 2 adjacent tiers was too big.

I actually like the whole league idea and can’t wait to test my server strength against all the other one!

Siege griefing is a great tactic and should be use by every serious server out there.

Do you want to win or not?

+1 for the matching system. I too miss the old system and I think many others too.

The only wrong thing with the old system was : the difference between the average of the scores of 2 adjacent tier was too big. Anet, it should have been easy to realize that and to fix the old system instead of giving us random number and bad matchup.