The two strongest servers almost always pick on the weakest

Does anyone ells find this to be true? There's no incentive to flip a well populatedT3 BL when you can easily go back to the weakest server's BL and flip all their objectives. When fighting higher tier servers it's not unusual to see a T3 objective held for days on end. The score continues to run away for the leading server, even with the skirmish changes, it's rare to have a match come down to the last day and even rarer to for all 3 servers to have a close battle score at the end of the week.

Is there any kind of game mechanic that could be implemented to keep matches closer for the losing servers?

Easier and faster points. More karma and xp.

I am not advocating all of what Chaba said here, but they come up with some interesting ways of looking at the game. Read his whole proposal, and give a couple of minutes to the forced 2v1.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/20401/how-to-really-fix-wvw-through-game-design#latest

Yeah sure, I know of one such mechanic. You dont even need to add it. Quite the opposite.

Delete the kitten tier based PPT.

@Dawdler.8521 said:Yeah sure, I know of one such mechanic. You dont even need to add it. Quite the opposite.

Delete the kitten tier based PPT.

Why should a tier 3 keep keep that takes hours to upgrade, be worth the same as a paper keep?

2nd place doesn't drop a tier. 3rd place does.Servers are selfish. And why shouldn't they be, its a competitive game. Picking on the weakest server to guarantee you won't drop tier is what we're all often going to do, even if we don't outwardly admit to it.The desire to not drop a tier severely outpaces the desire to gamble to try and finish first in a matchup, especially in T2 where the 'winner' graduates to fighting Blackgate.

~ Kovu

2-1-1!2-1-1!lol jk

Wvw was built to reward the strongest, there wasn't any consideration to population or coverage imbalances, so there are no mechanics to really force weaker servers to team up on the strongest, the strongest two will always prey on the weakest in the matchup. This is largely because of the ppt system. You can try changes like reset structure tiers on new skirmishes but that really only hurts the weaker teams, if you had 5 people able to hold on to a tier 3 keep, they probably wouldn't on a tier 1 with the same numbers coming at them. There needs to be a strong motivating factor to get the two teams to go against the strongest team, or a forced mechanic is needed.

all that matters is rewards, small pop servers receive extra pips... all that maters is a game mode to reward towards blob empty bl or server or end beingblobed but capture back strucutre to create gameplay to the blob servers, meanwhile u get rewarded with extra pips.

Dumb game for dumb people.

I think the best way to encourage double-teaming the winning server is to take advantage of people's inherent selfishness: Significantly increase the individual rewards for attacking the winning server. Here are some ideas:

• Flipping the top server's structures provides quadruple WXP and Karma
• Running on the strongest world's borderland provides double Reward Track Progress and Pips
• Killing players from the strongest server provides quadruple loot bags and WXP
• Increase rewards for failed assaults on the top server's structures (this will encourage both other servers to work together on tough enemy structures, no matter who captures it, you both get rewarded)

@X T D.6458 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:Yeah sure, I know of one such mechanic. You dont even need to add it. Quite the opposite.

Delete the kitten tier based PPT.

It doesn’t, t3 keeps give more ppt. People who only backcaps and pick up the scraps are just karma trainers.

@Shining One.1635 said:I think the best way to encourage double-teaming the winning server is to take advantage of people's inherent selfishness: Significantly increase the individual rewards for attacking the winning server. Here are some ideas:

• Flipping the top server's structures provides quadruple WXP and Karma
• Running on the strongest world's borderland provides double Reward Track Progress and Pips
• Killing players from the strongest server provides quadruple loot bags and WXP
• Increase rewards for failed assaults on the top server's structures (this will encourage both other servers to work together on tough enemy structures, no matter who captures it, you both get rewarded)

I would love to see some type of mechanic kick in if a server was ahead by a certain amount of points. For example, once a server had a 50 point lead they would be worth double XP and rewards. This would would encourage players to continue playing later in the week.

@"grifflyman.8102" said:The two strongest servers almost always pick on the weakestDoes anyone ells find this to be true?

It's true, it's always been true, but nothing will be done about it. They won't adjust anything to do with core mechanics of WvW - they never have. Players have suggested a million ways to incentivise attacking the stronger side or handicapping (or balancing) WvW, but nothing whatsoever has been said, let alone done in this regard.

Here's the story of Arenanet vs WvW:The rumour is that the developers of WvW were all temporary staff who built WvW (when GW2 was first being put together) in their lunchbreaks because they loved DAoC. They all got "moved on" when the game released and the remaining developers don't understand how it works, the producers don't understand why it's popular so nobody touched it for ages - then they tried what they thought was a popular move, introducing EotM. Sadly this wasn't what the community wanted - it was TOO clever and convoluted. So they learnt a few things from that and when the desert map came along in HoT they got panned by quite a chunk of the WvW players (not all, by a long chalk, but a quite a number). It was shortly after this that they decided to give up making big adjustments to WvW altogether, culminating in O'Brien making this statement on Reddit in 2017,

This year we also took a different approach with PvP and WvW releases. In PvE, we make fresh new content with the goal of surprising and delighting you with our work, but in competitive modes, the community owns the game modes and chooses what we work on, and we definitely shouldn’t be surprising you with where we take those game modes. Instead our goal this year was to develop more incrementally, test with the community on Live, and take feedback every step of the way.We've had no changes to the way WvW works and we don't expect any. It's all about proffering ways to gain similar rewards to those that PvE players get without having to resort to doing PvE. This sort of thing is important to a sizeable number of WvW players, but it's not the groundbreaking change a lot of WvW players might approve because they are UNDERSTANDABLY scared to touch it.

Maybe the server should get good? Learn to fight and they won't bully you anymore. ez

@hunkamania.7561 said:Maybe the server should get good? Learn to fight and they won't bully you anymore. ez

Maybe your server should transfer all your SEA/OCX players to us to fight blobs when we like 10vs50 and jumping maps here and there trying to save what we have left.

@X T D.6458 said:

@"Dawdler.8521" said:Yeah sure, I know of one such mechanic. You dont even need to add it. Quite the opposite.

Delete the kitten tier based PPT.

@XenesisII.1540 said:2-1-1!2-1-1!lol jk

Wvw was built to reward the strongest, there wasn't any consideration to population or coverage imbalances, so there are no mechanics to really force weaker servers to team up on the strongest, the strongest two will always prey on the weakest in the matchup. This is largely because of the ppt system. You can try changes like reset structure tiers on new skirmishes but that really only hurts the weaker teams, if you had 5 people able to hold on to a tier 3 keep, they probably wouldn't on a tier 1 with the same numbers coming at them. There needs to be a strong motivating factor to get the two teams to go against the strongest team, or a forced mechanic is needed.

2-1-1 was already tried. It did not work, and the second servers still kept picking on the last.

Maybe it was not incentive enough. You did not get anything from winning a matchup. Especially if you were on a linked world.

It will take more than a victory point to change players' behavior.

I did say lol jk...

@XenesisII.1540 said:I did say lol jk...

Should have said /s.

People have no humor left.

@Svarty.8019 said:

@"grifflyman.8102" said:The two strongest servers almost always pick on the weakestDoes anyone ells find this to be true?

This year we also took a different approach with PvP and WvW releases. In PvE, we make fresh new content with the goal of surprising and delighting you with our work, but in competitive modes, the community owns the game modes and chooses what we work on, and we definitely shouldn’t be surprising you with where we take those game modes. Instead our goal this year was to develop more incrementally, test with the community on Live, and take feedback every step of the way.We've had no changes to the way WvW works and we don't expect any. It's all about proffering ways to gain similar rewards to those that PvE players get without having to resort to doing PvE. This sort of thing is important to a sizeable number of WvW players, but it's not the groundbreaking change a lot of WvW players might approve because they are

UNDERSTANDABLY

scared to touch it.

Lol, wut? That would be an absolute brilliant fail, but how hard would it be to hire a guy that formerly worked for Mythic to tell them how wvw actually works and what made it so popular?

I would immediately dust my tinfoil hat off if that was actually true. :)

and the opinion which MO has about wvwers is well known, they´re PvEers who like to play wvw.

Usually yes I find that to be true.

What I would like Anet to do for a weekend or 2 (much like golem rush), is just impose an alliance between red and blue and make them both friendly to each other. Can't kill each other, can't take each other's structures forcing them to only attack the other server. Would make things interesting. Could it happen? Possibly, Anet has nothing to gain or lose by doing it by simply conducting an "experiment" for a week or 2, to shake things up.

the easiest solution to this is to tank to the bottom of t4. oh wait, that's like everyone but blackgate.

@"grifflyman.8102" said:Does anyone ells find this to be true? There's no incentive to flip a well populatedT3 BL when you can easily go back to the weakest server's BL and flip all their objectives. When fighting higher tier servers it's not unusual to see a T3 objective held for days on end. The score continues to run away for the leading server, even with the skirmish changes, it's rare to have a match come down to the last day and even rarer to for all 3 servers to have a close battle score at the end of the week.

Is there any kind of game mechanic that could be implemented to keep matches closer for the losing servers?

nobody want to attack tier 3 because is a waste of time.Best way to take a tier 3 is 20 guild golems, , rush undefended keeps and hope you take it under 3 minutes. But who will pay 15 gold to take a keep ?Now considering you go for normal way: 5 supperior rams /gate , outer /inner 2/ shield generators /gate +supply drain you will need 1000 supply . 2 minutes /gates if your sieges won;t be disabled and no defenders. Even if you succed to open outer and inner gate, in current meta if a defending zerg with siege wait you behind inner gate, they will win 95% of the time. So you waste 20 minutes to gather supply and attempt 1 attack ?

Tier 3 objectives are stupid and imbalanced. Current meta " 80% scourge /revs/eles / will lack any sustain under constant arrrow cart / mortar cannon - damage .So that's why almost nobody care to attack tier 3. 5+ minutes is more than enough time for defenders to reach at objectiveBefore POF, on melee train meta, decent blobs could sustain under siege, now nobody care

If you try to attack with lower ammount of siege, you will get borred before outer gate is downalso upgrading objectives require nothing. So if you flip a tier 3 and leave map , will be tier 3 in 2 hours again . So really no reason to take them

Let's look at this from a different perspective, one of Blackgate. We are at constant war against the mag blob and whoever they team up with. Tc, jq, dB, SOS, they all do an alliance dance with the blob to try to slaughter us. We do what we have to to keep evil at bay. Blackgate must fight so that mag doesn't destroy us all. ?

@Rayya.2591 said:

@"grifflyman.8102" said:Does anyone ells find this to be true? There's no incentive to flip a well populatedT3 BL when you can easily go back to the weakest server's BL and flip all their objectives. When fighting higher tier servers it's not unusual to see a T3 objective held for days on end. The score continues to run away for the leading server, even with the skirmish changes, it's rare to have a match come down to the last day and even rarer to for all 3 servers to have a close battle score at the end of the week.

Is there any kind of game mechanic that could be implemented to keep matches closer for the losing servers?

What happens when WvW inevitably drop even lower in population? It will become exponentially harder to do anything other than cap camps. Some people just kittens on this, brushing it off as being a "karma trainer" for wanting easier flips and more fights, but apparently those that say that only take part in zerging for some mysterious reason.

I absolutely loathe T3 and to a lesser degree T2, the tier based PPT is just icing on the kittencake Anet serves.

This happen to BG and SoS they made pact not to attack each other big objective as keep/garri.